201 votes

Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?

Ben Swann Reality Check breaks down the Affordable Care Act ruling by the Supreme Court and looks at why the determination that the law is a tax may make it invalid

http://youtu.be/iyLU9-VqVxY

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Is Obamacare the "Law of the Land"???

Received the following email from a great liberty loving organization:

"The establishment media, and conservative news sources are reporting that five justices of the United States Supreme Court made Obamacare the “law of the Land.” BUT DID THEY REALLY DO THAT?

Or are such rulings, like the Federal Reserve Note “Dollars,” only valid if you believe they are?

To understand what validity these rulings actually have, take a few minutes to read this 39 page booklet on the subject, what you find out may surprise you!!"

www.libertyworksradionetwork.com/jml/administrator/component...

Lock and load.... Period...

Lock and load.... Period...

great attitude

... lousy plan. Try the Ghandi way, they have no defense for this

Peaceful resistance and

Peaceful resistance and passive-aggressive behavior are both reasonably effective.

Multiple problems with Ben's Arguments

The Senate took up H.R. 3590, which was a tax bill passed by the House already, gutted it completely, inserted Obamacare and used that as their vehicle to secure passage in the Senate. A1S7 of the Constitution allows the Senate to propose "Amendments" to revenue bills originated in the House. So what Reid and the Dems did was make a big fricking "Amendment" to H.R. 3590, and voila, no more problems with the Origination clause.

Its a big F.U. to the spirit of the Origination clause, which obviously could not be construed to allow for such chicanery by any sane human being. Unfortunately our "rulers" are insane, particularly the Supremes, who can somehow view the Individual Mandate as a tax and not a tax simultaneously, to get around the Tax Anti-Injunction Act and yet uphold the Mandate as a tax. I mean, if they're brazen and crazy enough to pull that kind of BS, you can forget about a case centered around the Origination clause getting anywhere.

The fact is the Supreme Court is banker and big pharma bought, paid for, and owned just like Congress and the President. I strongly believe the whole thing was orchestrated to make it look like they were going to strike this thing down to keep the public's attention off it, and then drop the decision on us like a ton of bricks before a strong resistance movement could be built up. I dunno whether Roberts got a phone call threatening his life or offering a big bribe or what, but with trillions of dollars at stake, there's just no way the bench was not going to be manipulated somehow to get the favored outcome for the establishment.

Our country is so far gone at this point, that its like tragedy of the commons at lightspeed. Everyone's trying to loot the treasury and steal everything possible before the whole thing goes tits up. That's where we're at now. Its like the final years of Enron. Go see "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" documentary. Watch what the rouge traders did to extract money out of the public. That's what's going on now, except now its the entire banking sector and government.

I figure that

the planet has about 6 to 12 months. And the elite know it, but don't want us to know. They will steal everything that isn't bolted down (and some of that too) then duck into their DUMBS (deep underground military bases - and they do exist) to avoid the chaos. Hey elites - it ain't gonna work - wait till the quakes hit your shelters!

Leslie fish did a song on that.

Leslie fish did a song on that.

It's a work-song set in an after-the-bomb scenario. It's from the viewpoint of the descendants of the ordinary people, who rode out the nuclear war and nuclear winter and survived (with high mutation rates and a fall back to an agricultural, pre-industrial, medieval civilization).

They have a religion that says the golden age ended in a fiery apocalypse caused by "the demons" who once ruled the world, brought it down, went underground, and intend to eventually come out and rule again. To prevent this, these people spend a month or two a year piling rocks on top of the entrances to the underground shelters. As of the song's time they have small mountains built over the sites in question and are still piling them higher.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Yeah, it's called ''The Digwell Carol''

...the chorus of which goes:

Pile high, pile high, the devil's underground.
Pile high, pile high, keep the devil down.

For my own part, I tend to stick with "Black Powder and Alcohol."

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." [H.L. Mencken]

This "deemed to pass" bullshit has to stop. Every

Congresscritter who is guilty of "deeming" a bill to pass, should be tried for TREASON. They are giving our enemies MATERIAL aid and comfort by "deeming" laws which never passed as "if" they had. This is in direct violation of all parliamentary procedure, our Constitution, and is a direct and existential threat to the survival of the nation.

Every single one of them belongs in PRISON.

I wonder if this monstrosity

I wonder if this monstrosity could also be attacked on religious grounds. By mandating the purchase of medical insurance, is the government forcing individuals to financially support abortion?

I believe YES

remember it was in the bill but Obama pledge to not allow it. so we know how that will work out.

So then...

in this context, Roberts' decision was purely a political one! He did not want to take a side right before an election... Shall we say "Pass the buck"?! Until after the election to see where the dice fall...

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

4th of July Freedom Money Bomb!!

Please help out and make a donation to the liberty candidate running against St Charles, MO caucus hijacker Euegene Dokes!!!

https://fundly.com/holyfieldforhouse?preview=true

UPDATE: The IRS cannot attach your assets for non-payment

of the health tax. HOWEVER---

They
CAN
ATTACH
THE
ACCUMULATING
PENALTIES
ON THE
TAX! This means they can go after you for the PENALTIES on your unpaid tax and criminalize this.

WE ARE SCREWED.

SequoiaTrees4RonPaul

I had a horrendous nightmare

I had a horrendous nightmare last night that I was stranded somewhere in Russia without any money... And then I woke up and realized I was metaphorically already there. This is an absolutely true story.

So here's the answer: jack up your exemptions on your

tax witholding sheet and voila...no taxes will be withheld. During the year, you, yourself save enough money to pay any future tax. When the time comes, you pay the tax.

Since they can only get the penalty out out of a refund due to you, you keep your money.

SequoiaTrees4RonPaul

Here's an extreme response

Here's an extreme response only for those can afford it...

Earn less money. Especially if you are single and self-employed. Drop your income to a level where you can just pay your bills and nothing else.

That's just about where I am.

Peace by Poverty

Is the more extreme version of this. Better to be wealthy in oneself, go homestead, drop off the grid. Learn to be independently sustaining a good lifestyle for yourself and others without using much money. Accomplishing this is about the most effective protest vote I've seen.

I've done as you sugest for decades, if at first some-what unintentionally. However, approaching middle-age, with no property, no substantial savings, and no insurance, I did not complain too much when offered a raise. Sometimes it takes some money to get someplace, and I'd like to move toward my own homestead.

I also cary no debt now but have excellent credit.

On topic of health "mandate"

Looking at the system put in place in MA is a reasonable starting point for understanding the short term effects of this legislation on the population. Interestingly, there are reports that the system has encouraged quality of care over quantity. The numbers of un-insured appeared to go down at first, then returned to around 7% uninsured, about half of them are claimed to be living and/or working in the state illegally, and pay their own way with out of state doctors, if at all.

Yeah....I know whatcha mean! Also, try to convert into

things where any income or capital appreciation is at a more desireable tax rate than self-employed income. By changing to an S corp, it is possble to save on self-employment tax...like cut it in half for incomes that are not real high. And rental income is good as long as you don't say it is a business. No self-employment tax there either.

SequoiaTrees4RonPaul

It DID Originate in the House

Unfortunately, the Dems saw this coming. Harry Reid took a random House Bill (I don't remember the H.R. Number) that had something to do with tax deductions for military homeowners. Reid then stripped everything out of the bill, making it a "shell bill".

He then changed the name to ACA and added the text for Obamacare. Very shaddy, but it has been done before and means that ACA DID technically originate in the House.

yeah

the Senate took H.R. 3590 (originally "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes"), renamed it completely rewrote it to be something completely else than the original bill and passed there as ACA just before Christmass on December 24 2009 (just the date intimately reminds the Federal Reserve Act passing).
This really looks like very sinister way of technical circumventing of the art. 1/7. Commies usually use this sneaky ways.

Harry Reid and Pelosi are two

Harry Reid and Pelosi are two of the biggest traitors since Benedict Arnold. I wish Obamacare on them for the rest of their years.

Tanning beds

When Ben mentions tanning beds it got me thinking about all the ways government could monitor our health, our lives to protect their investments (i.e. us as their "insured"). Imagine all that legislation...

When The Solicitor General Argued It Was A Tax...

Did opposing counsel point out that it did not originate in the House as required by the Constitution? If not, they really messed up.

How could Roberts have missed this?

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

maybe Roberts realized this?

Roberts did say that as a tax it would have to be brought before the supreme court after the tax goes into effect. The problem, of course, would be getting the case before them a second time and going through all of this again.

Nice, but as we all on here

Nice, but as we all on here know, reality is totally turned upside down and legality and legitimacy have nothing at all to do with how things are operating in government and big business. It seems every day turns up something shocking and unbelievable to us peons and something must be done about it...but not only does nothing change, but it appears to be getting worse at rocket speed. From what I see, its not that people don't care (not that there aren't a whole lot of just plain ignoramuses out there that wouldn't care even if they knew what was going on besides their gossip celebrities) but I think those that care are actually feeling a bit scared to voice any concern and put there neck out and get on a list of one sort or another. Its quite a bit like the USSR now but we somehow still think we are free and that the "Constitution" is going to protect us somehow. Constitution Shmonstitution - its only a high falutin' piece of paper if they aren't going to follow it.

I guess we really gotta wait for the financial collapse if things are going to get back to sanity unless the alien ship lands and rescues us normal people.

RON PAUL Speaks...THE LAWSUIT - New Video

http://youtu.be/dep42yFfNzw

Can the Daily Paul help and feature this?

Ian Snow Carpenter

The Real Issue: Authority "Not Delegated" to Federal Government

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

James Madison: "...If that "latitude" of "CONSTRUCTION" which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause", there "would" be room for those "HORRORS".

But it gives NO SUPPLEMENTARY power. It "ONLY" enables them to execute the "DELEGATED powers". "If" the "DELEGATION" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "BUT" explanatory."

Mr. GEORGE MASON. "Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained? Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and "suppose" that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "THIS" government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "THOSE" powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE",

and under their >>>"OWN" >>>"CONSTRUCTION", say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?

Would they not "extend" their implication? It appears to me that they MAY and >>>"WILL".

And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare (APP Note: Defense against "Foreign" aggression) of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to ALL powers which are NOT granted, that they are retained by the states.

Otherwise, the power of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE" may be "PERVERTED TO ITS DESTRUCTION"."

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the GENERAL WELFARE, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it ONLY EMPOWERED CONGRESS TO MAKE SUCH LAWS as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public DEBTS and provide for the common defence; > that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, >>>"NOT" to "the general power of legislation", but to the >PARTICULAR power> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, >>>FOR THE "PURPOSE" of paying the "DEBTS" and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE", that is, that they could raise (APP: ONLY) AS MUCH MONEY as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", in >>>"CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER" .

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers, the "JUDICIARY" WILL DECLARE it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID"...

If I understand it right, NO "new" power can be exercised."

----------

When you understand the federal government CANNOT (any part), NOR the states THEMSELVES, ARROGATE "ANY" NEW power upon the federal government for them to exercise, outside the very "LIMITED" delegated powers granted them;

...and that includes ratifying (created to make changes ONLY WITHIN THE DELEGATED POWERS) and amendment process (created ONLY to make changes in which to PROTECT your rights);

Then you will understand the issues at hand.

Unenumerated taxation is an "arrogated" power; Undelegated powers NOT granted in the "ORIGINAL COMPACT" are "arrogated" powers.

American Patriot Party
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Debbie's picture

Ben Swann - Brilliant!!

I hope it gets challenged legally on this point at least by the states!!

Debbie