Five Justices Rejected the Government’s Commerce Clause Theory. Does that Count as a Legal

[sailingaway]

Five Justices Rejected the Government’s Commerce Clause Theory. Does that Count as a Legal

Five Justices Rejected the Government’s Commerce Clause Theory. Does that Count as a Legal Precedent?

I am so disgusted at the case right now, I can't even read and evaluate it, yet. For those of you able to do so, here's an interesting point by Reason. http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/f...on/HitandRun+(Reason+Online+-+Hit+&+Run+Blog)

didn't Obamacare start in the Senate, though, and isn't that unconstitutional for a 'tax' bill?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Five Justices Rejected the Government’s Commerce Clause Theory. Does that Count as a Legal Precedent?

I am so disgusted at the case right now, I can't even read and evaluate it, yet. For those of you able to do so, here's an interesting point by Reason. http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/five-justices-rejected-the-governments-c?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+(Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog)

didn't Obamacare start in the Senate, though, and isn't that unconstitutional for a 'tax' bill?

I know it passed the Senate first in Dec of 2009...I'll never forget that. One of my Senators (Mary Landrieu) allowed her vote to be purchased to make it happen.

 

[jmdrake]

Five Justices Rejected the Government’s Commerce Clause Theory. Does that Count as a Legal Precedent?

I am so disgusted at the case right now, I can't even read and evaluate it, yet. For those of you able to do so, here's an interesting point by Reason. http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/f...on/HitandRun+(Reason+Online+-+Hit+&+Run+Blog)

didn't Obamacare start in the Senate, though, and isn't that unconstitutional for a 'tax' bill?

But you see, it didn't have to start in the House because it wasn't a "tax". It didn't become a "tax" until Justice Roberts decided to deem it a "tax" so that he could have a political fig leaf for voting with those "eeeeevil libtards". But now the brilliant people at Red State (who hate all things Ron Paul) have informed us that we're not smart enough to realize that Roberts is really playing "chess" to help conservatives realize that they need to hurry up and vote for Romney to get more justices like him who can overturn Obamacare eve though he didn't vote to overturn Obamacare. Got it now? Get in line mundane and vote for Romney! /sarcasm

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But you see, it didn't have to start in the House because it wasn't a "tax". It didn't become a "tax" until Justice Roberts decided to deem it a "tax" so that he could have a political fig leaf for voting with those "eeeeevil libtards". But now the brilliant people at Red State (who hate all things Ron Paul) have informed us that we're not smart enough to realize that Roberts is really playing "chess" to help conservatives realize that they need to hurry up and vote for Romney to get more justices like him who can overturn Obamacare eve though he didn't vote to overturn Obamacare. Got it now? Get in line mundane and vote for Romney! /sarcasm

Roberts really took a dump on america when he called the mandate a form of legal taxation.

 

[Sola_Fide]

But you see, it didn't have to start in the House because it wasn't a "tax". It didn't become a "tax" until Justice Roberts decided to deem it a "tax" so that he could have a political fig leaf for voting with those "eeeeevil libtards". But now the brilliant people at Red State (who hate all things Ron Paul) have informed us that we're not smart enough to realize that Roberts is really playing "chess" to help conservatives realize that they need to hurry up and vote for Romney to get more justices like him who can overturn Obamacare eve though he didn't vote to overturn Obamacare. Got it now? Get in line mundane and vote for Romney! /sarcasm

Is that what RedState is saying now? That's pretty shameful...

 

[Jandrsn21]

It's all very weird. On one hand the majority of the court deemed it unconstitutional based off the interstate commerce clause. Yet they allowed it because it was a tax. Which authority overrides the other? The power to tax or the power to regulate commerce under the interstate commerce clause. One side is saying no this isn't possible, the other side says yes this is possible. Yet the government sides with the one that says it is possible and the other be damned. Where in the constitution does is say the power to tax is the greater than the power to regulate commerce? Based off this ruling they basically said, because congress has the power to tax, we can negate other parts of the constitution?

 

[thoughtomator]

Is that what RedState is saying now? That's pretty shameful...

Yes the Romney camp has been totally shameless on this - like Romney has ANY CREDIBILITY AT ALL as an alleged opponent of Obamacare.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Five Justices Rejected the Government’s Commerce Clause Theory. Does that Count as a Legal Precedent?

I am so disgusted at the case right now, I can't even read and evaluate it, yet. For those of you able to do so, here's an interesting point by Reason. http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/f...on/HitandRun+(Reason+Online+-+Hit+&+Run+Blog)


didn't Obamacare start in the Senate, though, and isn't that unconstitutional for a 'tax' bill?

One cannot commit contempt, treason, or treachery towards a legal precedent. However, one can commit an even far greater offense by passing a law in violation of the people's Civil Purpose.

Look, I know this sounds like nonsense. On the Christian secular level, we hold obedience to the law to be supreme. And, yet, the same law Jesus Himself blessed was the same exact one that tried having Him killed as a first born son, and was the same that persecuted his mother as a prostitute.

Jesus said that any offense could be committed against Him as the Son of Man and it would be forgiven, but any offense committed against the Holy Spirit was unforgiveable. And, yet, just consider how Saul, the very worst of all the tyrants to ever live, the very one who committed that unforgiveable offense as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, was put to death, spiritually speaking, and then transformed into the Apostle Paul, a chosen vessel of God?

All of this has been wrought into our American souls, secularly speaking.

Once again, one cannot commit contempt, treason, or treachery against a legal precedent.

It isn't that I'm not a tyrant. As a Christian, I'm a converted tyrant over to the side of God's Church (bride).

 

[PierzStyx]

Even as a tax its unconstitutional. So idiotic.

 

[r3volution]

the government can now call anything a tax if they want to make you do something . the scotus officially voided hat was left of the constitution today . i cannot think of anyway to fix this mess anymore .

 

[Libertea Party]

Five Justices Rejected the Government’s Commerce Clause Theory. Does that Count as a Legal Precedent?

I am so disgusted at the case right now, I can't even read and evaluate it, yet. For those of you able to do so, here's an interesting point by Reason. http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/f...on/HitandRun+(Reason+Online+-+Hit+&+Run+Blog)

didn't Obamacare start in the Senate, though, and isn't that unconstitutional for a 'tax' bill?

Just started looking into that line of argument now and found this:

The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[160] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[161] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[162] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

Looks like they covered themselves.

 

[sailingaway]

Is that what RedState is saying now? That's pretty shameful...

Romney said at least 3 times in 2009 that Obama should adopt Romneycare for the nation. Exactly what sort of a judge does Erickkson think he is going to appoint?

 

[sailingaway]

Just started looking into that line of argument now and found this:


Looks like they covered themselves.

Looks like they pretended they did. Pretty much would write the clause out of the Constitution, since they could always to that. And this is the biggest tax increase in US history.

 

[Zippyjuan]

They didn't say the Commerce Clause does not apply to anything- they simply said it did not apply in this case.

 

[Libertea Party]

Looks like they pretended they did. Pretty much would write the clause out of the Constitution, since they could always to that. And this is the biggest tax increase in US history.

Yeah I wonder if there's a remedy for this. Harry Reid is crying about Rand Paul's Abortion Amendment yet shoving the biggest tax increase in US history and expansion of government into health care in 50 years --that merited a Supreme Court case-- into a hollowed out tax breaks for veterans bill is how the Democrats landmark legislation stands?

It's always one way for them and another standard for us.

 

[Libertea Party]

An echo of our exchange: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/...-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/