Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care this morning

[larsonstdoc]

Auto insurance was a lot cheaper before they started making it mandatory to buy it.

Notice when they make the comparison they never say the costs to the buyer, it's just costs or in effect the bottom line to the insurance companies.

  Right on.  My friend's dad practiced medicine in the 30's and 40's.  No health insurance companies.  He sometimes got paid in chickens and eggs.

  Insurance companies are the middlemen.  Making huge profits for handling the money AND INCREASING COSTS SO THEY GET PAID.

  Insurance companies wrote OBAMA"CARE".

[Constitutionary]

Obamacare is un-Constitutional cuz Obama himself is not a US citizen.

Obamacare is as un-Constitutional just as the 16th Amendment...

16th Amendment Improperly Ratified,

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.

We have 50 states, hopefully some of the Judicial Branches in these states will figure it out.

[larsonstdoc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xwf0dP1XBw&feature=youtu.be


ObamaCare Mandates RFID Implants in All Americans by March 23rd 2013!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1zh5roPmXI&feature=fvwrel


National ID and RFID Chip Implant - Coming Soon To A Nation Near You (Ron Paul interview)

[Dok]

does anyone know the differences between the Tax Courts of the IRS and the normal courts?

[America2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xwf0dP1XBw&feature=youtu.be


ObamaCare Mandates RFID Implants in All Americans by March 23rd 2013!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1zh5roPmXI&feature=fvwrel


National ID and RFID Chip Implant - Coming Soon To A Nation Near You (Ron Paul interview)

When I read about this 2 years ago, for some reason, the mark of the beast prophecies in Revelation 13 came to mind.

No, I'm not being dogmatic about it - however, to be frank, I don't think this is it b/c scripture does not prophecize it will be forced upon us(like this bill would do). When the time is appointed, that's when all the New Agers, in particular, will be anticipating it.

Either way - avoid, avoid, avoid this at all costs!

[lee51]

Shows all the more we need Ron Paul in as President.  Not going to happen I guess, but sure wish it would.

[Kilika]

does anyone know the differences between the Tax Courts of the IRS and the normal courts?

Not technically, but basically the Tax Court is a seperate system for dealing with...well...taxes. It's not part of the Judicial branch I don't think. Completely seperate from the general court system I think. So yeah, it's a kangaroo court.

[America2]

Maybe this is why Chief Justice Roberts became the "swing vote"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUByhFfxvao

[larsonstdoc]

does anyone know the differences between the Tax Courts of the IRS and the normal courts?

  Well Dok, there is a whole website on it.  After what happened today, they are going to have to revise it BIG TIME.


                  http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/

[jofortruth]

Obamacare decision 5-4 Vote with Roberts being the swing vote: (Effective January 2014 unless Romney acts upon his promise to repeal this law, should he be elected. However, he is also for Universal Care, so he will only bring in Romneycare, another version of Obamacare that will favor his business buddies. So, your choice is Obamacare or Romneycare. Both are a problem! Either way the insurance companies, who wrote the bill, will win! SAD DAY IN AMERICA!)
http://www.c-span.org/uploadedFiles/Conten.../11-393c3a2.pdf

HELD: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part!

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the indi-vidual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.  Pp. 16–30.

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individ-ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance.  But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause.  Pp. 33– 44.

5. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. (Pp. 45–58)

---------

ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D.

SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion.  THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

IT'S A TAX!

[Dok]

  Well Dok, there is a whole website on it.  After what happened today, they are going to have to revise it BIG TIME.


                  http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/

  first place i went when i saw they made it a tax. I was hopping for something i wouldnt have to root through and stuff.

[lazarus]

"Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.”

Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/06/28/ron-paul-on-supreme-court-obamacare-ruling/

It is down to local initiative now. Which is how the country is supposed to be run in the first place.

[America2]

This is from Texe Marrs awhile back(concerning Roberts)...

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3032

11/24/06

Homosexuals Love Bush's Supreme Court Nominees

Bush's biggest coup was his choice to be the new Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. John Roberts, a gay judge, is not only queer himself, but he's the infamous attorney who represented the entire homosexual community of America in the notorious, landmark court case, Romer v Evans (1996), in which all state laws forbidding acts of sodomy were declared unconstitutional.

The depraved Judge Roberts is so fanatical in his support of sodomy and gay rights he even fought the case for his limp-wristed buddies on a pro bono basis—he didn't even charge the queer groups a dime for his services. Now that's real devotion to a cause, however corrupt.

So, thanks to our "born again Christian President," George W. Bush, we have sitting at the helm of the U.S. Supreme Court one of the most highly acclaimed gay rights attorneys in the world. Whoop-te-do!

What's more, so enamored of Bush and slavish to his every need are evangelical leaders like Pastor Ted Haggard, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell that they ended up enthusiastically throwing their full support for John Roberts' confirmation by the Senate. So, gays owe a great debt of gratitude to the Dobson-Falwell crowd, as well as to George W. Bush, for this generous favor.

When just a few, old-line conservatives complained about Judge Roberts' devoted, pro bono work on behalf of the gay rights movement, Jerry Falwell, always a boot kisser to Republican presidents, jumped in to defend Bush's pro-gay choice. Gay rights, said Falwell, "is not a liberal or conservative value. It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on." Uh, hold on there, Jerry. Not "all" of us agree on that. In fact, I suspect there are at least several thousand readers of Power of Prophecy newsletter who believe sodomy and its cousin, pedophilia, are both a sin and a crime.

[Mr Grinch]

Auto insurance was a lot cheaper before they started making it mandatory to buy it.

Notice when they make the comparison they never say the costs to the buyer, it's just costs or in effect the bottom line to the insurance companies.

Amen! I got my DL the year before they made insurance mandatory and even when I was young and dumb I could see that it was nothing but a scam....

Also its cheaper to drive carefully and occasionally pay the hefty fines than getting the minimum coverage.

[MonkeyPuppet]

That's right, people.  Keep filling out those W4's and W9's which allow ignorant payers (just as ignorant as you, btw) to generate information returns (W2's and 1099's).  The fact is that the VAST majority of Americans are not liable for federal income tax or any federal tax, and these information returns are the ONLY evidence (contrary to actual fact) that the IRS uses to seek such taxes based on your income.

Why is that important?  Because it is the same enforcement mechanism they're using for Obamacare, beating you over the head with your own ignorance.

I won't bore you with what I've written about ad nauseam on this very forum, but regardless of what the federal Congress does with regard to its exclusive legislative power within federal territories and enclaves, the only reason this ruling and the legislation in question will affect you is due to your ignorance and that of your payer.

If you want to know more, just ask.  However, the truth will make all the ranting in this thread seem childish.



And Constitutionary, please stop re-posting that ridiculous 16th Amendment argument garbage.  It is irrelevant in every sense with regard to the vast majority of Americans.

[decemberfellow]

Obamacare is un-Constitutional cuz Obama himself is not a US citizen.

Obamacare is as un-Constitutional just as the 16th Amendment...

We have 50 states, hopefully some of the Judicial Branches in these states will figure it out..

.Yes it is.    But the problem is none of the three brances of government follow it.  So it looks  like it's worth nothing more than a piece of paper, until we unite and mean it the ride downhill will be quick.   I feel for the young , they may never see freedom.

[America2]

http://www.infowars.com/gingrich-adviser-urges-states-to-implement-obamacare/

3/14/12

State after state is refusing to implement ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. Republican David Merritt hopes they will “grudgingly decide” to change their minds.
 
Merritt is a health care adviser to Newt Gingrich. He is also a senior adviser at Leavitt Partners. Leavitt Partners is a consulting firm that makes money by helping states implement ObamaCare. In the Daily Caller, Merritt tries to persuade state officials to help implement a law they oppose.
 
Merritt begins his pro-Exchange argument like so: “Imagine that you’re being required to buy a car.” Would you rather choose that car yourself, he asks, or would you rather the dealer choose the car? Hmm, good question. I choose Option C: wring the neck of whoever is requiring me to buy a car. Not Merritt, though. He counsels states to choose their own “car.”

[larsonstdoc]

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/devastating-truth-about-obamacare/



DEVASTATING TRUTH ABOUT OBAMACARE
 

 

THE DEVASTATING TRUTH BEHIND OBAMACARE

by Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

June 28, 2012

I want my Obamacare! I want my Obamacare!

Well, you’ve got it. The US Supreme Court just upheld it by calling the individual mandate a tax.

Those who shout victory to the rooftops have no idea what’s in store for them. No idea at all.

It’s vital to look at the real effects of this sinister plan. It’s all about the effects of mainstream medicine. That’s what the sold-out press is refusing to examine.

Several months ago, guest-hosting The Alex Jones Radio Show, I discussed the case of a young Michigan boy, whose parents had been taken to court three times to force them to submit their child to intensely toxic chemo treatments—despite these facts:

The boy’s latest scans revealed no sign of cancer; the drugs that would be forced on him can cause cancer; the drugs have not been approved to treat children.

And I warned: this is what waits for you and your children, up the line, if the Supreme Court allows Obamacare to stand as law.

The “share and care” humanitarian mask will be peeled away. The US Dept. of Health and Human Services will create, as ordered, a complete list of approved treatments for every disease-label under the sun. And everyone in the insurance plan (everyone in America) will be forced to take what the doctor tells them to take.

For a bonus, unapproved treatments will be banned. People and practitioners who try to use alternative treatments will find themselves in trouble.

This is the hidden agenda of Obamacare. This is what it will morph into in the future—unless it is repealed by the Congress.

I’m not dreaming or fantasizing. I’ve been following and reporting on the medical cartel for 30 years, and I know the mindset of these people, these doctors, these bureaucrats, these pharmaceutical string-pullers behind the scenes. Obamacare is right up their alley. It’s about control, so it’s an answer to their prayers.

So what do we know about their mainstream medicine, the hospital-based drug-addled modern version?

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of theAmerican Medical Association published a landmark paper by Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), “Is US health really the best in the world?” In it, Starfield revealed what many people inside the medical establishment already knew: every year, like clockwork, the medical system was killing huge numbers of people.

Each year in the US, as Dr. Starfield reported, there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer.

In the wake of Starfield’s devastating report, other facts came to light: 2.1 million people in America, every year, are hospitalized as a result of reactions to FDA-approved medicines.  Annually, 36 million serious adverse reactions to those drugs occur.

So, inclusive health coverage for many more Americans under the Obama Plan means these horrendous figures will rise.

This is the dirty secret.

Obama and his allies are promoting a medical system that is the third leading cause of death in America.  It’s that stark and it’s that simple.

The Obama Plan involves appointing an “expert panel” to decide what treatments Americans should be given for what diseases, under the new regime.

Only a certified idiot would assume that, over time, alternative non-mainstream therapies would survive such an ongoing vetting.  Hope may spring eternal, but common sense makes it easy to grasp the realities on the ground.

In the long run, alternative therapies will be edged out.  Those that remain will be permitted for a narrow range of conditions, or as adjuncts to standard drug treatments and surgery.

Chiropractors and acupuncturists, who are temporarily basking in the notion that Obama “really cares,” are in for a very rude awakening. Their careers and practices will be significantly reduced.  Not today, not tomorrow, but it will happen.

Doctors, under the Plan, will be telling patients they may not take nutritional supplements while in treatment.  This will assume the status of an irreversible edict.  In many cases, “while in treatment” will mean years.

What happens to a person, conscripted into the mandated Insurance Plan, who is told by his doctor that he should/must receive a vaccine?  Suppose this person says no?  What are the consequences?  Will he then be labeled a defector?  What penalties will he suffer?

Does a diagnosis of cancer imply a patient must submit to chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery?  Can these treatments be forced upon him?

Perhaps, in the early days of the Plan, nothing untoward will happen.  But then, as time passes, and the system assumes tighter and tighter controls, the hand of government will close around the recalcitrant patient’s neck.

“Take this vaccine. Take this chemo drug. If you don’t, you’re out of the system, and that makes you a criminal, because everyone has to be in the system.”

Doctors, who are an integral part of the Plan, will surely be punished if they give unapproved (alternative) treatments to patients.   

And in order to make the Plan operate on a day-to-day basis, the records and bookkeeping data of every health-care practitioner in America will eventually be tracked on government computer networks.

Every person in America will have a traceable and trackable medical ID package. Government-issued.  There is no way around it.  The monitoring apparatus can’t work without it.

Orwellian consequences lie up the road in the field of psychiatric practice.  In case you hadn’t noticed, the invention of “disorders” by committee is the preferred method for “discovering” more and more mental illnesses.

Yet, the science is completely fraudulent.  For evidence, consult the many works of psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who has done more than any other person to expose the guts of his own profession. (www.breggin.com)  Breggin establishes that mental disorders are not authoritatively diagnosed by a chemical or biological test.  Conclusive tests do not exist.  And worse, in this undefined and arbitrary territory, the drugs that follow diagnoses are killers: for example, 300,000 cases of motor brain damage, as a result of the administration of major tranquilizers.

Under the Obama Plan, you can bet your bottom dollar that psychiatric care will eventually become mandatory.  A patient suddenly diagnosed with clinical depression or bipolar disease will be told he must take the drugs—and suffer their adverse effects.   

Very young children will be given more and more debilitating and dangerous brain drugs.

Under the Obama Plan, it will be very convenient to declare new pandemics every few seasons, because these phony non-epidemics provide an opportunity to herd the sheep into clinics and remind them who is running the show. Go here, take this vaccine; go there, take that drug; the epidemic is endangering the herd, and you must help your brothers and sisters.

These are the figures on the last several “epidemics.”  They are not yearly; they are grand totals, to date; global totals, except in the case of West Nile (US only):

SARS: 774 deaths.

WEST NILE: 1159 deaths.

BIRD FLU: 262 deaths.

SMALLPOX: (terrorist threat): 0 deaths.

SWINE FLU:  18,500 deaths.

To give perspective, globally, 250 thousand to 500 thousand people die of ordinary flu-like illness every year.  Yet this higher death rate accrues no interest as an epidemic.  It is only the “teaching (brainwashing) moments” of the phony epidemics that are promoted by health agencies (e.g., CDC and WHO) and their pharmaceutical allies, who rake in billions by manufacturing new vaccines.

Yes, under the Obama Plan, there will be more declared health emergencies, and they will serve to cement the citizen to his new role as eternal patient in the medical march along bleak streets of the future.

Can you perceive the loss of individual freedom implicit in this universal system of health control?

You see, the widespread (and false) assumption is that more medical care for more people is a good thing. That’s what the politicians and the press tell us. That’s what the medical bureaucrats and the drug companies tell us. This is the central piece of brainwashing.

It’s a baldfaced lie. It’s a death-dealing lie.

And now the American people are saddled with it.

[jofortruth]

Obamacare or Romneycare - Both require you buy insurance!
http://youtu.be/jJ0z6XjOPIs


It's another false choice, people! Both main candidates agree on Universal Healthcare with just a little twist in how they present it. They pretend to fight, but really agree behind closed doors. The level of deceit is shameful! Democrats/Republicans two sides of the same coin and you thought you had a choice? Hogwash!

Back to the Presidential election. The only TRUE STATESMAN on your side in this election is Ron Paul. Forget these other bozos who love to con you and support a REAL AMERICAN! These other guys pose as leaders, but are con artists doing the bidding of the NWO. ENOUGH!

[Monkeypox]

There is a background scene in the classic sci fi novel The Forever War that rings in my head. Where the main character tries to get his mother some doctor that will work on her but she is just too old and useless to the system.

Yep, she is designated at a "Care Level Zero"  or something like that.  She dies of something no more complicated than pneumonia - because she can't get any treatment.

[America2]

DOW is UP some 220 points AFTER Obamacare gets upheld? Weren't there many investors in the stock market b/c it was all but certain it would get overturned And now somehow the DOW went UP

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI

[larsonstdoc]

DOW is UP some 220 points AFTER Obamacare gets upheld? Weren't there many investors in the stock market b/c it was all but certain it would get overturned And now somehow the DOW went UP

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI

  The DOW went up today because the NWO played financial monopoly in Europe.  Throwing dollars and euros at Spain, Italy, etc. to keep the financial schemes going.  I have not checked the insurance stocks but I am guessing they are soaring today because THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WROTE OBAMACARE.


  THE NEW NAME FOR OBAMACARE IS NOW OBAMA TAX.

[Effie Trinket]

http://tinyurl.com/c53wwhp

"Before I get into this, I want this to be a civil thread, don't go overboard pushing your views of democracy/socialism/capitalism etc, I dont care. I'll give you a little background info of myself to better help you understand my situation. I'm a 27 year old small business owner that employs in between 20-24 people depending on the time of year. All of my employees are legal residents, roughly 90% of them are eligible for IHS (Indian Health Services), and all of them have the option of healthcare through their employer which most of them don't take because IHS is free. I don't make a ton of money with my business but it does well, not on the verge of bankruptcy but also not just a cash cow either.

After not being able to decipher a lot of what I was seeing on the news I called my lawyer and asked him how the ruling would affect me as a business owner. I'm going to put what he told me in a cliff note format to make it easier to read.

-I will be required to provide insurance to every employee regardless of IHS eligibility, full time or part time.

-The current insurance rates I pay for myself and a select few employees is reasonable but he suspects they will triple in cost, keeping in mind I will now have to pay this rate for every employee I have.

-The notion of not having to pay the "penalty" is ludcirous, he said if I choose not to pay the fine I would be fined again, and if I choose not to pay again I would be jailed in a fashion similar to tax fraud.

So as you can imagine I was kind of taken aback by all of this as it will turn my life upside down as far as the daily operations of my business are concerned. So after figuring I will have to cut the hours of business by 1/3 and my overall staff by about 1/2 I did some calculations that my insurance expenses will amount to roughly $75,000 more dollars per year than they currently do which would absolutely bankrupt me. So then I figured the penalty which would only be about $12,000 a year after downsizing hours and employees.

When I see the figures I have come up with I call my lawyer back and ask him if there is anything I can do to circumvent the situation. He told me, and keep in mind this is a LAWYER telling me this, to starting hiring illegals to do as much work as I trust them to do and pay them cash. I am a staunch believer in everybody working hard to pay their own way, and illegal workforces seem to take jobs away from actual citizens (in this case anyway) so this whole situation has really got me down. My business is not going to turn enough of a profit for me to rely on it as my lone source of income yet I will have to be there 7 days a week to cover shifts due to employee downsizing. By that notion the value of my business and the land it sits on will go through the floor and everything I've worked my arse off for will be worth little compared to what it should be.

With all that being said I don't think I want to live in the US anymore. I don't want to live in a country where I am punished for being an independant entity, or where I am punished for working hard. I have about $200,000 in my savings (I am pretty frugal, I saved everything I could since I got my business), I am also a small time cattle rancher so I figure I can get another $300,000 after taxes if I sell all my assets including my business. Assuming you have $500,000 to move to a new country and start a business, where would you go? Serious replies only please."

[America2]

Just read that LA gov Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare in his state.

If/when Romney gets elected(assuming his visit to the Bilderberg meeting means his "election" is in the bag), you watch it, Jindal WILL accept Obamacare dollars into Louisiana b/c Romney won't repeal it.

BTW - Jindal is an Ivy League graduate(Brown) and a Rhodes Scholar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

[jofortruth]

Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare 6-28-12 & how it affects you!
http://youtu.be/7iLu7V7WINc

Obamacare Supreme Court Decision:
http://tinyurl.com/6qvhrvk
http://media.philly.com/documents/Obamacareruling.pdf

CBO Document: "Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (referred to in Court opinion above on pdf pg 39)
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbo...lties-04-30.pdf

[menace]

Get the Republicans in the senate to pass Support H.R. 2: The “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law” Act They sat on the bill to repeal it for over a year now.

http://www.freedomworks.org/files/HR_2_talking_points_final.pdf

[jofortruth]

Get the Republicans in the senate to pass Support H.R. 2: The “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law” Act They sat on the bill to repeal it for over a year now.

http://www.freedomworks.org/files/HR_2_talking_points_final.pdf

But do they want Romneycare? It's still Universal Healthcare and mandatory insurance is required! Both parties are participating in the cons of healthcare and the NWO. We have another false choice in the healthcare debate and in the upcoming election! I still say vote for Ron Paul out of principle and to send a MSG to the scam artist 2 party (really 1 party) system we know their UN American games and we are opting out of voting for the lesser of two evils in this election. We will continue to expose the lies coming from both sides and their healthcare proposals which are both a con and part of the NWO takeover!

[Effie Trinket]

  Yes.  We have been saying this for years here.  This is not about healthcare.  It is about control.  1984-type control.

When you are awake, you can accurately see exactly what the future holds, as you did here.

  YOU MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO!!!!

  PASS IT ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY!!!

  "Paypal pressured Congress"--now we have more proof that Paypal is evil, maybe even an arm of the IRS.

  USE CASH WHENEVER YOU CAN!!!

  "THE IRS IS THE ENFORCER OF OBAMACARE"---Now we have more proof that Obamacare is not about healthcare but about total government financial control of your life. 

  "Obamacare is really the push to a cashless society"---the bottom line. USE CASH WHENEVER YOU CAN.  Stay away from Paypal and their credit cards.  PUT THE SCREWS TO THEM.


  TELL YOUR REPS TO HAVE YOUR STATE WORK TOWARDS REPEALING OBAMACARE.

  So we were right all the time.  Obamacare=Deathcare=More Government control=very little about heathcare.

               

 

[larsonstdoc]

  Here is the video----

           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxja8p80zf0&feature=related

[chris jones]

 I can't get vids where I am, takes an hour.
 This is another step into CONTROLL, Adolf did it out in the open, these freaks are slippery rat bastards, one step at a time, and they have been stepping forward for decades.
 They are telling us, this is the way its is, eat shiite and die. Its not just the elderly that will be screwed, its any citizen who requires costly medical care, chronic conditions, and don't think that kids will no be targeted as well as middle agers. This goostep is not just about taxes, it includes extermination under whatever trm the thinktakers come up with.
 How many innocent people must die to hit on the conscience of our people, we are currently considered the genocide artists globally.
YA, we, all of us, not just the regime. Foriegners ( I havemet a lot)who have a tad of intelligence flat out state the USA public is brainwashed. Sure they know about the truth movement, but in general they feel dissapointed as they once looked upon the USA as the beacon of light and equality.
 I remember seeing our banner flying next to theirs, yes long ago, but once upon a time we were held in great esteem.
   Kinda like the days of Camelot.

 

[Kilika]

first place i went when i saw they made it a tax. I was hopping for something i wouldnt have to root through and stuff.

As you can see, the court is definitely a joke, with the judges appointed directly by the president.

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/about.htm

The Court and Its Jurisdiction

The United States Tax Court is a court of record established by Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution. When the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has determined a tax deficiency, the taxpayer may dispute the deficiency in the Tax Court before paying any disputed amount. The Tax Court’s jurisdiction also includes the authority to redetermine transferee liability, make certain types of declaratory judgments, adjust partnership items, order abatement of interest, award administrative and litigation costs, redetermine worker classification, determine relief from joint and several liability on a joint return, review certain collection actions, and review awards to whistleblowers who provide information to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on or after December 20, 2006.

Judges

The Tax Court is composed of 19 presidentially appointed members. Trial sessions are conducted and other work of the Court is performed by those judges, by senior judges serving on recall, and by special trial judges. All of the judges have expertise in the tax laws and apply that expertise in a manner to ensure that taxpayers are assessed only what they owe, and no more. Although the Court is physically located in Washington, D.C., the judges travel nationwide to conduct trials in various designated cities.

Life Cycle of a Tax Court Case

A case in the Tax Court is commenced by the filing of a petition. The petition must be timely filed within the allowable time. The Court cannot extend the time for filing which is set by statute.

A $60 filing fee must be paid when the petition is filed. Once the petition is filed, payment of the underlying tax ordinarily is postponed until the case has been decided.

In certain tax disputes involving $50,000 or less, taxpayers may elect to have their case conducted under the Court's simplified small tax case procedure. Trials in small tax cases generally are less formal and result in a speedier disposition. However, decisions entered pursuant to small tax case procedures are not appealable.

Cases are calendared for trial as soon as practicable (on a first in/ first out basis) after the case becomes at issue. When a case is calendared, the parties are notified by the Court of the date, time, and place of trial. Trials are conducted before one judge, without a jury, and taxpayers are permitted to represent themselves if they desire. Taxpayers may be represented by practitioners admitted to the bar of the Tax Court.

The vast majority of cases are settled by mutual agreement without the necessity of a trial. However, if a trial is conducted, in due course a report is ordinarily issued by the presiding judge setting forth findings of fact and an opinion. The case is then closed in accordance with the judge's opinion by entry of a decision.
 

[chris jones]

The poor will allways be with us, so will the elites.
 Through out history there have allways been those percent who have sought power, domination over their felllow man, fame, riches etc. We just haven't wised up,our generation , for one thing our public schooling and news was limited to the oppinions of those in controll, lets face it we were indocrinated, dipped, and kept in a state of ignorence, societys children.
The truth liberates ones mind, the deceptions obliviates free thought and the capacity to see through the veil
 This elite crew has infiltrated our Ole Gov for decades, they have now come to the final stages of their game plan.
Fact, a honorable, constitutional president turned on the elites and their minions, they then murdered him. This message sent to the WORLD, the crowning glory of global elitists, don't muck with us, anyone whatsoever, we own you.
  What has changed? That SCOTUS lined up and followed orders, does that suprise you? AJ defined this scenerio with the "end game", and my friends we bear witness to the end of the American dream, their smoke and mirrors are no longer needed and have not been for this last decade, at minimum. Obama health care, the eradication of useless eaters, the culling.
 Citizens who fall for this BS are in desperate need of a brain, those who applaud it knowing the results are the elitists and their gang of sucklings.

[jofortruth]

To be fair, even though I don't like this healthcare plan, this article reveals something about the way it was ruled on as being a good thing for the Constitution. It appears the ruling got it right when it comes to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution! The Obama admin was trying to say everything is Commerce so we get to control it. The court said, no, not everything is commerce and you cant control everything people and states do! (My understanding, but need more time to read it.)


Chief Justice Roberts crafts a ruling more conservative than it looks
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012...-than-it-looks/

By Michael W. McConnell
JUNE 29, 2012

Conservatives are mourning yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding most provisions of the so-called Affordable Care Act. Some are accusing their erstwhile hero, Chief Justice Roberts, of betrayal. The administration and its supporters on the legal left are celebrating. To them, the chief justice shape-shifted overnight from bogeyman to great judicial statesman.

Both sides are being shortsighted.

President Obama’s signature legislative achievement survived judicial review, and in that sense he is entitled to a victory lap. But the court embraced the challengers’ interpretation of the Commerce and Spending Clauses, and upheld the statute on a ground the president had originally disavowed: that the healthcare mandate was really a tax on young healthy people who choose not to purchase health insurance at rates designed to subsidize their elders. The administration got the result it wanted, but the challengers won the constitutional argument.

Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion squarely rejected the administration’s theory that Congress can regulate anything it chooses so long as there is a substantial effect on commerce. “The power to regulate commerce,” he wrote, “presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated.” The Commerce Clause “is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions.” Indeed, “That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.” On these fundamental points, the administration lost and the challengers won. A majority of the court has embraced limits on the Commerce Clause that liberal law professors not long ago were dismissing as frivolous.

The Spending Clause part of the opinion, which commanded the votes of seven of the nine justices, may be even more important than the Commerce Clause segment. The court held the healthcare statute unconstitutional when it threatens the states with a loss of existing Medicaid payments if they refuse to participate in the expansion of Medicaid. The precise contours of this holding are far from clear, but it suggests that Congress will have to revise its practice of using the federal power to tax and spend as a means of forcing states to adopt federal policy.

These are significant rulings in support of federalism and the ideal of limited government. They will reverberate in litigation for years to come.

The court upheld the health insurance mandate only by treating as a “tax” what the statute labeled a “penalty.” In this, the court bent over backward to avoid interfering with Congress’s legislative acts, and the dissenters have a point that the statute reads more naturally the other way. In terms of constitutional principle, however, this part of the decision is unlikely to have significant long-term consequences. The healthcare law could never have been enacted if it had candidly been described as a tax. The president denied it was a tax, and the Democratic Senate fastidiously avoided using the term. It is unlikely that Congress will be able to expand its power greatly in the future under the rubric of passing taxes.

The liberal supporters of the law thus won the immediate battle, but on the narrowest of all possible grounds. On all important points of constitutional principle, limited-government conservatism prevailed, and liberal arguments for expansive interpretation of federal power lost. In the long run, that will matter more than the fact that the healthcare bill survived. Chief Justice Roberts succeeded in doing the seemingly impossible: upholding the limited nature of federal enumerated powers and, at the same time, avoiding any possible accusation of judicial overreach. Through his deferential ruling on the taxing power, the chief justice made clear that he had no interest in interfering with congressional powers or in scoring points against the administration. The court’s interpretations of the Commerce and Spending powers are matters of constitutional principle, not political tactic.

The chief justice is taking the long view. What matters most for the American Republic is not the fate of this statute or the outcome of that case, but the long-term struggle over the meaning of the Constitution. Roberts’s deft opinion in the healthcare case strikes a mighty blow for conservative constitutionalism, while bolstering the court’s moral authority and reminding the country of the difference between law and politics. In the second paragraph of his lengthy opinion, Roberts writes that “[r]esolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries.” His masterful opinion succeeded – to the surprise of virtually everyone – in respecting and reinforcing both of those limits. Conservatives may be upset now, but over time they will come to appreciate that they gained far more than they lost from this decision.

More on the Commerce Clause:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=6872

[larsonstdoc]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/29/news/economy/health-care-medicaid/index.htm?iid=HP_LN



Medicaid expansion: Many could be left out


The Supreme Court rules that states can opt out of health care reform's Medicaid expansion provision.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Supreme Court may have upheld health care reform, but the ruling has left many of the poorest Americans at risk of remaining uninsured.
The justices' decision Thursday kept in place nearly all of the Affordable Care Act's provisions, including the mandate that all consumers buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax.

Also upheld was a provision that expands Medicaid coverage to include all adults with annual incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, which is currently $14,404 for an individual. The federal government will pick up the total cost of the expensive expansion for the first three years, after which the funding will phase down to 90%.
The expansion could reduce the number of uninsured adults with incomes under 133% of poverty by more than 11 million by 2019, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation estimate.
But here's the catch: The states can opt out of the Medicaid expansion program, since the court said the federal government can't penalize them by withholding all Medicaid funding. Instead, these states wouldn't get the additional Medicaid money to cover newly eligible enrollees.
And that could mean trouble for many poor adults who are not eligible for Medicaid under the current system but would have qualified under the expansion. (Read: Doctors may have to quit their practices)

[larsonstdoc]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/27/smallbusiness/doctors-practices/index.htm?iid=EL

 


Doctors: We could go out of business


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- As the nation awaits the Supreme Court's ruling on health care reform, America's doctors are debating a serious issue of their own -- the possibility of going out of business.
Doctors, especially those operating private practices, said their financial hardship is increasing, making it "harder for them to earn a decent living," according to a new survey of 673 physicians across 29 specialties by MDLinx, a medical reference website for physicians.

Among the reasons doctors cited: significant school debt, rising business expenses and administrative hassles, shrinking insurance reimbursements and costly malpractice insurance. (Read: Exchanges may survive even if law falls)
The survey revealed that doctors operating private practices -- both small and large -- are feeling more financial pain than those employed by hospitals, said Stephen Smith, chief marketing officer for MDLinx.
In fact, 17% of all doctors with a private practice said they could foresee closing it within a year if their financial situation doesn't improve, the survey said.

[SUPREMEMASTER]

 The DOW went up today because the NWO played financial monopoly in Europe.  Throwing dollars and euros at Spain, Italy, etc. to keep the financial schemes going.  I have not checked the insurance stocks but I am guessing they are soaring today because THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WROTE OBAMACARE.


  THE NEW NAME FOR OBAMACARE IS NOW OBAMA TAX.

Are you f**king serious?

We all have to pay a bulls**t Tax so we can fund our own death?

We pay to be hurt even worse?

We pay money to commit suicide.

How the f**k do I even dumb it down even more than I already just did?

I suppose I could go on for hours and this entire post could be a gigantic wall of text that makes the average person say "Too long, didn't read."...?




The "supreme court" is a domestic enemy against the United States, working for foreign enemies who are also against the United States.

Everyone should always remember:

Arrest the JP Morgan criminals.

Arrest the Bilderberg Group "nucleus" members (paraphrase-quoting Daniel Estulin) who are screwing this country over and know it.





Abolish Goldman Sachs and arrest all the criminals who work there, and protect all the whistle blowers.



Abolish the Federal Reserve.



Abolish the IRS.

ObamaCare Takeover

56. Alex Covers Obama's Health Care Reform Bill and Finds 'illegals' are "EXEMPT" on Alex Jones Tv

55. Alex Details More of 'Obamacare' as a Trojan Horse for Total Enslavment on The Alex Jones Show 1/6

54. Alex Details More of 'Obamacare' as a Trojan Horse for Total Enslavment on The Alex Jones Show 2/6

53. Alex Details More of 'Obamacare' as a Trojan Horse for Total Enslavment on The Alex Jones Show 3/6

52. Alex Details More of 'Obamacare' as a Trojan Horse for Total Enslavment on The Alex Jones Show 4/6

51. Alex Details More of 'Obamacare' as a Trojan Horse for Total Enslavment on The Alex Jones Show 5/6

50. Alex Details More of 'Obamacare' as a Trojan Horse for Total Enslavment on The Alex Jones Show 6/6

49. Paul Watson's Article About Obamacare: Taxing The American People Into Oblivion on Alex Jones Tv

48. Listeners Call into Vent About Passage of 'ObamaCare' on The Alex Jones Show 1/4

47. Listeners Call into Vent About Passage of 'ObamaCare' on The Alex Jones Show 2/4

46. Listeners Call into Vent About Passage of 'ObamaCare' on The Alex Jones Show 3/4

45. Listeners Call into Vent About Passage of 'ObamaCare' on The Alex Jones Show 4/4

44. Mike Adams Tells Alex-"We are Now Under a Medical Dictatorship" on The Alex Jones Show 1/2

43. Mike Adams Tells Alex-"We are Now Under a Medical Dictatorship" on The Alex Jones Show 2/2

42. Alex Details How America has Now Gone into Complete Collectivism on The Alex Jones Show 1/4

41. Alex Details How America has Now Gone into Complete Collectivism on The Alex Jones Show 2/4

40. Alex Details How America has Now Gone into Complete Collectivism on The Alex Jones Show 3/4

39. Alex Details How America has Now Gone into Complete Collectivism on The Alex Jones Show 4/4

38. Alex Takes Calls About Health-Care on The Alex Jones 1/2 (someone got the video title wrong)

37. Alex Takes Calls About Health-Care on The Alex Jones 2/2

36. Alex Covers IRS to become Bounty Hunters for ObamaCare Law on The Alex Jones Show 1/8

35. Alex Covers IRS to become Bounty Hunters for ObamaCare Law on The Alex Jones Show 2/8

34. Alex Covers IRS to become Bounty Hunters for ObamaCare Law on The Alex Jones Show 3/8

33. Alex Covers IRS to become Bounty Hunters for ObamaCare Law on The Alex Jones Show 4/8

32. Alex Covers IRS to become Bounty Hunters for ObamaCare Law on The Alex Jones Show 5/8

31. Alex Covers IRS to become Bounty Hunters for ObamaCare Law on The Alex Jones Show 6/8

30. Alex Covers IRS to become Bounty Hunters for ObamaCare Law on The Alex Jones Show 7/8

29. Alex Covers IRS to become Bounty Hunters for ObamaCare Law on The Alex Jones Show 8/8

28. Alex Breaks Down What's Really in Stalinist-like "Obamacare" on The Alex Jones Sunday Edition 1/8

27. Alex Breaks Down What's Really in Stalinist-like "Obamacare" on The Alex Jones Sunday Edition 2/8

26. Alex Breaks Down What's Really in Stalinist-like "Obamacare" on The Alex Jones Sunday Edition 3/8

25. Alex Breaks Down What's Really in Stalinist-like "Obamacare" on The Alex Jones Sunday Edition 4/8

24. Alex Breaks Down What's Really in Stalinist-like "Obamacare" on The Alex Jones Sunday Edition 5/8

23. Alex Breaks Down What's Really in Stalinist-like "Obamacare" on The Alex Jones Sunday Edition 6/8

22. Alex Breaks Down What's Really in Stalinist-like "Obamacare" on The Alex Jones Sunday Edition 7/8

21. Alex Breaks Down What's Really in Stalinist-like "Obamacare" on The Alex Jones Sunday Edition 8/8

20. Obama & Congress's Treasonous Act to Pass Health-Care without a vote on The Alex Jones Show 1/7

19. Obama & Congress's Treasonous Act to Pass Health-Care without a vote on The Alex Jones Show 2/7

18. Obama & Congress's Treasonous Act to Pass Health-Care without a vote on The Alex Jones Show 3/7

17. Obama & Congress's Treasonous Act to Pass Health-Care without a vote on The Alex Jones Show 4/7

16. Obama & Congress's Treasonous Act to Pass Health-Care without a vote on The Alex Jones Show 5/7

15. Obama & Congress's Treasonous Act to Pass Health-Care without a vote on The Alex Jones Show 6/7

14. Obama & Congress's Treasonous Act to Pass Health-Care without a vote on The Alex Jones Show 7/7

13. Alex Jones Tv: Obama's Health Insurance Tax: Nothing But, Rape, Robbery & Pillaging

12. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 1/4:They're Raising Taxes, But Cutting Health Care?

11. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 2/4:They're Raising Taxes, But Cutting Health Care?

10. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 3/4:They're Raising Taxes, But Cutting Health Care?

9. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 4/4:They're Raising Taxes, But Cutting Health Care?

8. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 1/8:Pelosi "Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"

7. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 2/8:Pelosi "Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"

6. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 3/8:Pelosi "Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"

5. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 4/8:Pelosi "Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"

4. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 5/8:Pelosi "Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"

3. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 6/8:Pelosi "Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"

2. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 7/8:Pelosi "Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"

1. Alex Jones Tv {Sunday Edition} 8/8:Pelosi "Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"

[MonkeyPuppet]

We all have to pay a bulls**t Tax so we can fund our own death?

We pay to be hurt even worse?

We pay money to commit suicide.

How the f**k do I even dumb it down even more than I already just did?

Yes and no.  This tax, along with the others that are deducted from people's paychecks (at their own request, btw), will go into the general fund for Congress' discretionary use.  It is just another income tax, and the "benefit" will be another line item on the budget.  This is the same mechanism they did with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  Read Helvering v. Davis for an eye-opener.

I suppose I could go on for hours and this entire post could be a gigantic wall of text that makes the average person say "Too long, didn't read."...?

Welcome to my world.  I've explained in both brief and verbose posts how the federal tax system works and as evidenced by many posts here, no one has read them.  People are still griping about the IRS, yet their anger, and action, should be shifted toward their payer.  Without the fraudulent information their payers send regarding the activity which generated the income (W2's and 1099's), the IRS would have absolutely nothing upon which to base an assessment for a tax owed.

The interesting part is that what I've shared time and again here, if put into action, would affect this tax as well as the income tax, FICA and the rest... they would become moot.  Programs like Social Security and Medicare would go away eventually, but not because no tax money is funding them (that's not even the case now), but because there would no longer be the excuse of funding a benefit via tax (which they don't) to guarantee more interest on Federal Reserve loans.  That's the con that few people actually get.

When it comes to the mal-application of federal tax law upon the domestic activities of the citizens of the 50 states, the money doesn't fund social programs... it funds whatever Congress wants to pay for and ultimately for the Executive branch's boot on our throats.

The "supreme court" is a domestic enemy against the United States, working for foreign enemies who are also against the United States.

Well, they could have ruled it Constitutional and allowed enforcement in several more direct ways.  I'm not holding their scrotum here, I'm just pointing out that by forcing it into the category of an excise, it has to be avoidable... which takes us back to the information I've detailed here time and again.  In this case, they did their job.  The fact that the American People are derelict in theirs is not SCOTUS' fault... you know, knowledge is power, hold Representatives accountable, defend liberty, etc.

[Valerius]

Anybody post the link yet about 75% of it will be funded by people making less than a 100k?

[pac522]

Just read that LA gov Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare in his state.

If/when Romney gets elected(assuming his visit to the Bilderberg meeting means his "election" is in the bag), you watch it, Jindal WILL accept Obamacare dollars into Louisiana b/c Romney won't repeal it.

BTW - Jindal is an Ivy League graduate(Brown) and a Rhodes Scholar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

Jindal destroyed the health care system in Louisiana. It's what he did before he was elected governor. All in the name of "fixing it" First thing he did was to fire a bunch of people, then he closed a bunch of hospitals and then lowered the wages of hospital workers. He did this because the insurance companies said it was costing them too much. They said they would lower rates if the expenses were cut. That never happened.

He did the same thing to the school system when he got elected and destroyed our free medical care in New Orleans. We had one of the best charity hospital systems you ever wanted to see. We have one of the best medical communities and schools in the country. All doctors were required to work in the hospital for free before graduating, under the observation of licensed doctors of course and all on a sliding scale for patients, most of who paid nothing. The basement flooded after Katrina and the people have been fighting to get it reopened ever since.

[larsonstdoc]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/02/vast-new-federal-power/


A vast new federal power

By Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoPublished July 02, 2012

  EXCERPTS FROM THE ARTICLE


If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
        -- The Beatles in “The Taxman”

Of the 17 lawyers who have served as chief justice of the United States, John Marshall -- the fourth chief justice -- has come to be known as the "Great Chief Justice." The folks who have given him that title are the progressives who have largely written the history we are taught in government schools. They revere him because he is the intellectual progenitor of federal power. Marshall's opinions over a 34-year period during the nation's infancy -- expanding federal power at the expense of personal freedom and the sovereignty of the states -- set a pattern for federal control of our lives and actually invited Congress to regulate areas of human behavior nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. He was Thomas Jefferson’s cousin, but they rarely spoke. No chief justice in history has so pronouncedly and creatively offered the feds power on a platter as he.

Now he has a rival.

No one can know the true motivations for the idiosyncratic rationale in the health care decision written by Marshall's current successor, John Roberts. Often five member majorities on the court are fragile, and bizarre compromises are necessary in order to keep a five-member majority from becoming a four-member minority. Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts really means what he wrote -- that congressional power to tax is without constitutional limit -- and his opinion is a faithful reflection of that view, without a political or legal or intra-court agenda. But that view finds no support in the Constitution or our history. It even contradicts the most famous of Marshall's big government aphorisms: The power to tax is the power to destroy.

I wonder whether the chief justice realizes what he and the progressive wing of the court have done to our freedom. If the feds can tax us for not doing as they have commanded, and if that which is commanded need not be grounded in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional limit to their power, and the ruling that the power to regulate commerce does not encompass the power to compel commerce is mere sophistry.

Even The Beatles understood this.