It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamacare is Unconstitutional

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Justice Roberts said Obamacare was unconstitutional the way it was passed and sold to the American people. It was sold as a penalty enacted under the Commerce Clause. Obama said time and time again that it wasn't a tax. It's a tax for inactivity. So the Government could tax you for not buying Hybrid or Electric cars based on this ruling.

Justice Roberts said the Congress didn't have this authority under the Commerce Clause and then in a stunning display of Judicial Activism he changed the law from the bench to a tax instead of sending it back to Congress and then they could pass it and sale it to the American people as a tax.

Roberts said it's his job to preserve legislation passed by Congress whether it's good or bad. A very troubling statement by Roberts.

Obama knows it's unconstitutional. But Obama like many Progressives don't like the Constitution. This is because the Constitution gives more power to the individual and basically neuters the powers of the State. Progressives think the state should be all powerful. This is because the state knows better than the individual as to how you should use healthcare or what kind of car you should be driving or how you should eat and what type of foods you should eat.

This is why Obama said in a 2001 radio interview that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it restrains Govt. and it doesn't talk about the Redistribution of wealth.

The whole idea behind the Constitution and the Declaration was to restrain Govt. Many Founders saw Govt. as a necessary evil that needed to be restrained. Therefore they basically neutered the State and gave more power to the individual.

Obama went on to say is the way you get around the Constitution is through legislation instead of going to the courts first. This is because you can pass unconstitutional legislation and it will take time to go through the Courts and the Courts will be reluctant to overturn it. Sadly, Obama has another Judicial Activist on the Court with Justice Roberts.

WELCOME TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE UNITED STATES!




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



Progressives think the state should be all powerful.


I agree with your post except for that statement. The Federal government is not in any way shape or form a State!

The states have the ability to trump federal law if they should choose to do so! However, it seems that the States themselves, have become money dependent on the Fed, therefore relinquishing their States Rights under the Constitution.

Who gets screwed??? You and I my friend! Maybe instead of everyone focusing on fixing the Federal government, we need to start focusing on our individual State governments to uphold our right at that level! Obviously we are lost if we think we can take on the corruption on the Federal level, but maybe, JUST MAYBE, we can put the fear of God into our State governments...........................

I know,,,,it's a pipe dream, but a dream none the less..



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
It is time for a nationwide tax strike. Everybody should stop paying income taxes altogether. If you find yourself unable to do that, raise your withholding to 10 or more. We are no longer represented in congress. Only the corporations and the very rich are represented. No taxation without representation.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


When I say State, I mean the Federal Government as in Statist.

stat·ism (sttzm)
n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

Progressives, liberals, social democrats are basically Statist. They change their name over the years as people figure out their agenda is essentially anti-freedom. They want the State(Government) to have more control over the individual.

For instance Bloomberg wanting to stop people from ordering super sized drinks or Obama wanting to ration healthcare through the IPAB. Statist want a more powerful Government and a more controlled society.

At the Heart of all this is Marxism. Obama learned his brand of Marxism in College and under Reverend Wright. Black Liberation Theology is Marxism. Black Liberation Theology is the Christian version of the Nation of Islam. This is why Wright gave Farrakhan an award and he went to Libya with Farrakhan. This is why Obama talks about things like Collective Salvation for the Country. Obama said his personal Salvation depends on Collective Salvation for the Country. Imagine if Bush would have talked about Collective Salvation for the Country.

At the Heart of all this is everyone who is rich (except them) is an oppressor. Therefore they need to take from the evil rich and put in place these big government programs that will help poor people live better because the Government will be making decisions for them.

The reason this doesn't work and this goes to the Founders wisdom, is that men are essentially corrupt especially when they have more power over the individual. So when you give Government all this power it does very little to help people.

Look at all the money spent on poverty. Ride through a poor neighborhood and you see nothing but hoplessness and despair. Look at the money spent on education and then look at the result.

Here's a report on poverty in America.


America is getting poorer. The U.S. government has just released a bunch of new statistics about poverty in America, and once again this year the news is not good. According to a special report from the U.S. Census Bureau, 46.2 million Americans are now living in poverty. The number of those living in poverty in America has grown by 2.6 million in just the last 12 months, and that is the largest increase that we have ever seen since the U.S. government began calculating poverty figures back in 1959. Not only that, median household income has also fallen once again. In case you are keeping track, that makes three years in a row. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income in the United States dropped 2.3% in 2010 after accounting for inflation. Overall, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation since December 2007. So should we be excited that our incomes are going down and that a record number of Americans slipped into poverty last year? Should we be thrilled that the economic pie is shrinking and that our debt levels are exploding? All of those that claimed that the U.S. economy was recovering and that everything was going to be just fine have some explaining to do.

Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty. Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty. The last time the poverty level was this high was back in 1993.


theeconomiccollapseblog.com...

The reason this is the case goes back to why the Founders wanted limited Government. This is because no matter how well intentioned those in Government claim they are, they're corrupt because of the power and control they have over others so the more power you give them the worse it will be for the individual.

Much of the money they spend on these programs will be used to enrich there friends and political contributers. How many poor people do you see around politicians? Limit Government. Reduce the scope and size of Government and always give the individual more control. Will many individuals make bad choices? Of course but I would rather allow people to live by the dictates of their own Conscious rather than the Dictates a big, corrupt Government ran by crooked politicians.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I agree with what you are saying my friend!!! Trust me I do!
All I meant by my post was the issue of using the word "State" in a manner that may be confusing to others!

2/3 Vote from the actual STATES, tells the Federal Gov. to take a leap!



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


The Supreme Court Justices, or any justice or judge for that matter, has an obligation, when reading legislation that has been challenged as unconstitutional, to first take an eye towards it that the legislation was written fully harmonious with the Constitution that empowers Congress. Justices are obligated to remain unbiased and cannot simply presume Congress wrote up a legislative act with the intent of defying the Constitution.

By recognizing Congress' complete and plenary power of taxation, and given that Congress was diligent in including this section of Title 26 - the tax code - 26 USC § 5000A - Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage, the SCOTUS ruling was a sound moment of jurisprudence.

Here is what Justice Roberts did not do: He did not make any declarations as to who a "taxpayer" is. He did not declare that "all Americans are subject to the applicable revenue laws. He did not declare that all Americans must purchase health insurance policies any more than the legislation itself does. By dismissing the Commerce Clause argument, Roberts narrowed down the people who are subject to this legislation to "taxpayers".

Beyond that, in regards to the "shared responsibility payment" or so called "individual mandate", the SCOTUS heard ex-ante arguments, which means these were policy arguments riddled with prediction. Because this ruling was an ex-ante (before the fact) ruling the door has been left wide open for ex-post (after the fact) arguments of unconstitutionality.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I don't know if you are indeed a US citizen.... But if you are- do yourself a favor and jump the fence. I'm so tired of people bashing the healtcare plan while being unable to offer a legitimate alternative that would do as much GOOD as this plan does. I have a few choice words for you however the rules of this site prevent me from expressing that opinion any further. That is all.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by itswhatev
I don't know if you are indeed a US citizen.... But if you are- do yourself a favor and jump the fence. I'm so tired of people bashing the healtcare plan while being unable to offer a legitimate alternative that would do as much GOOD as this plan does. I have a few choice words for you however the rules of this site prevent me from expressing that opinion any further. That is all.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Here's a legitimate healthcare plan: The Best Way to Stay Healthy


Your lifestyle choices greatly influence your health. A healthy life is one in which you have minimal risk of developing chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Most major health organizations agree that what you eat, how much you move and the ways in which you deal with life obligations can affect the length and quality of your life.


While you're eating right, exercising, avoiding habitual addictions that contribute to chronic disease and reducing your levels of stress, you can also set up a savings account and contribute $100 to $200 a month in the event all your best efforts were unable to keep you from disease.

Of course, that plan requires you taking responsibility for your own health instead of pretending the government can do it for you.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Jean Paul, as usual, I have to give you my support on your logical thinking and knowledge of the subject!
I ask you this next question with total respect for your knowledge of the law....

"If in fact, that it is considered a tax as ruled by the SCOTUS, does that not mean that the Congress should get to vote on it again, since the whole bill was changed due to legalities? ie tax vs commerce ?

I am only asking you because I always respect your knowledge and opinion, and so far, no one has a clue as to what I am asking.......

Thank you my friend, I truely appreciate learning from you!




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 





"If in fact, that it is considered a tax as ruled by the SCOTUS, does that not mean that the Congress should get to vote on it again, since the whole bill was changed due to legalities? ie tax vs commerce ?


The link I provided in my initial post reveals that nothing at all was changed. Those wascally wabbits of Congwess cleverly placed the "shared responsibility payment" in Title 26 of the USC. That is the tax code. This is why Chief Justice Roberts rendered the opinion he did, because he recognized that Congress covered all bases, and in doing so were speaking out of both sides of their mouth, but Roberts slapped one side of that mouth and told them to speak straight out of the mouth and own up to the tax they've imposed...on "taxpayers" and there in lies your clues as to who is liable for this "shared responsibility payment"...the "taxpayer".

Are you a taxpayer?


(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.


Seriously, are you a taxpayer?


(b) Taxpayer Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
5-4



you're mistaken

roberts is just one justice btw



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thanks for your reply! Not quite understanding it, but at least you gave me something to look up and figure it out on my own!

I thank you my friend!



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thanks for your reply! Not quite understanding it, but at least you gave me something to look up and figure it out on my own!

I thank you my friend!


That is the hardest part of this, that you will have to figure it out on your own. I have no lawful authority to determine whether you are subject to any applicable revenue laws or not. I have no lawful authority to determine whether you are liable for a tax or not. Only the Secretary Treasurer or your state Treasurer has that authority...and well, you do. You have the authority to assess your own liability, and it follows that if you have the authority to assess your own liability, you have the authority to determine you're not liable, right?



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join