The Logic of Justice Roberts

[salem.hills]

""Obama strongly denied that the mandate amounts to a tax increase*

In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.

But he could look it up — in the bill.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”*

Health bill says 'tax' when President Obama said 'not' - Chris Frates and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

So 3800 dollar a year tax is not a tax increase. Lol. Liberals are stupid liars.*

exactly premiums were on the rise since the disingenuous traitors signed law. That I don't have to link we all know. Never be implemented though its goal is total control eventually period. What happen to just helping the uninsured? Pffft right? This is so evil its indescribable

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

""Obama strongly denied that the mandate amounts to a tax increase*

In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.

But he could look it up — in the bill.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”*

Health bill says 'tax' when President Obama said 'not' - Chris Frates and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

So 3800 dollar a year tax is not a tax increase. Lol. Liberals are stupid liars.*

your point?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liability: beaten but unawares ... once again.

I am fully aware of how horribly you have come across in getting your head handed to you in your latest nearly epic defeat.

You seriously cannot argue logically at all.

Once again: more for fun than in the vain hope of ever penetrating your thick skull:

CJ Roberts rewrote what Congress said. THEY said "penalty." They DENIED (as did the President) that it was a "tax." But Congress doesn't get to say, apparently. No no. Only HE can do that.

So he re-labeled their label. Penalty is now tax -- for purposes of making it "Constitutional." But tax is NOT tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Law.

Crystal clear bullshit sophistry. And morons like Dainty lap it up. Then, they declare that they have "won" a debate about it.

The Affordable Care Act mandates a shared responsibility payment on those who choose not to purchase health insurance. The IRS has the authority to collect this payment.

The Congress called the shared responsibility payment a penalty. The payment is called a penalty but functions as a tax.

Chief Justice Roberts ruled citing precedent and more, that a tax by any other name is still a tax. For Constitutional purposes a penalty payment that functions as a tax is a tax.

No one denies what the text of the Act says. Congress can call catsup and ketchup a vegetable. It doesn't make it so. For dietary purposes catsup and ketchup are a condiment.

---

"But tax is NOT tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Law." - liability

Lying again?

page 4 of the pdf file: (a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "hared responsibility payment" as a "penalty" and not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not however, control to tax.

In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294, Pp. 33-335

(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. That payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance: the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are: and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36-37

None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful.

Neither the affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS, And Congress's choice of language--stating that individuals "shall" obtain insurance or pay a "penalty"--does not require reading (section)5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169-174. Pp35-40

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/exaction EXACTION, torts. A willful wrong done by an officer, or by one who, under color of his office, takes more fee or pay for his services than what the law allows. Between extortion and exaction there is this difference; that in the former case the officer extorts more than his due, when something is due to him; in the latter, he exacts what is not his due, when there is nothing due to him. Wishard; Co. Litt. 368.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaction

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exaction

Definition of EXACTION
1
a : the act or process of exacting b : extortion
2
: something exacted; especially : a fee, reward, or contribution demanded or levied with severity or injustice

 

[American_Jihad]

WAS JUSTICE ROBERTS INTIMIDATED INTO VOTING FOR OBAMACAR


WAS JUSTICE ROBERTS INTIMIDATED INTO VOTING FOR ‘OBAMACARE’? SENATOR MIKE LEE PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE

By Erica Ritz, The Blaze


...

On the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare.

Lee’s argument is not based on the NSA or its monitoring of the nation’s communication. Rather, Lee said, there are indications that Roberts originally intended to vote against the act, but that a public “campaign of intimidation” made him change his mind.

First, the senator claimed “the opinion was written in a way to suggest he switched his vote,” and that the dissenting opinion reads like it was originally written as the majority. He added that several news outlets reported that Roberts did change his vote, based on insider information.

Read more: WAS JUSTICE ROBERTS INTIMIDATED INTO VOTING FOR OBAMACARE? - Fox Nation