Sophie Says....

 M2RB:  Eurythmics

 Why I may be mad, I may be blind, I may be viciously unkind? 

But I can still read what you're thinking  

And I've heard it said too many times  

That you're better off  

Besides...  

Why can't you see this boat is sinking?

  (This boat is sinking this boat is sinking)  

Let's go down to the water's edge  

And we can cast away those doubts

And, I can put the world out of its misery

By making sure that unlike the Unsinkable Molly Brown

When the boat sinks below the dark sees, you, too, shall go down. 

"I want to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans. If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up.  If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down."

- Barack Obama, 7 October 2008

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition… My critics say everything is a tax increase.  My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy.  You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but... I absolutely reject that notion (that the mandate penalty is a tax).”

- President Barack Obama, 21 September 2009

"The mandate is not a mandate.  It is a tax."

- SCOTUS, 28 June 2012

"This already happens! Do you live in city? Do you have a lot you build on? Does that government, state, county or city tell you how big your house can be? Absolutely! They tell you they own a setback, even though you pay taxes on that ground. They tell you how close you can be to your neighbor’s house, which directly effects the size of your house."

-  archer, 28 June 2012 

You will note the absence of the Federal government in your statement. States have plenary powers. The Federal government does not, as was first acknowledged in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819):

 

“Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.”

CJ Roberts reiterated this principle again today:

“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. ANY POLICE POWER TO REGULATE INDIVIDUALS AS SUCH, AS OPPOSED TO THEIR ACTIVITIES, REMAINS VESTED IN THE STATES.”

"The capitalist health care system failed.   It covered fewer people than socialist systems in Europe and it cost much more as well. This is a fact. you can Google it pretty easily."

- TreasonousRepugs, 28 June 2012

Which explains why private clinics in France are booming and public hospitals are closing exactly how?

And, would you care to explain why the New York Times would recommend that Greece privatised its socialised healthcare system?

 

"Another reform high on the list is REMOVING THE STATE FROM THE MARKETPLACE IN CRUCIAL SECTORS LIKE HEALTH CARE, transportation and energy and ALLOWING PRIVATE INVESTMENT ... WOULD HELP BRING DOWN PRICES in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."

- New York Times, 1 May 2010

"30 million uninsured are giving their thanks!"

- inthemiddle a/k/a Lucky Pierre

Why?

The Court ruled that the Federal government cannot tell states to increase their Medicaid programmes and increase taxes to pay for it. The 10th Amendment prohibits such Federal intrusion. Thus, the part of Obamacare that would have forced the states to double the number of Medicaid patients and raise taxes to pay for them was declared unconstitutional.

As an aside, these people will still be mandated to purchase insurance or pay the penalty of $750 and the Obamacare legislation failed to include a mechanism that would provide a way to fund exchanges or provide subsidies to people in states where the legislatures opted not to create exchanges. The Federal government cannot mandate  that the states create insurance exchanges or fund them.

Finally, the Court ruled that the Feds cannot punish states, who refuse to expand Medicaid, by withholding Medicaid funding to which they are presently entitled.

Many of those 30 million will have to purchase government-approved health plans that are going to cost around $15,000 a year or pay a $750 fine because they make too much to qualify for Medicaid.

"If you guys are nice I will put cheese sauce on your mandated broccoli."

- Liberal Larry

SSSSSOOOOMMMMEEEBODY didn't read all of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion.

You will recall that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, all of the Democrats, all of the Ivy League law professors, every Lefty pundit and every single one of you said that Obamacare and the mandate were constitutional under the Commerce Clause and that, of course, the Federal government could force you to purchase a product.

But, what did Roberts have to say:

“Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address [America’s] diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.”

Isn't broccoli a vegetable?

"I got an idea for you TBaggers-instead of having to buy mandated insurance, save that money to move to Canada where you dont HAVE to buy health insurance!! Wow! Problem solved. Your Welcome."

- Eric008

Don't you understand the issue has never been about us buying insurance? Rather, it has been about the government mandating us to enter into third-party contract to buy government-approved products.

What kind of pro-choicers are you when you will deny me, beginning in 2014, the ability to purchase the type of health insurance policy that I want -- major medical only?

I don't need a lot of insurance. In fact, I don't really even need major medical because I could pay out of pocket.

Why do you hate women so much? When will you stop this assault on women and stop denying us the ability to make our own healthcare and economic decisions?

"THIS IS THE BEST DAY OF MY LIFE!! VINDICATION!!"

  

- HondaV65, 28 June 2012

I must have missed it when the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare under the Commerce Clause as you argued it would.

I must have missed it when the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare under the Necessary & Proper Clause as you argued it would.

I must have missed it when you argued that paying premiums to an insurance corporation is a form of "taxation."

I must have missed it when you argued that the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional.

I must have missed it when you corrected President Obama and said the mandate really was a tax, not a penalty.

I must have missed it when you argued that a corporation's bank account is the same thing as the United States Treasury.

I must have missed it when you flayed the Obama administration for its overreach and governmental expansion, as Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg did today.

I must have missed it when you argued for Obama to break his campaign promise and raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year by not only "one, thin dime," but thousands of "thin dimes."

Can you produce some examples of your prescient posts?

"I'm going to have a party tonight and celebrate the fact that we've won the right to tax you, Mo."

- Allidunce

The joke's on you.  I already have insurance and you have proven to be anti-choice.  You have championed the right of the government to refuse women to control the economic and physical health.  Instead of allowing me to choose the policy that best meets my needs, unelected apparatchiks in cahoots with insurance companies, Big Pharma, special interest groups, etc., will develop plans with government.  These government-plan will be the most expensive and expansive.  You and I could easily get a Major Medical or catastrophic policy for $100-200 per month.  Now, we will be paying more than $15,000 for things that we neither want nor need.  After all, Obamacare needs young and healthy people to transfer their meager income to those that are older, and usually wealthier.

Since I already pay for health insurance, you will not be able to benefit from my "taxation."  My "taxes" will be paid to a PRIVATE, HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION.  Baby Executive Secretary and CEO best girl needs new shoes and a $65,000 Louis XV wastebasket.

Obama:  "Support your local, health insurance corporations.  Pay "taxes" to it!"

Meanwhile, FUCK OFF AND FUND YOUR UTOPIA WITHOUT ME™.

"While Willard keeps saying that he will "repeal" ObozoCare on the 1st day, that's going to be pretty difficult unless we have a majority in the House and Senate. Keep that in mind."

Anne, 28 June 2012

Not under the Obama Doctrine. If a President doesn't like a law or thinks it is unconstitutional, he doesn't have to enforce it.

As Andrew Jackson said:

“(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now…if he can.”

Given that the Chief Justice and the Court didn't have military resources nor were any the Commander-in-Chief, I don't have to tell you how the stalemate ended.

BTW: I think Jackson was a despicable, racist, lawless b@stard. Just to be clear, I'm not a fan.

 

"The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.”

- Lyle, SCOTUSBLOG…

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................................

 

"I want to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans. If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up.  If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down."

- Barack Obama, 7 October 2008

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition… My critics say everything is a tax increase.  My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy.  You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but... I absolutely reject that notion (that the mandate penalty is a tax).”

 - President Barack Obama, 21 September 2009

"The mandate is unconstitutional under both the Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clause, but the fact that the mandate & penalty are not addressed in the revenue raising area of the Act, it is not referred to as a tax, President Obama has consistently argued that it is not a tax,  the Director of the OMB declared it was not a tax, Secretary Sebelius was incapable of answering whether it is a tax, Majority Leader averred that it was a tax, despite that not a single district or appellate court upheld Obamacare as a tax, it fails City of New York v Fiering, the administration did not address the tax issue in its first brief.  It only allocated 21 lines to mandate=tax in its brief in response to respondents,' and a mere 50 words on the subject.  It is a tax."

 - John McCormack, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito Dissent: 'We Cannot Rewrite the Statute to Be What It Is Not,' The Weekly Standard, 28 June 2012

  

Since Liberals are never concerned about outcomes, just "fair play" where they have vested interests.  Let's see, what else might be in Pandora's box?

"Sure, you can have an abortion, but you are going to have to pay a tax of $5,000 first.  Don't worry.  The Supreme Court has ruled that we have the power to tax and it is not its job to pass judgment on the legitimacy or idiocy of a tax.  Taxes, it posits, are political issues and your only recourse is at the ballot box.  So, if you don't like it, get your ID ready and vote us out."

"Sure, you can burn that American flag, but you are going to have to pay a tax of $500,000 first.  Don't worry.  The Supreme Court has ruled that we have the power to tax and it is not its job to pass judgment on the legitimacy or idiocy of a tax.  Taxes, it posits, are political issues and your only recourse is at the ballot box.  So, if you don't like it, get your ID ready and vote us out."

"Sure, you can assemble in front of the White House and Congress pursuant to your First Amendment right to petition the Federal government for redress of grievances, but you are going to pay a tax of $100,000 first.  Don't worry.  The Supreme Court has ruled that we have the power to tax and it is not its job to pass judgment on the legitimacy or idiocy of a tax.  Taxes, it posits, are political issues and your only recourse is at the ballot box.  So, if you don't like it, get your ID ready and vote us out."

"Sure, you have a right to remain silent, but you are going to pay a tax of $25,000 first.  Don't worry.  The Supreme Court has ruled that we have the power to tax and it is not its job to pass judgment on the legitimacy or idiocy of a tax.  Taxes, it posits, are political issues and your only recourse is at the ballot box.  So, if you don't like it, get your ID ready and vote us out."

"Sure, you have a right to remain counsel, a speedy trial, habeas corpus, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, but you are going to pay a tax of $2,500,000 before your asses evah see any of those.  Don't worry.  The Supreme Court has ruled that we have the power to tax and it is not its job to pass judgment on the legitimacy or idiocy of a tax.  Taxes, it posits, are political issues and your only recourse is at the ballot box.  So, if you don't like it, get your ID ready and vote us out."

Champagne cork-popping time. What a precedent! 

  

Roberts' Opinion

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. 

The Government’s tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as order¬ing individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. 

The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it una¬voidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unitentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).

The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance.

After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one. 

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn¬ing income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.

 

"We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is  entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders."

- Chief Justice John Roberts, for the majority

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Translation: Obama voters, enjoy your middle class tax increase, you suckas. We aren't ruling on whether this "thing" is sound policy and we aren't going to protect you from a President that broke his "not one, thin dime" pledge. 

Roberts legal reasoning is beyond flawed.  It just completely disregards established precedent:

The Court, in City of New York v. Feiring, 313 U.S. 283 (1941), established a test to be utilised in making the determination of whether an assessment is a tax or a penalty has been described as a four-part test incorporating the following criteria:

(1) an involuntary pecuniary burden, regardless of name, laid upon individuals or property; and,

(2) imposed by, or under authority of the legislature; and,

(3) for public purposes, including the purposes of defraying expenses of government or undertakings authorised by it; and,

(4) under the police or taxing power of the state.

The individual mandate is NOT a tax. How can the Court argue that paying premiums to a private corporation or being assessed a penalty for non-compliance are forms of taxation and analogous to the argument that the FDR administration relied upon (Taxing and Spending powers) when it argued for the constitutionality of Social Security. In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), the Court said that Congress had the authority to tax income to provide for Social Security BECAUSE IT WAS A TAX PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is not an arm of the Federal government; thus, paying premiums to it CANNOT be viewed as a form of taxation.

Obamacare: Do Not Resuscitate

Why? - Eurythmics

How many times do I have to try to tell you  

That I'm sorry for the things I've done 

But when I start to try to tell you  

That's when you have to tell me? 

Hey...this kind of trouble's only just begun I tell myself too many times 

Why don't you ever learn to keep your big mouth shut?

That's why it hurts so bad to hear the words 

That keep on falling from your mouth  

Falling from your mouth  

Falling from your mouth  

Tell me  

Why?

Why I may be mad I may be blind I may be viciously unkind? 

But I can still read what you're thinking  

And I've heard is said too many times  

That you're better off  

Besides...  

Why can't you see this boat is sinking?

  (This boat is sinking this boat is sinking)  

Let's go down to the water's edge  

And we can cast away those doubts 

Some things are better left unsaid 

But they still turn me inside out 

Turning inside out turning inside out 

Tell me... 

Why?

Tell me...  

Why?

This is the book I never read  

These are the words I never said  

This is the path I'll never tread  

These are the dreams I'll dream instead  

This is the joy that's seldom spread  

These are the tears...  

The tears we shed  

This is the fear 

This is the dread  

These are the contents of my head  

And these are the years that we have spent  

And this is what they represent 

And this is how I feel 

Do you know how I feel? 

'Cause I don't think you know how I feel  

I don't think you know how I feel 

I don't think you know how I feel  

You don't know what I feel