Thread: Individual Mandate has been struck down

Originally Posted by dregerk

And in 09/20/2009 on ABC OB1 told Stepnonopolis that this is NOT a Tax increase! Just on FOX News.....

As usual obummer lied again

Since it is a tax it can be changed or thrown out. So Romney can strike it down!

Originally Posted by kathyet

As usual obummer lied again

Since it is a tax it can be changed or thrown out. So Romney can strike it down!

I just wonder if he'll try to move away from this issue as quickly as possible given the Supreme Court basically made his RomneyCare equal to ObamaCare now. We couldn't have gotten to worse candidate to run up against Obama... wow...

I didn't vote for him so I don't feel bad about it.

Originally Posted by googler

I just wonder if he'll try to move away from this issue as quickly as possible given the Supreme Court basically made his RomneyCare equal to ObamaCare now. We couldn't have gotten to worse candidate to run up against Obama... wow...

I didn't vote for him so I don't feel bad about it.

Yea but were still stuck with them either way....flip side of the same coin.

Originally Posted by kathyet

Yea but were still stuck with them either way....flip side of the same coin.

I can either flip the coin and vote based on the outcome or just not vote at all.... Yea I think I know what I need to do to sleep well at night given no one is interested in doing more to get us out of this predicament.

Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don't even want

Thursday, June 28, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)



(NaturalNews) Regardless of whether you agree with the fundamentals of Obamacare, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled the federal government has the power to tax Americans into mandatory purchases of private industry products means an end to economic freedom in America. Why? Because it hands the federal government the power to force the American people to buy anything the government wants or face tax penalties for refusing to do so. It is the equivalent of announcing a federal monopoly over all private purchasing decisions.

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

Thus, the government can force Americans to buy anything it wants by simply characterizing the forced payment as a "tax."

Economic freedom crushed by Supreme Court
This article is not an argument so much about Obamacare itself, by the way; it's a red alert about a fundamental loss of economic freedom -- a shifting of private purchasing decisions to Washington D.C. Now, buoyed by the passage of Obamacare, the U.S. government can (and will) create new mandates that, for example, would force Americans to buy all the following:

• A new car each year from Detroit, in order to "boost the U.S. auto industry."
• War bonds to "support the war effort."
• A year's supply of vaccines.
• Life insurance from the government's "approved" sources.
• Lawn fertilizer (the "lawn health care mandate").
• Intellectual property such as patented human genes already in your body.

There is no limit to the reach of the Supreme Court's wild misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, it seems. So now, all Americans can expect to get ready for the federal government to start laying out a long list of products and services we will all be taxed into buying from the crony capitalist buddies of those in power.

Government hands economic monopoly to Big Pharma and the vaccine industry
Perhaps the worst side effect is that Obamacare isn't really about health care at all. It's about protecting a Big Pharma monopoly over medicine; forcing consumers to buy into a system that offers zero coverage for alternative medicine, nutritional therapies, natural remedies or the healing arts.

If Obamacare actually offered consumers a free market choice of where to get services, it would be a lot more balanced and effective. Instead, it forces consumers to buy into a system of monopoly medicine of drugs and surgery that would flat-out collapse if not for the monopolistic protections granted to the industry by the government itself.

If given a free choice, most consumers prefer complementary medicine than straight-up "drugs and surgery" medicine, but complementary medicine isn't covered under Obamacare. The law is really just another corrupt, criminal-minded handout to the drug industry. And now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can't even opt out!

Abuse of power by the federal government knows no bounds
That's the real kicker in all this: No more opting out of the private purchasing demands of the federal government! Americans are being pick-pocketed at an alarming rate, and it's only going to get worse now that this power has been unwisely handed to the federal government by a short-sighted Supreme Court.

Because long after Obama is gone, other Presidents -- from any political party -- will abuse this precedent to force Americans into buying any number of products, services, or even intellectual property that we don't want. There is now no limit to what the federal government can force you to buy by calling it a "tax."

Note, carefully, there is NO LIMIT to this "taxing" power. If you bring home a monthly paycheck of, for example, $3,000, the U.S. government can now mandate that you spend $2,999 of that on various products and services that it deems you must have "for your own protection." You no longer control your own take-home pay! The government can force you to spend it on things you don't want or even need!

America, it seems, is starting to sound a whole lot like England under King George. Soon, we'll be living under our own modern Stamp Act from 1765, which eventually led to the American Revolution. Learn your history! As Wikipedia explains: (Stamp Act 1765 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Stamp Act 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp. These printed materials were legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. Like previous taxes, the stamp tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in colonial paper money. The purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the Seven Years' War. The British government felt that the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of this military presence, and should pay at least a portion of the expense.

The Stamp Act met great resistance in the colonies. The colonies sent no representatives to Parliament, and therefore had no influence over what taxes were raised, how they were levied, or how they would be spent. Many colonists considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent -- consent that only the colonial legislatures could grant. Colonial assemblies sent petitions and protests. The Stamp Act Congress held in New York City, reflecting the first significant joint colonial response to any British measure, also petitioned Parliament and the King. Local protest groups, led by colonial merchants and landowners, established connections through correspondence that created a loose coalition that extended from New England to Georgia. Protests and demonstrations initiated by the Sons of Liberty often turned violent and destructive as the masses became involved. Very soon all stamp tax distributors were intimidated into resigning their commissions, and the tax was never effectively collected.

Opposition to the Stamp Act was not limited to the colonies. British merchants and manufacturers, whose exports to the colonies were threatened by colonial economic problems exacerbated by the tax, also pressured Parliament. The Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 as a matter of expedience, but Parliament affirmed its power to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever" by also passing the Declaratory Act. There followed a series of new taxes and regulations, likewise opposed by the colonists.

The episode played a major role in defining the grievances and enabling the organized colonial resistance that led to the American Revolution in 1775.


Stay informed! FREE subscription to the Health Ranger's email newsletter
Get breaking health news + a LIFETIME 7% discount on everything at the NaturalNews Store

Learn more: Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don't even want




Does the word re-peal sound about right??? Tax with no representation....

Originally Posted by googler

I just wonder if he'll try to move away from this issue as quickly as possible given the Supreme Court basically made his RomneyCare equal to ObamaCare now. We couldn't have gotten to worse candidate to run up against Obama... wow...

I didn't vote for him so I don't feel bad about it.

Have you already forgotten that Romney said he will repeal Obama Care?

Originally Posted by MW

Have you already forgotten that Romney said he will repeal Obama Care?

Oh right. Wonder how that will go during the debates when Obama uses RomneyCare against him in front of the American public. Would have been real nice to have a different candidate up against him to show the contrast...

Also, why couldn't Romney come out like this when Obama made his illegal alien policy change or when the Court struck down three of the provisions in Arizona's law? Strong, firm, and decisive.

5 Unelected Judges Seal the Fate and Future of 310 Million Americans
posted on June 28, 2012 by Gary DeMar


If Congress does not repeal ObamaCare, America will never be the same.

While the court’s healthcare decision was unconstitutional, illogical, and borderline insane, it wasn’t surprising or unexpected given past decisions.

Like John Roberts who voted with the four liberal members of the court to uphold the individual mandate, it was Justice Owen Roberts (1875-1955) who sided with the liberals to uphold FDR’s social welfare programs. “This sudden switch by Justice [Owen] Roberts was forever after referred to as ‘the switch in time that saved nine.’” John Robert’s vote puts him in equally bad company.

The court ruled decades ago that employees and employers could be forced to pay into a new system of wealth confiscation called Social Security. Many employees do not know that employers are forced to pay half of what they pay — 6.14 percent. Your employer is forced to pay for your retirement. If it’s OK for the government to force him to pay for something, then how can we argue that it’s wrong for the government to force us to pay for something?

In 1973, in the infamous Roe v. Wade pro-abortion decision, seven justices ruled that women could kill their pre-born babies. That’s 50+ million pre-born babies in 39 years. If it’s OK to kill pre-born babies, what’s wrong with a tax to force people to pay for healthcare?

Then there was the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London (2005) decision. The court ruled that it was constitutionally permissible for local governments to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. This ruling violated the eminent domain provision embedded in the Constitution. If it’s OK for the government to take your property because it needs more tax revenue, then what’s the problem in forcing people to get healthcare or be fined?

With the upholding of the individual mandate based on convoluted constitutional logic, John Locke’s life, liberty, and property protections have been wiped out by judicial fiat by five unelected judges.

Thy name is tyranny!

Who gets elected in November becomes all-important. Many people don’t like Romney, but at this point in time he’s our only hope in getting freedom-denying ObamaCare repealed. So let’s double down and get busy changing the face of Congress and sending Obama packing.

Read more: 5 Unelected Judges Seal the Fate and Future of 310 Million Americans - Godfather Politics

Adam Winkler Guest

Posted Thu, June 28th, 2012 12:01 pm
Email Adam
Bio & Post Archive »
The Roberts Court is Born

Adam Winkler is a constitutional law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

Today’s Supreme Court is often referred to as Anthony Kennedy’s Court. Although Kennedy is the swing justice who usually casts the deciding vote in close cases, the landmark ruling this week in the healthcare cases clearly mark the maturation of the “Roberts Court.”

Chief Justice John Roberts was the surprising swing vote in today’s Obamacare decision. Although he agreed with the four conservative justices, including Kennedy, that the individual mandate was not a regulation of interstate commerce, he voted with the Court’s moderates to hold that it was justified as a tax. Because people who don’t obtain insurance pay a tax to the IRS, the mandate was within Congress’s power to raise taxes for the general welfare. As a result, the Affordable Care Act was upheld.

With this deft ruling, Roberts avoided what was certain to be a cascade of criticism of the high court. No Supreme Court has struck down a president’s signature piece of legislation in over 75 years. Had Obamacare been voided, it would have inevitably led to charges of aggressive judicial activism. Roberts peered over the abyss and decided he didn’t want to go there.

Roberts’ decision was consistent with his confirmation hearings pledge to respect the co-equal branches of government, push for consensus, and reach narrow rulings designed to build broad coalitions on the Court. He promised to respect precedent. His jurisprudence, he said, would be marked by “modesty and humility” and protection of the precious institutional legitimacy of the Court.

Today, the institutional legitimacy of the Court was buttressed. President Obama wasn’t the only winner at the Supreme Court today. So was the Supreme Court itself.

Roberts’ humble move was a surprise only because his oft-stated concern for protecting the Court by avoiding bold rulings doesn’t always hold. Despite today’s decision, the Roberts Court is hardly conservative in the sense of cautious or avoiding bold rulings. In contrast to an older conservatism that emphasized judicial restraint, the Roberts Court is not hesitant to forcefully asserts its power.

Since John Roberts became Chief Justice in 2005, the Court has issued one landmark ruling after another. The Roberts Court gave us Citizens United, which struck down longstanding limits on corporate political spending. This Court also allowed new restrictions on women’s right to choose; became the first Supreme Court in American history to strike down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment; effectively outlawed voluntary efforts by public schools to racially integrate; and curtailed the reach of environmental protections.

In many of these decisions, the Roberts Court overturned or ignored precedent, including Rehnquist Court decisions less than a decade old. Prior to Citizens United, the Supreme Court had explicitly held in two cases that corporate political expenditures could be limited – the most recent of which was handed down in 2003. Six years before the Roberts Court upheld the federal ban on “partial birth” abortion, the Rehnquist Court, which wasn’t known for its liberal leanings, had overturned a nearly identical law.

Of course, the Roberts Court isn’t the first to overturn precedents and issue major rulings. Yet this Court has been uniquely willing to do so by sharply divided 5-4 majorities. The Warren Court’s Brown decision was famously 9-0. New York Times v. Sullivan, which freed up the media to discuss public figures, was decided by the same margin. Gideon v. Wainwright, on the constitutional right to counsel, and Loving v. Virginia, invaliding bans on interracial marriage, were also unanimous. Even Roe v. Wade was decided by an overwhelming 7-2 vote.

Perhaps as a result of the Roberts’ Court’s controversial 5-4 rulings, public opinion of the Court is at an historic low. Even after controversial rulings like Roe and Bush v. Gore, the Court still maintained high levels of public respect. But unlike the Warren Court, whose landmark rulings, though classified as “liberal,” didn’t match up with the platform of the Democratic Party – southern Democrats were the biggest opponents of Brown – its hard to ignore the consistent fit between the Roberts Court’s rulings and the Republican agenda.

Maybe that’s why recent polls show the Court’s public approval rating has dropped from over 80% in the 1990s to only 44% today. Three in four Americans now believe the justices’ votes are based on politics. Nothing could be worse for the Court’s institutional legitimacy.

Roberts may have voted to save healthcare because he wants to preserve the Court’s capital to take on other big issues heading toward the Court. Legal experts predict the Roberts Court will invalidate a key provision of one of the most important laws in American history, the Voting Rights Act, next term. And the Court is set to end affirmative action in public education. Both policies have been centerpieces of America’s commitment to civil rights for over forty years.

The Roberts Court has only just begun.

Posted in Post-decision Health Care Symposium

Recommended Citation: Adam Winkler, The Roberts Court is Born, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 28, 2012, 12:01 PM), The Roberts Court is Born : SCOTUSblog





The Roberts Court is Born : SCOTUSblog

Obama basks in the glow of court victory
By Amie Parnes and Jonathan Easley - 06/28/12 12:43 PM ET

Basking in an enormous political triumph, President Obama on Thursday hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the healthcare law as “a victory for people all over this country.”

Declaring that the “highest court in the land has now spoken,” Obama said the 5-4 decision by the high court reaffirmed a fundamental principle that “no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.”

The stunning news provided a much-needed boost for the White House ahead of an election that many expect will go down to the wire. White House aides said the decision — brought with the help of the unlikely ally Chief Justice John Roberts — reaffirmed their long-held belief that the law was constitutional.

Speaking in the East Room a little more than two hours after the decision came down, Obama acknowledged talk about the decision will center on “who won and who lost,” but said that “completely misses the point."

While he conceded that the debate over the health law has been “divisive,” he reiterated once again that he didn’t pursue the law because it was “good politics.”

“I did it because I believed it was good for the country,” he said.

Obama strongly defended the mandate to have insurance, which the Supreme Court upheld under Congress' power to levy taxes, and jabbed at GOP rival Mitt Romney for signing a law as governor that included a similar requirement.

“People who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance,” Obama said, noting the mandate had previously enjoyed support from both parties, “including the current Republican nominee for president.”

A few minutes before Obama spoke, Romney vowed to act to repeal the law as president, calling it a “job killer.”

“What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States,” Romney said in Washington while standing against a backdrop of the Capitol dome. “What the court did today was say that ObamaCare does not violate the constitution. What they did not do was say that ObamaCare is good law or that it’s good policy.”

“ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today,” Romney added. “ObamaCare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.”

The Obama campaign returned fire, accusing Romney of attacking a law that he helped set the model for as governor of Massachusetts.

“Romney has run away from his accomplishment in Massachusetts, callously promising to repeal national reform and 'kill it dead,' " Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement. “He owes the American people a clear, non-parsed explanation of why he believes his decisions in Massachusetts are wrong for the country, and exactly what he would do to help the American people get the healthcare they need.”

White House aides were careful not to spike the football, though they expressed confidence it would help propel Obama to a second term.

“We said it was constitutional and we were right,” one White House aide said. “That’s all there is.”

One former senior administration official added that the decision — which many believed was unlikely to go in their favor — is exactly what the Obama campaign needed as the president gears up for the fall campaign.

“This is exactly the boost of confidence that the president needs,” the former senior administration official said.

The former official predicted that the high court’s decision would “change the polling” about the law.

“This has always been about getting the independents, and I think if you’ve got John Roberts saying this is constitutional, that will provide a huge sustained gust of wind in the sails of the campaign,” the former official said.

As the decision came down Thursday, some White House staffers gathered in press secretary Jay Carney's office with the door closed in what aides quipped was their "war room." The press office was virtually deserted as people awaited word on the Supreme Court’s decision.

Obama had been scheduled to be in the Oval Office when the decision came down. But a few White House reporters were temporarily held near Carney's office as Obama apparently made his way from the residence to the West Wing.

It was unclear how Obama received the news of the ruling.

During his remarks, Obama vowed to work together to improve upon the law. But, even as the House threatened to repeal the law on Thursday, he said the nation can’t afford to “refight the political battles” from two years ago.

Instead, he urged lawmakers to focus on the economy, which he called, the “most urgent challenge of our time”

"It's time for us to move forward,” he said. "Today, I'm as confident as ever, that when we look back 5 years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years now, we'll be better off."
— This story was last updated at 1:39 p.m.

Obama basks in the glow of court victory - TheHill.com