BREAKING: SCOTUS on Health Care - it stands

Naran,

I suppose if we are to make lemonade when dealt lemons, then the outlook that you have is correct. Sometimes, I really wonder what sort of discourse goes on among the justices when they come up with the some of the stuff that they do. I used to think of the SCOTUS as this lofty group that is darn near next to God when it makes the decisions that it does I suppose my age and life experiences have now jaded this view!! I suspect that they have dart tournaments to determine some of the stuff they decide and not some pure examination of law and the constitution. Who are they fooling!!! Lawyers can be kind of a slippery or greasy lot in that they can twist things to suit whatever their needs are at the moment. The labour unions are prancing around like the devils that they are in celebration of this news!!!

What really gets me is for folks who work extremely hard out there to make something for themselves, the welfare catering government is always out there to take from these people to give to the lazy sorry-butts. They say that this is the fair thing to do!!! How is this possibly EVER fair?? If was the poorest person in the world without even a pot to urinate in, I would still have this view. Please note that I am far from wealthy.

Josef Wassermann

Josef, if you were more familiar with key decisions of the Supreme Court you'd realize that it has never been God-like. The members of the Court are intensely human and have made terrible decisions in the past.

Pam Bondi must sue again over Obamacare: SCOTUS rejected punishment tax!

Justice Roberts’ holding that Obamacare’s individual mandate is constitutional as a “tax” is not only an incoherent stretching of Congress’ taxing authority, but defies the very limits of Congress‘ delegated powers which were carefully enumerated in our Constitution and subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1 by our Founding Fathers ___ Obamacare being absent in the enumeration!

The Roberts ruling is immediately exposed for its absurdity when it is analyzed.

First, let us confirm beyond the shadow of doubt that Congress’ taxing powers under imposts, duties, excises and direct taxes, whatever they may be, are limited by other provisions in our Constitution, e.g., the Court in the recent decision United States v. International Business Machines Corp. - 517 U.S. 843 (1996) struck down an excise tax as violating that part of our federal Constitution which declares: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." U. S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 5.

And in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) [after the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted] the Supreme Court reminded Congress that it was not empowered by the Sixteenth Amendment to tax, as income of a stockholder and without “apportionment“, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 3, and, Art. I, § 9, cl. 4.

And so, although Congress has been granted power to lay and collect various kinds of taxes, each kind of tax has limits beyond which Congress may not venture when laying these taxes. Additionally, we must keep in mind that Congress’ taxing powers were granted for specific enumerated functions subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1 (Clauses 2 through 11), and that Justice Roberts acknowledged the individual mandate tax cannot be sustained under Congress’ power to “regulate commerce“, one of Congress‘ enumerated functions subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1, (see clause 3).

And now that it is established that the kinds of taxes Congress may lay and collect have limits beyond which Congress may not venture, and that Congress is likewise bound to laying and collecting taxes for specific enumerated functions listed beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1, and that the individual mandate tax cannot be sustained under Congress’ power to “regulate commerce” as announced by Justice Roberts, nor has he pointed to any other function subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1 which can sustain the individual mandate tax, we turn to the interesting question asking Roberts, is Congress authorized to lay a tax for the sole purpose of punishing an identifiable group of Citizens which is exactly what the individual mandate tax does?

And in regard to a tax not being a true tax but a punishment, the case Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994), is quite instructive because the tax there was found to not be a true tax but a punishment and thus violated the 5th Amendment of our federal Constitution.

Bottom line is, the 26 States which filed suite against the individual mandate must now re-file and argue __ since Justice Roberts has identified the individual mandate as a tax ___ they must now challenge the tax in question as not being within the definition of an impost, duty, or excise as historically used and understood by our founding fathers. And since the individual mandate tax is not apportioned, it violates the command that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States. The following formula may be considered as our Constitution‘s fair share formula:

State`s pop.
----------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
Total U.S. Pop.

In addition, the States must contend the tax goes far beyond the enumerated functions for which Congress may “Lay and collect Taxes” and are specifically listed beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1, Obamacare not being included in that list of particulars!

And if there is any question as to the limited functions for which Congress may tax under Art. I, § 8, cl.1, let our founding fathers speak for themselves with reference to this provision and especially the phrase “general welfare” which appears in Art. I, § 8, cl.1:

In No. 83 Federalist, which is applicable to the meaning of “general welfare”, Hamilton, in crystal clear language refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. See Art. I, § 8, clauses 2 through 11, for the subjoined “specification of particulars”.

Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

And, Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."

Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]

Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare 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.". [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause as being a general legislative grant of power, and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, although Justice Roberts has sustained the individual mandate as a tax, he has not established which taxing authority [impost, duty, excise or direct tax] is used, nor the function for which the tax is being laid, and if it is laid to fulfill a function within the list of particulars subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1.which enumerate the constitutionally authorized functions for which Congress may tax.

Hopefully Florida’s AG, Pam Bondi, will take the lead and challenge the individual mandate tax for the above stated reasons and have our Constitution‘s clearly defined limits and protections reaffirmed.

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

What’s behind Roberts’ surprising decision?

Maine Sunday Telegram: Full speed ahead with Obamacare.

Posted:Today
Updated: 12:16 AM
Our View: Court's work is done, lawmakers should act
It's up to Maine to tailor a system that fits its needs within a new national framework.

Maine...should now be focused on implementing the Affordable Care Act....

That, unfortunately, is not how the LePage administration wants to play it. Rather than focus on implementing the law in ways that would make the most sense for Maine, Commissioner of Health and Human Services Mary Mayhew issued a statement Friday saying the state's official position will be pretending that we can still wait and run out the clock.

http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/courts-work-is-done-lawmakers-should-...

At this point in time the important question is, will Pam Bondi and the 26 States appeal the Roberts ruling? See Supreme Court Rules, Rule No.44, Rehearing The time period is 25 days! In post No.123 I have laid out the arguments which have not been resolved in the Roberts' ruling.

JWK

Obama/Roberts’care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court’s majority vote!

Yet another legal view... "the tax argument is lame that won't stand the test of time,"

Randy Barnett says Roberts’ tax power argument is “lame” but “easily fixed”

This column by another legal scholar makes me feel a little better....

Mackenzie Andersen said, "To say that Roberts gave the right a gift is to say he helped us to win the battle of repealing ObamaCare but lose the war of conserving the United States Constitution. Roberts found a means to uphold the expansion of the powers of the federal government over the private citizens". Well said. Roberts essentially tried to uphold the reputation of the Supreme Court as being seen as too political (the Gore vs. bush 2000 ruling) at the expense of the Constitution. There is no Silver lining. It just re-enforces the old Biblical saying: "Put not your faith in Princes".

If Freedom is to be restored and the Constitution set right, it will have to be done by the grass-roots, not by merely electing politicians who say they revere the Constitution. Putting Republicans into office, like Bush I & II, hasn't saved the Republic. The GOP elites have listened to their Washington D.C. insider friends and contributors while the proles watched American Idol and the few informed citizens trusted them to do the right thing, but kept silent. Like the scam Lucy pulls on Lionel over and over when she pulls the football away, the GOP has fooled limited government voters once more.

Jeffersonian wrote:

It sure seems that way!

if the ruling is not appealed, and the assumed mandate taxing power exercised under Obama/Roberts’ care is not questioned and overturned, it will set the stage for Congress to exercise a limitless direct taxing power to enforce whatever whim and fancy Congress may dream up, and it will dwarf the suffering we have experienced under the misapplication of Congress’ power to regulate commerce.

Regardless if Obama/Roberts’care is repealed as proposed by the Republican Party leadership, the Court’s ruling regarding taxation will remain and will constantly be pointed to as a valid taxing authority of Congress. This must not be allowed to stand!

Hopefully Pam Bondi and the 26 States appeal the Roberts' opinion on the tax issues I raised above.

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

Maybe, just maybe Roberts got it right.
Try this:

The question becomes, is the assessment below valid. I don’t know how to determine that. Do you?
If this is a valid assessment of the health care law, then it will be interesting to see how it will be implemented and which states will opt out!!!

Subject: - Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing Medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
Source: plagiarized

JWK: I always appreciate your posts and I often appreciate your analysis but I count myself among those who think Roberts did the right thing. He affirmed restraint on the commerce clause and the 10th amendment. He properly outed the individual mandate as a tax. It isn't hard for me to imagine the efforts the Obama team expended to 'make this look like anything but a tax'. His instructions to the jury, you, me and US, while unusual, may ultimately prove to be historic.

Spider wrote:

That piece has been cirulating all over the net and is based upon wishful thinking!

The fact is, Rush Limbaugh nailed the Roberts' ruling for what it really is, an unbridled taxing power being granted to Congress.

Make no mistake! If the Roberts’ ruling is not appealed, and the assumed mandate’s taxing power exercised under the ruling is not questioned as being unconstitutional and overturned, it will set the stage for Congress to exercise a limitless “direct taxing” power to enforce whatever whim and fancy Congress may dream up, and it will be used to dwarf the suffering we have experienced for generations under the misapplication of Congress’ power to regulate commerce.

Regardless if Obamacare is actually repealed as proposed and promised by the Republican Party leadership, the Robert’s opinion regarding taxation opens the door to an unfettered “direct” taxing authority, and the ruling will constantly be pointed to in the future as a valid taxing authority of Congress. This taxing authority must not be allowed to stand!

Hopefully Pam Bondi and the 26 States will appeal the Roberts’ ruling and challenge it on the reasons regarding taxation which I summarized above in the thread. If it is not overturned then Representation with proportional financial obligation, our founder’s check upon democracy (mob rule government), will have met its death and the larger populated states will use their greater representation in Congress to constantly plunder our national treasury.

Always keep in mind when talking taxation and representation our Constitution’s fair share formulas:

State`s Pop.
____________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps
Pop. of U.S.


State`s Pop.
___________ X SUM TO BE RAISED=STATE`S SHARE
U.S. Pop.

And if there is any question as to why this rule of apportionment was adopted, keep in mind what Mr. PENDLETON stated during the ratification debates of our existing Constitution and with regard to the new rule of apportioning both direct taxes and representatives: He says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” __ 3 Elliot’s 41

Also see Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with. And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

In any event, the important question at this time is, will Pam Bondi and the 26 States appeal the Roberts’ ruling? See Supreme Court Rules, Rule No.44, Rehearing The time period is 25 days!

JWK

The only ones who win under Obama/Roberts’care are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!

Seen on a bumper sticker.

The government today is the direct result of your choosing the lesser of two evils for generations.

Spider - I really like your Roberts post, above, but I'm concerned as to whether it violates the AMG Fair Use Policy. The policy says the post should include a link back to the original, and that it should only quote 75 words of text, exclusive of headline and byline., if the source is copyrighted.

Could you please find the original, and edit your comment? Thank you.

Justice Kennedy Got it right. he said it was a judicial tax.

Even though Obama's lawyers argued that it was a tax, the court should have based their decision on what is in the legislation. The court is not a dictionary or a thesaurus. Most statutes contain a list of definition of terms. If the Apollo Group failed to include a definitions of terms in their 2000 page bill, it is not up to the court to re-write the legislation. That is a transgression of the balance of powers. I know Congress passed the legislation without reading it- but definition of terms are usually the first thing in the statute. Couldn't Congress at least have insisted on sending the bill back to the Apollo Group to have definition of terms included?

The court is supposed to interpret the law-not write it. Unless it says in the legislation that it is a tax, no legal argument can make it a tax. Judge Roberts made a political argument- not a legal one- and those who are praising him are praising him for his political stategy- which is not the role of the courts in the United States system of government.

Dear Naran, my sincere apologies for violating the AMG rule. I got carried away and forgot the rules, please forgive me. Even though post 123 by JWK contains 1337 words according to my word perfect word count, I realize my error and hereby resubmit. Unfortunately I could only pare it down to 368 words.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing Medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

The source? email received from one: Bert Atkinson Jr. Person is unknown to me.
I just thought the content was worth considering. Actually I thought I might have to submit it before we read it...Pelosi style.

Spider wrote:

Spider,

I believe the fair use rule applies to published material.. I write my own material and quote our founding fathers.

In any event, I noticed you did not respond to the points I made in my last post. You decided to once again offer a number of opinions which do not line up with the court's actual ruling and you ignored Roberts’ judicial expansion of Congress' taxing authority beyond the limits our founders wrote into our Constitution.

JWK

The big winners under Obama/Roberts’care are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!

It's naive to think the pols can't find a way around the supposedly "airtight" strictures that Roberts put in place for the future. I mean, they just GOT AROUND a supposedly airtight stricture........the court said the gov't. can't mandate us to buy something. Yet Obamacare still stands. That is the classic example of sneaky pols getting around something, and getting what they want.
And yet, somehow this dynamic is going to magically change in the future..........when???

No, you have to stand up and draw lines at some point. There IS no victory if you're not willing or able to do it now and then, when needed. Doesn't look the Supreme Court will ever be able to do that. The lowest common denominator seems to prevail, at the last. Major, major decisons like Roe. v. Wade and Obamacare slide through, somehow, some way. Because everyone just keeps their eyes on the horizon. Good way to get bayoneted.

All this pie in the sky wishful thinking that "it won't always be thus; the good guys will stop them next time". It's at the heart of Roberts' thinking, and his apologists. It's sheer naivete. Human character tends to go for the easy option; does nobody recognize this fact??

I have heard a lot about the fact that Roberts put the breaks on further abuse of the Commerce clause. I read that because of some odd situation this ruling on the commerce clause cannot be used as precedent on any future cases. That means he has done NOTHING but allow the government to make us buy any product they want us to buy and tax us blind(er).

When I find the citation on Commerce clause I will post it.

Watcher,

It believe it has to do with "dicta" which cannot be used in future cases. Roberts comments regarding the commerce clause, I believe, fall within the class called “dicta”.

The America People are being legally flimflammed and have now been introduced to a judicial created tax which has no boundries and is nowhere to be found in our Constitution!

JWK

Obama/Roberts’care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court’s majority vote!

You have to appreciate the sheer brass of this. Not only does the SCOTUS legislate from the bench , obama reinterprets their ruling as "it's not a tax."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/01/white-house-says-health-care-...

In light of his comment directed at the SCOTUS during his state of the union address..... it's a truly "in your face " moment.

Maybe I've missed it, but if an individual does not purchase insurance and he is taxed, fined penalized $2000 and still does not purchase insurance does that mean they will be denied treatment if they go to a hospital?
Or will doctors be able to refuse treatment because they have no insurance and no ability to pay up front ? Or will doctors be required to provide treatment and then assume the accounts receivable?

NOTHING but allow the government to make us buy any product they want us to buy and tax us blind(er).

Or, put another way, Congress can make us do anything they want as long as it involves a tax.

But supposedly Americans are tax-averse, and politically it will be difficult for legislation to pass if it involves a new tax.
Maybe the American who gains the most power from this ruling will be Grover Norquist.
We'll see.

"Or will doctors be able to refuse treatment because they have no insurance and no ability to pay up front ? Or will doctors be required to provide treatment and then assume the accounts receivable?"

I haven't read the ACA myself but I haven't seen anything in many reviews of it that would change the current situation for uninsured patients. Our ability to refuse treatment (or for patients to demand our labor for free depending on your viewpoint) is usually limited by EMTALA, abandonment rules, liability fears and, increasingly, the image concerns of the big health systems that now dominate Maine healthcare.

There's a big difference between uninsured and nonpaying however, especially in outpatient medicine. Given the growing uncertainty hanging over Medicare and the other third party payers, some physicians prefer uninsured (but bill paying) patients at this point.

Spider - a bit of clarification -- the AMG Fair Use Policy isn't an arbitrary device meant to frustrate members. It's in place because of a serious lawsuit threat against Scott Fish and AMG from several years ago. Scott was given 24 hours to clear AMG of all full-length articles, or the PPH was going to sue him for every nickel, dime and old button owned by AMG headquarters.

Since that time, there has arisen a plague of companies that make their living by searching out copyright violations, and suing on behalf of the content owners. And, much of the time, those companies are winning, whether through settlement or expensive lawsuits.

AMG would like to avoid that outcome. Contrary to popular mythology, AMG is not funded by the Koch brothers and the Heritage Foundation, and we do not have deep pockets. The only money we get is through individual, voluntary donations from members, or from readers who appreciate the site. Most years, it's not enough to offset Scott's personal costs to keep the forum running.

So -- that's the deal on the Fair Use Policy. If you own it, or you have written permission from the owner to use it, post away - and please post that you do have permission to use the copy.

If you don't' own it, and it's from a copyrighted source, you get to post 75 words of text, exclusive of headline and byline - along with a viable link to the source.

if you got it via email, please make a good-faith effort to find the source, and post the link. Most of the time, putting a couple sentences into Google will net you the original source.

Thank you for your understanding, and for your contributions on AMG's pages.

For those who are unfamiliar, or who need a reminder - this is the policy.

*****************

AMG Fair Use Posting Policy

If you own the copyright - you can post an entire article. If you have permission from the copyright owner - you can post an entire article. (Please post the fact that you have permission.) Otherwise, fair use of posting copyrighted material on AMG is limited to up to 75 words total plus a link to the original source. Example: You can post a news report headline, byline, 75 words total of the body of text, link to the original source.

Any posting outside of AMG's fair use policy will be deleted.

http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/faq

But based on todays Lewiston Sun Journal (and as attributed to ABC news site).Obamacare could be the greatest thing ever. and this is how its justified frm todays editorial ..– “Research shows that people without health insurance are 40 percent more likely to die than those who have it”.
There you have it, you're 40% more likely to die if you do not have health insurance.....rebuttal submitted....

I think they have tha backwards because if one pays fo health care and doesn't get sick or have some terrible accident then one has wasted all that money . Having health issues justifies the expense.

All insuance is fear based- whch is the oposite of faith based One can buy a great deal of insurane but there is no way to insure that somethig will not happen for which one is uninsured

All the money that the governent will force people to spend on insurance will not be spent on other things and so we will see even more advertising for pharmecueticals and diseases on TV than ever before. There will be new popular ailments arising that we have never even head of today.

And also there will new "innoations" in insurance policies to cover everything and anything that might possibly occur.

If the assumed mandate’s taxing power suggested under the Roberts’ ruling is not questioned as being unconstitutional and not within the specific taxing powers granted to Congress which are duties, imposts and excise taxes, and it cannot be a direct tax because it has not been apportioned, and the ruling is not overturned, it will set the stage for Congress to exercise a limitless “taxing” power to enforce whatever whim and fancy Congress may dream up, and will dwarf the suffering we have experienced for generations under the misapplication of Congress’ power to regulate commerce.

If the States do not appeal the ruling in a timely manner, it is an indication the States may agree with Congress’ taxing power being unlimited as suggested in the Roberts’ opinion, and, the failure of the States to immediately challenge the ruling may later be pointed to by the Court to strike down a future challenge by indicating the states had their chance to appeal the new “implied” taxing power but failed.

The individual mandate tax is not sustained under Congress’ power to “regulate commerce” as announced by Justice Roberts, nor has he pointed to any other function subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1 which can sustain the individual mandate tax, and so, the unanswered questions which the Court needs to address are:

1.

What is the constitutionally authorized function subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1 which allows Congress to impose the individual mandate?

2.

What specific kind of tax which is delegated to Congress by our Constitution is levied upon those who fail to buy health insurance, an impost, duty, or excise? Or, is it a direct tax which then needs to be apportioned among the States?

Wake up! The clock is ticking on the 25 day limit in which to ask for a rehearing. We must encourage Pat Bondi and the other State AGs to ask for a re-hearing under Rule No. 44. Or forever hold our piece.

JWK

The big winners under the Obama/Roberts’ mandate are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!

Have you petitioned William J. Schneider, Maine's Attorney General?