Cashin On The Constitution And Obamacare [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Cashin On The Constitution And Obamacare


Ruble Noon
07-03-2012, 16:55
The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cashin-constitution-and-obamacare

beforeobamabans
07-03-2012, 17:08
Not one tenth of one percent of citizens will actually read the full opinions as Cashin councils. Will you?

Ruble Noon
07-03-2012, 18:26
From the majority

“First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes. See Letter from Benjamin Franklin to M. Le Roy (Nov. 13, 1789) (“Our new Constitution is now established ... but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”).”

Dissenting opinion

“To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”

http://triblive.com/news/2117750-74/tax-constitution-congress-commerce-mandate-power-taxes-clause-insurance-upon

JFrame
07-03-2012, 18:35
Dissenting opinion

“To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off."

In this case, the tax originated in the mind of a Solicitor General and his overseers, and reached germination in the convoluted and tortured legal permutations of a Chief Justice.


.

jeanderson
07-03-2012, 18:41
You know, I'm fed up with all this parsing of words and so-called laws. When are you going to wake up and see the tyranny that we now live under? This is what tyranny looks like.

The law an the Constitution are being swept under rug.

Ruble Noon
07-03-2012, 20:27
I read the letter Robert's referenced and am having a hard time figuring out how he came to the conclusion that Franklin would support the idea of American children being born into tax slavery.

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 20:31
Proof positive. In court rulings, second place sucks.

Ruble Noon
07-03-2012, 20:36
Proof positive. In court rulings, second place sucks.

Proof positive in the dissent that obamacare is unconstitutional.

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 20:47
Proof positive in the dissent that obamacare is unconstitutional.

Should have been. Oh well.