You know what that gloating hag Pelosi said after the Supreme Court decision? “We made history.”
Yeah, well if that’s true, then my dog just made history on the living room rug.
19 Comments
Maybe someone can clear this up for me.
Did the SCOTUS ruling uphold obamacare, knock it down (for the reason below), or give us a new reason to challenge it again?
I ask, because the reason the democrats were allowed to originate the bill in the senate was because they claimed that it was not a revenue(tax) bill. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled it a tax, it violates Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the constitution (all revenue(tax) bills must originate in the house).
I think this is conclusive proof Obama is a douchebag:
(I know I’m preaching to the choir)
First off, Roberts stated the law is constitutional only as a tax, but Obama’s continued insistence it is not a tax means, at the very least, that from Obama’s perspective the law should be unconstitutional. But he’s going to continue to say it’s not a tax (thus unconstitutional) and enforce it anyway since the court can’t change its ruling now, and he knows it. He has no problem consciously enforcing a law he knows is essentially unconstitutional -because he can get away with it.
Moreover, this is spiking the ball, and spiking the ball hard, on John Roberts -the guy who cast the deciding vote- by contradicting his key argument for its constitutionality. It’s about as in-your-face as you can get.
In other words-
Obama: “Nya nya; the law is not constitutional but you said it was. You can’t do anything now. No taksies-backsies!”
Any other President would have the decency to bite the bullet on this one point, accept the victory and move on. But not Obama.
What a classy guy!
Pelosi (the ‘Catholic’) also claims Ted Kennedy can now rest in piece…..wow, so wrecking the economy and creating a welfare state etc etc AND murdering someone gets you into Heaven now? Who knew? The bar really has been lowered.
And what next for Roberts, will he go into full lib mode with new readings of the 2nd amendment?
“You see, the words ‘keep and bear arms’ could just refer to your bodily limbs”, and it’s certainly
within the Congress’ right to ban them, or at least tax them heavily. Now, how are you going to
hold a gun without arms? Oh, and you can’t anyone with nuclear arms.”
Pelosi: “We made history.” So did Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin, and on and on. Just because you made history, doesn’t mean it was a good thing; and this was not a good thing. Perhaps we can make history in November by making the first Communist President a one term president, and repeal that 2700 page monstrosity that should have been aborted instead of seeing the light of day. Then, perhaps Congress can propose an amendment to the Constitution properly curtailing federal power to twist the commerce clause to mean anything they want, and perhaps another one that removes the federal government power to dictate behavior to people.
As an amendment, the Constitution could use a limitation on the taxing power that forbids congress for taxing the lack of an activity. Not sure how you’d phrase that. Maybe say “no taxation as a penalty”, or “no punitive taxation”?
Havey, Keln, how about an amendment that establishes a flat rate income tax from dollar one, wherein Congress may not establish a floor below which citizens are not taxed, may not increase the tax rate without a 2/3 majority in both houses, followed by a vote of the registered voters where a non-vote is counted as a “no” vote, and neither house of Congress may neither establish or mandate any other tax, nor may they institute a graduated income tax, nor may they mandate citizens purchase any particular good or service.
Next amendment: they must have a balanced budget with the following priorities: Defense, Service of the National Debt, including enough principle to pay off the National Debt in 30 years, Entitlements, federal payroll. If no budget is passed on schedule, all federal employees, except military personel, are placed on immediate unpaid furlough until such budget is passed. All pensions for Congress and the President are null and void, and no new pension for those offices may be instituted. Pay scale for elected and appointed government officials will be: national median income for Representatives, federal judges, U.S. Attornes, and Cabinet Officials, 10% above national median income for Senators and Supreme Court Justices, and 15% above national median income for President. Any persons appointed to the position now commonly called “Czars” will be paid out of the President’s salary. The only way Congress can alter this pay structure will be by a 2/3 majority vote by both Houses of Congress and must be approved by a majority vote of all registered voters. A non-vote will count as a “no” vote.
“no punitive tax” might actually be a way to get a flat tax. Anything else is punitive to someone. Progressive tax? Punitive to rich people. Medical deduction? Punitive to healthy people.
National sales tax. You buy, you pay. You save, you don’t.
Legislators selected from a pool of registered voters, much like jury selection, qualified
by a minimum IQ test and a criminal, drug, and morals background check. Your compensation
to be the same as your civilian job.
Federal government = defense, border protection, veterans services , true entitlements, (meaning
you are entitled because you paid in).
All else to be the State’s business. If you don’t like your state, move.
Maybe someone can clear this up for me.
Did the SCOTUS ruling uphold obamacare, knock it down (for the reason below), or give us a new reason to challenge it again?
I ask, because the reason the democrats were allowed to originate the bill in the senate was because they claimed that it was not a revenue(tax) bill. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled it a tax, it violates Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the constitution (all revenue(tax) bills must originate in the house).
Nefarious technicalities abound, Russ! Reid used a “shell bill” to explicitly get around that. Say, doesn’t the Constitution require tax bills to originate in the House? by Allahpundit
I think this is conclusive proof Obama is a douchebag:
(I know I’m preaching to the choir)
First off, Roberts stated the law is constitutional only as a tax, but Obama’s continued insistence it is not a tax means, at the very least, that from Obama’s perspective the law should be unconstitutional. But he’s going to continue to say it’s not a tax (thus unconstitutional) and enforce it anyway since the court can’t change its ruling now, and he knows it. He has no problem consciously enforcing a law he knows is essentially unconstitutional -because he can get away with it.
Moreover, this is spiking the ball, and spiking the ball hard, on John Roberts -the guy who cast the deciding vote- by contradicting his key argument for its constitutionality. It’s about as in-your-face as you can get.
In other words-
Obama: “Nya nya; the law is not constitutional but you said it was. You can’t do anything now. No taksies-backsies!”
Any other President would have the decency to bite the bullet on this one point, accept the victory and move on. But not Obama.
What a classy guy!
Pelosi (the ‘Catholic’) also claims Ted Kennedy can now rest in piece…..wow, so wrecking the economy and creating a welfare state etc etc AND murdering someone gets you into Heaven now? Who knew? The bar really has been lowered.
Hitler made history too…….
peace* or pieces……or…rot in Hell
So, now what? Do we blame Bush, for appointing Roberts, or will Democrats start to thank Bush, for appointing Roberts?
for the first time ever, i agree with the libs. i blame bush.
And what next for Roberts, will he go into full lib mode with new readings of the 2nd amendment?
“You see, the words ‘keep and bear arms’ could just refer to your bodily limbs”, and it’s certainly
within the Congress’ right to ban them, or at least tax them heavily. Now, how are you going to
hold a gun without arms? Oh, and you can’t anyone with nuclear arms.”
Damnit, should have read; “you can’t hug anyone with nuclear arms.” Joke ruined.
Pelosi: “We made history.” So did Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin, and on and on. Just because you made history, doesn’t mean it was a good thing; and this was not a good thing. Perhaps we can make history in November by making the first Communist President a one term president, and repeal that 2700 page monstrosity that should have been aborted instead of seeing the light of day. Then, perhaps Congress can propose an amendment to the Constitution properly curtailing federal power to twist the commerce clause to mean anything they want, and perhaps another one that removes the federal government power to dictate behavior to people.
As an amendment, the Constitution could use a limitation on the taxing power that forbids congress for taxing the lack of an activity. Not sure how you’d phrase that. Maybe say “no taxation as a penalty”, or “no punitive taxation”?
Hitler made history too.
No punitive taxation has a nice ring to it. I’d go with that.
Havey, Keln, how about an amendment that establishes a flat rate income tax from dollar one, wherein Congress may not establish a floor below which citizens are not taxed, may not increase the tax rate without a 2/3 majority in both houses, followed by a vote of the registered voters where a non-vote is counted as a “no” vote, and neither house of Congress may neither establish or mandate any other tax, nor may they institute a graduated income tax, nor may they mandate citizens purchase any particular good or service.
Next amendment: they must have a balanced budget with the following priorities: Defense, Service of the National Debt, including enough principle to pay off the National Debt in 30 years, Entitlements, federal payroll. If no budget is passed on schedule, all federal employees, except military personel, are placed on immediate unpaid furlough until such budget is passed. All pensions for Congress and the President are null and void, and no new pension for those offices may be instituted. Pay scale for elected and appointed government officials will be: national median income for Representatives, federal judges, U.S. Attornes, and Cabinet Officials, 10% above national median income for Senators and Supreme Court Justices, and 15% above national median income for President. Any persons appointed to the position now commonly called “Czars” will be paid out of the President’s salary. The only way Congress can alter this pay structure will be by a 2/3 majority vote by both Houses of Congress and must be approved by a majority vote of all registered voters. A non-vote will count as a “no” vote.
Needs to be simpler.
I’d be happy with a 2/3 supermajority to pass a tax increase.
“no punitive tax” might actually be a way to get a flat tax. Anything else is punitive to someone. Progressive tax? Punitive to rich people. Medical deduction? Punitive to healthy people.
National sales tax. You buy, you pay. You save, you don’t.
Legislators selected from a pool of registered voters, much like jury selection, qualified
by a minimum IQ test and a criminal, drug, and morals background check. Your compensation
to be the same as your civilian job.
Federal government = defense, border protection, veterans services , true entitlements, (meaning
you are entitled because you paid in).
All else to be the State’s business. If you don’t like your state, move.
ITC – can’t agree with entitlements. I don’t see a reason for the government to be running any sort of investment service, mandatory or voluntary.