User Panel
Posted: 6/28/2012 10:58:19 AM EST
Article I, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Amendment XVI (Ratified February 3, 1913.) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. |
|
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms.
|
|
So Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are some unprincipled dumb ass mother fuckers?
Maybe we should elect Obama so we get more Justices that are right, because BOTH of his voted with Roberts. Huh? Not going how you expected? *Not an endorsement for Obama. |
|
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. Since when is actually reading the dead old document instead of navel-gazing at precedent "legislating from the bench?" |
|
|
Im going to say this in everyone of the statist lovers fucking threads.
I dont give a flying fuck what those statist fucking cocksuckers SAY is Constitutional, Im pretty fucking sure the government CANNOT tax you simply for being. If they can , why cant they tax you for voting??? Disenfranchisement you say????? How is my being a tax cheat for not paying my "citizen tax" not disenfranchising me of my legal citizenship?? |
|
|
I'm so fucking tired of legislation being sold to the people as "not taxes", then being argued (and won) on the basis of them being a tax.
|
|
Quoted:
I fail to see how this constitutes a tax. It is not. It is a fine. |
|
Quoted:
Im going to say this in everyone of the statist lovers fucking threads. I dont give a flying fuck what those statist fucking cocksuckers SAY is Constitutional, Im pretty fucking sure the government CANNOT tax you simply for being. If they can , why cant they tax you for voting??? Disenfranchisement you say????? How is my being a tax cheat for not paying my "citizen tax" not disenfranchising me of my legal citizenship?? [insert BOOM HEADSHOT graphic here] |
|
Quoted:
We were warned this would eventually happen, and warned of what it would lead to. If you've never listened to the Reagan speech on socialized medicine you are missing out. http://youtu.be/AYrlDlrLDSQ |
|
Yes, but the law that passed did not call it a tax. It is identifed as a 'penalty'. That is why SCOTUS threw out the Anti-Injunction Act defense by the Administration. But they considered it the same as a 'tax' (wink and nod) in upholding the 'penalty' as within Congresses power to tax.
|
|
I agree that socialized medicine is bad and that it needs to go. But it does not change the fact that congress has the power to tax. So the issue must be fought in congress rather than the courts.
|
|
Quoted:
I agree that socialized medicine is bad and that it needs to go. But it does not change the fact that congress has the power to tax. So the issue must be fought in congress rather than the courts. As I explained to you in another thread where you posted the exact same thing as in your OP, the taxation clause and amendment have never been construed to allow taxation on inaction or the mere act of existing. No Congress has ever assumed that kind of power, and the Framers very obviously did not intend this amount of power. This ruling radically expands the tax power of the National Government. |
|
Except the law itself does not treat this as a tax, the administration denied it was a tax, and the provisions do not read a a tax.
Roberts ought to have said so, and then said that the legal justification cited in the law (the commerce clause) was insufficient to pass muster. He could have said "we express no opinion on whether the mandate would be upheld if the provisions are fixed to directly exercise the taxation power." Then Congress could try again, or not. Its important because the PASSAGE of the bill was a function of convincing Americans it wasn't a tax increase. By doing it this way, Roberts rewrote the law after the fact. |
|
Quoted:
I fail to see how this constitutes a tax. really cause I get to pay an extra $900 fucking dollars a year in 2014 in taxes AND I STILL WON"T HAVE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree that socialized medicine is bad and that it needs to go. But it does not change the fact that congress has the power to tax. So the issue must be fought in congress rather than the courts. As I explained to you in another thread where you posted the exact same thing as in your OP, the taxation clause and amendment have never been construed to allow taxation on inaction or the mere act of existing. No Congress has ever assumed that kind of power, and the Framers very obviously did not intend this amount of power. This ruling radically expands the tax power of the National Government. Quoted:
Its important because the PASSAGE of the bill was a function of convincing Americans it wasn't a tax increase. By doing it this way, Roberts rewrote the law after the fact. |
|
Regardless of how Roberts or others saw this bill, it was not envisioned or enacted as a "tax". Listening to the comments of Democrats since the ruling, they do see it as a tax. To them it simply means validation for their ideas of unlimited government. I suspect the true amount of mind boggling legal perversion that results is not even fathomable by a normal thinking person. |
|
Quoted:
Article I, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Amendment XVI (Ratified February 3, 1913.) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It is written plainly. Why do some keep saying that taxes are not in the US Constitution? |
|
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Article I, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Amendment XVI (Ratified February 3, 1913.) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It is written plainly. Why do some keep saying that taxes are not in the US Constitution? Stop trolling and read the thread. You are wrong. |
|
Quoted:
It is written plainly. Why do some keep saying that taxes are not in the US Constitution? It isn't just a tax. It is a massive assumption of power that does not exist in the Constitution. |
|
Quoted:
Except the law itself does not treat this as a tax, the administration denied it was a tax, and the provisions do not read a a tax. Democrats have been using deciet for a long time. Yes, the law is a tax though the Democrats lied about that fact to get it passed. |
|
Quoted:
Where does the power to tax end? death............ oh wait.. |
|
The other thing is that if it is a tax, it would have to origionate in the House, not the Senate.
But the real issue is that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the feds the power to do this. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Article I, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Amendment XVI (Ratified February 3, 1913.) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It is written plainly. Why do some keep saying that taxes are not in the US Constitution? Again, when it was passed and when it was argued...it was said to not be a tax. Also, there are limits as to what the government is allowed to tax for. They cannot tax you just for existing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Except the law itself does not treat this as a tax, the administration denied it was a tax, and the provisions do not read a a tax. Democrats have been using deciet for a long time. Yes, the law is a tax though the Democrats lied about that fact to get it passed. It isn't just a tax. It is a massive takeover by the federal government. It is flat out unconstitutional. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't create socialised medicine. The concept did not exist in the 18th Century, so the founding fathers would not have any opinions on the matter. |
|
So can they tax me for not owning a toaster?
Serious question. |
|
The Constitution doesn't give the fed gov the power to tax to force people to do things that have nothing to do with the rest of the enumerated powers of the fed gov.
Is the constitution saying the gov can do whatever they want as long as the punishment for not complying is called a "tax"? Taxes are for raising revenue to fullfil the duties of the gov. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't create socialised medicine. The concept did not exist in the 18th Century, so the founding fathers would not have any opinions on the matter. Pretty sure youre wrong again Amendment X States' rights The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. |
|
Either roberts is a scumbag commie supporting piece of shit, or the commie left threatened to kill him or his family, or they have dirt on him.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't create socialised medicine. The concept did not exist in the 18th Century, so the founding fathers would not have any opinions on the matter. Pretty sure youre wrong again Amendment X States' rights The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. How about the rights of the people? |
|
Quoted:
So can they tax me for not owning a toaster? Serious question. Yep, until the supreme court says that's not a power that government has. This thing isn't over by a long shot. |
|
Quoted:
Article I, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Amendment XVI (Ratified February 3, 1913.) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. I haven't read the opinion yet. However, how is a lack of action a source of anything? The Sixteenth Amendment has to do with the "income tax." It's Article 1, Sect. 8, that gives the Congress its authority to tax inactivity under this ruling due to the "general welfare of the United States" clause. The politicians as elected by the people having determined that Obamacare was in the general welfare of the United States have the right to levy this tax. Now the floodgates are open. All kinds of penalty or inaction taxes can be passed into law to regulate and engineer our society. With the population comprised of parasites willing to trade all individuality and freedom for the promise of free things they'll continue to elect the progressive socialists who will continue to assert their tyranny over the rest of us. Individual liberty now has a bullet with its name on it basically. The idea that Romney will win the election in November and Republicans will take the Senate is laughable bordering on delusional. The meager TEA party as vocal as it will ever be can never match the hordes of parasites or fools easily influenced by mass media. We're in for a Biblical crash of this society. |
|
Quoted:
I fail to see how this constitutes a tax. TINO. Tax In Name Only. Now the government can punish you for anything, as long as it's called a 'tax'. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't create socialised medicine. The concept did not exist in the 18th Century, so the founding fathers would not have any opinions on the matter. Alright, look. I'm going to explain this to you one time. I've explained this dozens of times. The US Constitution is a granting document. That is to say, it contains power granted to a national government. That power is ceded from the states. State constitutions are limiting documents. That is to say, a state constitution is created to LIMIT the inherent power and authority of a state. So the US Constitution has a set of things the National Government is ALLOWED to do. That government is thereby ONLY allowed to do those specific things as authorized by the granting of power as defined and described in the US Constitution. Let's say there was a clause in the US Constitution that said "the Congress shall have the power to designate a national dog breed." Therefore the Congress is not allowed to designate a national cat breed. A state constitution only LIMITS what a state government can do. The other limitation on state authority is that they cannot exercise power they ceded to the National Government as described in the US Constitution. So lets say in State, their constitution says that their legislature is not allowed to pass a law designating a state dog breed. Since there is no other limiting language, the legislature is still therefore free to designate a state cat breed. Understand the difference? |
|
Quoted: If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. Uh, that's kind of the fucking point of the Supreme Court. |
|
I agree with the OP this was viewed by the inclusion by Obamas atty to include to power of congress to levy a tax, so essentially the court upheld that the congress could tax for healthcare as argued. We should be asking our reps and senators to submit legislation to make themselves and the executive branch under teh health exchanges. He (Roberts) made it clear that the 10 amendment had no standing as a mandate and forced the Obama hand to say he has raised a new Tax. We can recognize this as the opportunity to have a new admin in November. you battle cry my taxes did go up (premiums) and you have done nothing for the economy...Respect the court disagree but respect, now all reps and senators have to own that they voted to raise taxes. Tea party shall rise again and if we are smart take the house senate and exec then we cut shit without them and let them eat cake as we have had to do. Move the focus to the economy that is what matter to US.
|
|
Quoted:
Im going to say this in everyone of the statist lovers fucking threads. I dont give a flying fuck what those statist fucking cocksuckers SAY is Constitutional, Im pretty fucking sure the government CANNOT tax you simply for being. If they can , why cant they tax you for voting??? Disenfranchisement you say????? How is my being a tax cheat for not paying my "citizen tax" not disenfranchising me of my legal citizenship?? They can now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So can they tax me for not owning a toaster? Serious question. Yep, until the supreme court says that's not a power that government has. This thing isn't over by a long shot. Why your elected representatives will deem that everyone having a toaster is for the general welfare of the USA. They can then levy a tax against those who don't own a toaster. If you don't pay your toaster tax they'll garnish wages, seize property, and possibly imprison you depending on the amount owed. Federal Prisons already are a growth industry, but I predict that we'll see a lot more of them built in the coming decades. Our Federal Government can now engineer our society any way that it wants. All it has to do is simply see the majority win the support of the mob each election. Your individual right to liberty measures nothing next to the "general welfare." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't create socialised medicine. The concept did not exist in the 18th Century, so the founding fathers would not have any opinions on the matter. Pretty sure youre wrong again Amendment X States' rights The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. How about the rights of the people? What about the rights of the people? Explain your question. This subthread isn't about rights, it's about the power of the federal government, and Amendment X sure as fuck applies here. The Constitution doesn't say that the federal government can regulate healthcare, nor that it has to provide it... but it also doesn't say that it CAN'T.... ... so the Constitution doesn't say that it CAN, but it doesn't say that it CAN'T... that falls to the states and to the people. This idea was set up so that the federal government didn't just start grabbing power wherever it could. It needs to be DELEGATED that power through a Constitutional Amendment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't create socialised medicine. The concept did not exist in the 18th Century, so the founding fathers would not have any opinions on the matter. Alright, look. I'm going to explain this to you one time. I've explained this dozens of times. The US Constitution is a granting document. That is to say, it contains power granted to a national government. That power is ceded from the states. State constitutions are limiting documents. That is to say, a state constitution is created to LIMIT the inherent power and authority of a state. So the US Constitution has a set of things the National Government is ALLOWED to do. That government is thereby ONLY allowed to do those specific things as authorized by the granting of power as defined and described in the US Constitution. Let's say there was a clause in the US Constitution that said "the Congress shall have the power to designate a national dog breed." Therefore the Congress is not allowed to designate a national cat breed. A state constitution only LIMITS what a state government can do. The other limitation on state authority is that they cannot exercise power they ceded to the National Government as described in the US Constitution. So lets say in State, their constitution says that their legislature is not allowed to pass a law designating a state dog breed. Since there is no other limiting language, the legislature is still therefore free to designate a state cat breed. Understand the difference? Statsist dont comprehend anything that could be construed as a brake on the unfettered expansion of the state. Its sad really , to think that people actually believe the government can do whatever it wants simply because it is the government . ETA: Very well said as well |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't create socialised medicine. The concept did not exist in the 18th Century, so the founding fathers would not have any opinions on the matter. Pretty sure youre wrong again Amendment X States' rights The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. But Congress does have a power to tax that is delegated by the Constitution. |
|
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. Didn't the Dems and Obama said the entire time that this wasn't a tax yet there was no mention of this being a tax in the narrative of the act? OP........when was the last time you were taxed for something you haven't purchased? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I agree that socialized medicine is bad and that it needs to go. But it does not change the fact that congress has the power to tax. So the issue must be fought in congress rather than the courts. As I explained to you in another thread where you posted the exact same thing as in your OP, the taxation clause and amendment have never been construed to allow taxation on inaction or the mere act of existing. No Congress has ever assumed that kind of power, and the Framers very obviously did not intend this amount of power. This ruling radically expands the tax power of the National Government. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't create socialised medicine. The concept did not exist in the 18th Century, so the founding fathers would not have any opinions on the matter. Alright, look. I'm going to explain this to you one time. I've explained this dozens of times. The US Constitution is a granting document. That is to say, it contains power granted to a national government. That power is ceded from the states. State constitutions are limiting documents. That is to say, a state constitution is created to LIMIT the inherent power and authority of a state. So the US Constitution has a set of things the National Government is ALLOWED to do. That government is thereby ONLY allowed to do those specific things as authorized by the granting of power as defined and described in the US Constitution. Let's say there was a clause in the US Constitution that said "the Congress shall have the power to designate a national dog breed." Therefore the Congress is not allowed to designate a national cat breed. A state constitution only LIMITS what a state government can do. The other limitation on state authority is that they cannot exercise power they ceded to the National Government as described in the US Constitution. So lets say in State, their constitution says that their legislature is not allowed to pass a law designating a state dog breed. Since there is no other limiting language, the legislature is still therefore free to designate a state cat breed. Understand the difference? Statsist dont comprehend anything that could be construed as a brake on the unfettered expansion of the state. Its sad really , to think that people actually believe the government can do whatever it wants simply because it is the government . ETA: Very well said as well You all need to read the US Constitution. Congress has the power to tax. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we are going to make a stand against judicial activism, then we can't be legislating from the bench ourselves. The fight against socialized medicine has to be done through legislation, not through the courtrooms. No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to create socialized medicine. Judicial activism is what got us here, social security, medicare and obamacare are all un-constitutional. The federal government has no rightful power to create any of those. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't create socialised medicine. The concept did not exist in the 18th Century, so the founding fathers would not have any opinions on the matter. Alright, look. I'm going to explain this to you one time. I've explained this dozens of times. The US Constitution is a granting document. That is to say, it contains power granted to a national government. That power is ceded from the states. State constitutions are limiting documents. That is to say, a state constitution is created to LIMIT the inherent power and authority of a state. So the US Constitution has a set of things the National Government is ALLOWED to do. That government is thereby ONLY allowed to do those specific things as authorized by the granting of power as defined and described in the US Constitution. Let's say there was a clause in the US Constitution that said "the Congress shall have the power to designate a national dog breed." Therefore the Congress is not allowed to designate a national cat breed. A state constitution only LIMITS what a state government can do. The other limitation on state authority is that they cannot exercise power they ceded to the National Government as described in the US Constitution. So lets say in State, their constitution says that their legislature is not allowed to pass a law designating a state dog breed. Since there is no other limiting language, the legislature is still therefore free to designate a state cat breed. Understand the difference? Statsist dont comprehend anything that could be construed as a brake on the unfettered expansion of the state. Its sad really , to think that people actually believe the government can do whatever it wants simply because it is the government . ETA: Very well said as well You all need to read the US Constitution. Congress has the power to tax. No one is arguing they do not. Their power is limited. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.