Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:32 pm

If it somehow survives its unconstitutional origination as a tax in the Senate, I believe that as a tax it only requires a simple majority vote in the Senate to repeal it. Not a super-majority.

But with the number of RINO's on board, even if the Republicans win a simple majority of the seats in the Senate, there is a very high liklihood that they will have several fence jumpers when it comes time to vote.

rberq · By: **rberq** On: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:10 pm

lsayre wrote:If it somehow survives its unconstitutional origination as a tax in the Senate...

Who would have guessed that a forum on coal burning would have more constitutional scholars than all the law schools in the country combined?

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:19 pm

rberq wrote:
lsayre wrote:If it somehow survives its unconstitutional origination as a tax in the Senate...

Who would have guessed that a forum on coal burning would have more constitutional scholars than all the law schools in the country combined?

How do you read Article 1, Section 7?

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:28 pm

Since I don't have a big print copy I have to put a pair of reading glasses on, a few years back I could read just fine without. Why do you ask? :oops:

rberq · By: **rberq** On: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:39 pm

lsayre wrote:
rberq wrote:
lsayre wrote:If it somehow survives its unconstitutional origination as a tax in the Senate...
Who would have guessed that a forum on coal burning would have more constitutional scholars than all the law schools in the country combined?

How do you read Article 1, Section 7?

I will defer to experts other than those I find here. You are welcome to petition SCOTUS and point out to them their errors. You will find them gracious and thankful for your assistance.

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Perhaps the so-called experts have lived with the idea of a "living Constitution" for so long that they fail to see the simplicity and founding intent of Article 1, Section 7. There are so few words. The experts are probably better at determining for us the intent of 1,200 plus page bills that Congress votes on without reading.

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:18 pm

Heck & here I was thinking that this was a law that was passed by both houses & signed by the Pres. then some lawyers, judges & such (even if not as knowledgeable as our own NEPA panel) but none the less able to use tax money to take it before the SCOTUS. Then they after much more tax money found it to be Constitutional, call it a tax, penalty, fee or whatever it is now the law but then again who am I to say, lets spend even more tax money to be able to avoid really doing what they are paid to do & run the damn country already & this time not into the ground. :roll:

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:21 pm

rberq wrote:
lsayre wrote:If it somehow survives its unconstitutional origination as a tax in the Senate...

Who would have guessed that a forum on coal burning would have more constitutional scholars than all the law schools in the country combined?

Because they don't teach the constitution in law school.

They teach the history of legal decisions and precedent so they can "legally" get around the constitution.

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:40 am

samhill wrote:Heck & here I was thinking that this was a law that was passed by both houses & signed by the Pres. then some lawyers, judges & such (even if not as knowledgeable as our own NEPA panel) but none the less able to use tax money to take it before the SCOTUS. Then they after much more tax money found it to be Constitutional, call it a tax, penalty, fee or whatever it is now the law but then again who am I to say, lets spend even more tax money to be able to avoid really doing what they are paid to do & run the damn country already & this time not into the ground.

Just as for all bills, the Obamacare bill was passed by both houses and then signed into law by the President, but for those bills that extract money from the people, they must always originate in the House Of Representatives, and this one did not.

The way the Constitution was originally set up the House Of Representateves (whom the people elected) represented the people, and the Senate represented only the interests of the States (who appointed them to their Senate positions, as they were not elected).

Only Amendments can change the Constitution, and again I must emphasise that there is no amendment repealing Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution.

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:45 am

jpete wrote:They teach the history of legal decisions and precedent so they can "legally" get around the constitution.

Though I often can't agree with some of your posts wholly, you do have a tendency to really get it right on many occasions.

Though our NEPA constitutional scholars are expert on common sense and understanding the plain language our Constitution is written in, they fail miserably when it comes to niggling and parsing the language as seems to be required today.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:34 pm

franco b wrote:
jpete wrote:They teach the history of legal decisions and precedent so they can "legally" get around the constitution.

Though I often can't agree with some of your posts wholly, you do have a tendency to really get it right on many occasions.

Though our NEPA constitutional scholars are expert on common sense and understanding the plain language our Constitution is written in, they fail miserably when it comes to niggling and parsing the language as seems to be required today.

That just says we need more coal burners in office.

Dann757 · By: **Dann757** On: Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:11 pm

jpete wrote:That just says we need more coal burners in office.

HAHAHA they are already burning the midnight oil anyway.....

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07 ... matax-law/

Ed.A · By: **Ed.A** On: Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:33 pm

jpete wrote:.

That just says we need more coal burners in office.

[/quote]

Sadly....our Commander inn Chief is more inclined to kill our Domestic Energy supplies. And M's Nance Pelosi and her babies will just tag along.

rberq · By: **rberq** On: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:42 pm

Ed.A wrote:Sadly....our Commander in Chief is more inclined to kill our Domestic Energy supplies.

You must mean Commanders in Chief Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush. US domestic crude oil production has been increasing each year since President Obama was elected. Prior to that it fell steadily ever since 1985. The reality is, we can't blame or credit any of these CICs for production levels. So if I don't blame the last three GOP guys for lower production, how about you don't say silly things about President Obama?

Good graph and chart here:
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?c ... production

KLook · By: **KLook** On: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:01 pm

domestic production fell because of lower prices for crude. why drill or produce when the price is lower from foreign sources? You think there is only one reason for prices to be what they are? I worked in the oil fields back in the early 80's and they had the wells choked because of cheap foreign oil. why sell for nothing?

Kevin

Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Re: Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court