UPDATED REPORT: “CONSTITUTIONAL AS A TAX”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 28, 2012) — The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was announced shortly after 10:05 a.m. EDT.
At issue was whether or not the “individual mandate” contained in the bill is constitutional, and it was originally reported that the high court found that it is not and that it is.
One of the provisions of the law was that by the year 2014, people without health insurance will be fined.
Two federal appeals courts ruled that the bill was constitutional last year. One appellate court has ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
There was no definitive news here at 10:33 a.m. EDT. At 10:37 a.m., there is. The bill has been upheld as constitutional if the individual mandate is considered a “tax.”
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stated that part of the bill was constitutional and another part is not.
House Republicans have stated that they would repeal the law if it were upheld, as has Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Speaker of the House John Boehner has released the following statement:
“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare.”
This is very interesting. If you read the court decision, they declare that the individual mandate is unconstitutional since they state that Congress has no authority to force you to buy insurance, but then they say that it might be constitutional if the penalty for not buying something that the government does not have the authority to require you to buy is considered a “tax”. SAY WHAT?????
This puts the argument of Obama’s eligibility and Congresses legitimacy front and center as a tax issue where it belongs. I have long argued that the only injury for standing in a court of law due to Obama not being a natural born citizen is TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. By declaring that Congress cannot force you to buy insurance, and that any penalty for not buying insurance is an indirect TAX, now the argument of TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION is the avenue for standing that is brought into light by the court that will expose the fraud Obama and the illegitimate Congress who has installed an unconstitutional dictatorship and are forcing non-laws and illegitimate taxes on We the People.
In order to lay an indirect tax on We the People, the Congress must obtain the consent of the People. Our Congress gave away their ability to obtain our consent when they decided to abandon the nbC clause of Article II and install a non-representative President who is not constitutional authorized to hold the office. This is fatal to Congress because they cannot have a legitimate process of passing bills and taxes if they do not have a valid President. Since they have installed a non-nbC President in violation of the Constitution, Congress no longer is a representative body and has no authority to pass any laws or create any taxes whatever, until they correct the unlawful process of presenting bills to an illegitimate President. In effect, Congress has rendered themselves to be a non-representative body because they cannot pass any legitimate laws or taxes. You vote for them but they are representatives in name only, representatives who have no power to make any laws by their own unlawful actions since they cannot obtain consent with an invalid President. They themselves, through their own actions, have taken away their own power to make valid laws or valid taxes by their refusal to enforce Article II nbC clause which was designed to insure that the consent of the People for the laws and taxes that are passed, has been obtained. They are actually now a House of Lords who are lording it over the People. They have installed a king all without lawful authority and are now dictating and imposing unlawful taxes upon people that they are not now constitutionally capable of receiving the consent from for those laws or taxes. This is called TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION which is involuntary servitude (fancy name for slavery) in violation of the 13 Amendment and most State constitutions.
In order to lay an indirect tax on a person, that person must consent to receive some taxable privilege or be engaged in a taxable activity. How does not buying insurance, when one is not required to, or can be compelled to according to the court today, how does that constitute receiving a privilege or being engaged in a taxable activity when by definition it is no activity according to the court? By the court’s own argument today, such a tax would be unconstitutional. Our tax system, (indirect taxes only), is based on voluntary consent by voluntarily consenting to receive some privilege or voluntarily engaging in some activity that is taxable. By attempting to lay a TAX on those of us who refuse to buy insurance because we are not required to, nor can be compelled to according to the court, and because we refuse to accept Obama as a legitimate President since he was not born to a citizen father as required by Article II nbC clause, the government is unlawfully laying a tax without consent in two ways. The tax is unlawful because not buying insurance is not consent to receive a taxable privilege or be engaged in a taxable activity therefore there is nothing to tax. Second, the laying of a tax by an unconstitutional President and non-representative, illegitimate, Congress who cannot claim to have lawfully obtained the consent of the People since they only exercised THEIR will to install an unqualified President, and not the will of ALL of the People as directed in Article II, is Taxation Without Representation. Both unlawful schemes to tax are involuntary servitude which is slavery, a violation of the 13th Amendment and a violation of most State constitutions. It is also a tax imposed by the majority upon the minority (those who lost the election by voting for someone other than Obama) which further addresses federal standing. Now you have injury and it only affects a minority of the people. Now you have met federal standing rules.
I for one am very happy with the ruling by the court because it sets the stage to totally defeat Obamacare and also expose the fraud Congress and Obama who is not a natural born citizen since he was not born to a citizen father as required by the Laws of Nature (Natural Law) that define the term in Article II “natural born Citizen”. Now the argument will be against the IRS for unlawful taxation and involuntary servitude which is the proper injury that forces standing in the courts to expose the illegitimate President and Congress. This is the argument that has been missing all along in over 100 cases that have been dismissed for failing to state a valid injury since none of these cases against Obama so far have stated taxation without representation or included the IRS. Now you will be forced to. I have been trying to explain and argue to all who would listen that the case against Obama is one of Taxation Without Representation or lawful consent to the laws and taxes not being obtained. Now the Supreme Court has forced you into the arena that I have been explaining all along. I feel vindicated by this ruling today.
Dear Jedi,
In a normal world you argument would hold water, but the truth of the matter is that the person who was found to have the most money BY FAR in the Vatican Slush Fund is none other than the Chief Justice himself, Roberts. His thirty pieces of silver is more in the neighborhood of a billion, so to expect the “justice” as you, or any of us, would envision would only be possible of we offered Roberts MORE than a billion, untraceable, in a yet to be discovered slush fund, maybe in Panama or Liechtenstein.
OPOVV
To witness first hand is not necessarily a good thing. It makes one feel hopeless and helpless on the one hand, while the other hand is loading up on survival supplies, in example, maybe that .30-30 you’ve been thinking about, nice gun, I’d say now, as in THIS WEEK, is the time to buy it, and when you buy ammo, I buy the highest grain.
Obama is doing exactly what he got hired to do: destroy this country. Why anybody is giving this circus clown of a de facto president the time of day we may never know, but for some unknown and strange reason they actually pretend that the LOW LIFE CHICAGO SOUTH SIDE CON ARTIST, THIS MONEY LAUNDERER, THIS FELON, THIS CHEAT, THIS LIAR, is to be deferred to.
And HERE’S THE NEWS: all he’s shown us is two fake/fraudulent Birth Certificates.
The courts in America are one BIG JOKE.
This ruling is but another nail in the coffin that holds our Constitution. Say what you will, but another nail was pounded into us as we’re being crucified.
I’ll repeat it: WE’RE BEING CRUCIFIED!
Another major disappointment in our so-called justice system. Here is the bottom line as I see it … we have an illegal, lying, cheating, bogus POTUS who should have been disqualified or exposed by now and removed from office for being a fraud, who in turn appointed two Justices to the Supreme Court, namely Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan; both of whom should have recused themselves as having a severe conflict of interest (having worked for Obama on the health bill). Roberts, well he is just another disappointment of a guy drinking the obama cool-aide, and not Upholding His Oath Of Office at all. Another rather disgusting display of corruption. One final point is that had a few people been honoring their Oath Of Office, then “Whatever His Name Is” would have been arrested and his appointments and bills would be deemed NULL-AND-VOID.