Author Topic: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant  (Read 7728 times)

Trip

  • Guest
ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« on: August 05, 2013, 06:22:39 PM »
INTRO: Some have said that Chief Justice Roberts "rewrote" ObamaCare to be a tax, to make it pass muster. No, he really did not do that. What Roberts did was rationalize ObamaCare to be a Tax, and then claimed an all-encompassing authority to tax <virtually anything> by the federal government, which is a  patently false claim <and why he may have done this is discussed elsewhere>.  However to first even HEAR the Case, the court had to agree that ObamaCare was not a tax, thereby not excluded from judgement under the Anti-Injunction Act.

Actually the distinction of it being a "Tax" or a "fine/penalty" should  not really matter, as both were deliberately prohibited by the nation's  founders. Do we honestly believe that this nation's founders were so naive that they would allow a prohibited "tax" to be redefined as a penalty, or a prohibited penalty to be redefined as a tax, and thereby allow the government  engage  tyrannous abuse of authority by simply redefining it?

  • "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words"
    Samuel Adams

Well, as it turns out, those Founders did not do so. There are prohibitions in the Constitution to both ObamaCare being applied as a "Tax",  and a "Penalty".

"A TAX"

As  originally written and intended, the Constitution prohibited this sort  of Direct Tax  or fine to Congress,  because both allowed the Congress  to enact AGENDAS, you know, such as "tax the rich" and redistribution of  wealth.   Originally "direct tax" was recognized by our founders to  included income from "trades" or "occupations". I have notes from  Pennsylvania's ratification of the Constitution which recognizes  "trades" and "occupations" in the primary definition of direct tax, with  property and things which can be transferred being only in the secondary  definition.

The Constitution indicates in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 under "Limits to Congress":
  • "No  capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to  the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

After  government attempted to enact various direct taxations, the Supreme  Court ruled in 1895, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157  U.S. 429, that even <secondary definition>  taxes upon on  interest, dividends, and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894  were indeed direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they  violated the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned.

In 1913 the 16th Amendment changed this, by allowing tax on income "from whatever source derived."

Shortly thereafter (1916) the Court went even further to change "direct" tax, and redefine income, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co,  in which the Court stated that the 16th Amendment conferred no new  power of taxation but simply prevented the courts from taking the power  of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning out of the  category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. 

This  claim in Stanton was a falsehood and utter corruption. The Court was  saying that income from employment was now an indirect "event-tax", or  "excise tax" rather than a direct tax to the individual,  equivalent to a  tax on purchasing clothes, food, or filling our gas tanks, with our  labor from our employment being essentially ... worthless, rather than the  equal exchange of labor for payment - something fundamentally different  from an excise event-tax!  This was a corruption of not only intent of  the founders,  but also corrupted the very definition of "direct tax"  itself which the founders recognized!

However, since ObamCare is  not based on income, but rather the absence of a property (insurance),  it is undeniably a "direct tax" to the individual,  and remains  prohibited by the Constitution unless it is apportioned  in each state  according to the census!

FINE OR PENALTY

The  founders, in their wisdom, had another check, an insurance to prevent  "agendas", and prevent a "direct tax" from simply being re-defined as a  "fine" or "penalty"

The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9 "Limits on Congress", has the strong prohibition:


  • No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

 
A bill of attainder  is a judgment levied on an individual or groups intending to pronounce  guilt without the benefit of a trial.

A Bill of attainder is prohibited not only because  1) it is a  usurpation of the judicial authority by the Legislative branch, but also because 2) it can so readily be abused to corrupt the legislative process with political intent (AGENDAS!).

A  prime example of a bill of attainder would be the threats from Congress  to legislate taxes on AIG executives receiving bonuses - particularly  given the fact that those bonuses were a contractual part of the  employment contract predating any government involvement.
 
 Bills of Attainder invariably involve "A Taking", which is the confiscation by mere statute of property (money), or individual rights themselves,  and doing so without benefit of any due process. 

In the case of the  mandate for health care insurance, the government is declaring every  American guilty if not covered by health care insurance, and then  providing a penalty, a 'taking', for this guilt, without any benefit of  due process of law, bypassing the judiciary entirely - a bill of  attainder. 

The "takings" in the case of ObamaCare (and RomneyCare) also involve the abrogation of a full 80% of the Bill of Rights, inclusive of the 1st Amendment, and then from the 4th Amendment  protection of personal papers and effects from unreasonable search and  seizure, unless following due process of an individual court hearing, on  up through violation of the 10th Amendment. Furthermore, even more  takings may occur by the mere "deeming" of the Secretary of Health &  Human Services, again without any sort of due process on an individual  basis.

As shown, the Government's difficulty in  consistently defining the ObamaCare as either a "tax" or a "penalty" is no  coincidence , but rather only an attempt to simultaneously bypass two  deliberate prohibitions to Congress in the Constitution.  Essentially  the government was  trying to find the most convenient definition for  the given moment so as to push it past the people and the Court, a "high-wire balancing act", and this was clearly  evident throughout the court hearing.



« Last Edit: August 05, 2013, 06:49:04 PM by Trip »

Trip

  • Guest
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2013, 06:30:13 PM »
In the OP I reference the original understanding of "direct tax" at the time of this nation's founding. Here is that definition from the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention.

PROHIBITION OF A "DIRECT TAX":

  • “The power of direct taxation applies to every  individual, as congress under this government is expressly vested with  the authority of laying a capitation or poll-tax upon every person to  any amount. This is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and  unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in it  collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism,  that it has ever been a favorite under such governments.

    Some of those  who were in the late general convention from this state, have long  labored to introduce a poll-tax among us.The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual, as congress may tax land, cattle, trades, occupations,  &c. to any amount, and every object of internal taxation is of that  nature, that however oppressive, the people will have but this  alternative, either to pay the tax, or let their property be taken for all resistance will be vain. The standing army and select militia would enforce the collection."

 THE ADDRESS AND REASONS OF DISSENT OF THE MINORITY of the CONVENTION, Of the State of Pennsylvania, to their Constituents.Signed on p. 3 by Nathaniel Breading and twenty others;  followed by the vote of the convention on ratification of the  Constitution. Dated: Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 1787.

As is clear in the above reference,  a direct tax includes incomes from trades and occupations.

As described in that definition,  ObamaCare also cannot be avoided. We cannot "sell" anything to "save  our heads", any more so than we can not be employed, to avoid having our  wages taken from us.

We are to be taxed and directed by  compulsion, command, and our freedoms violated by mere virtue of being  citizens of the country. 

Those who already do comply with the  un-enumerated power of those numerous directives, are not penalized  financially, but will similarly lose their freedoms, lose their ability to choose what care they receive (and pay for), lose their right of Freedom of Association in who they contract with,   and will have their  personal information accessed at will, without any sort of due process whatsoever.


Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2013, 05:23:11 AM »
It's worse than unconstitutional. It's pure socialism.

It is specifically designed to collapse our healthcare system, put private insurers out of business, and, (I'm guessing), eventually make all doctors into unionized government employees....with the fines/penalties, combined with the insurance premiums, (paid directly to government), to pay for all of it. There will be no turning back, once it is implemented.

My neighbor used to work in the, (private), student loan industry. I believe the government takeover of that entire industry, was a trial balloon; and it was done with barely a wimper from the public.

It also put thousands out of work, and is a complete bureaucratic nightmare.

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2013, 05:41:59 AM »
They've already laid all of the groundwork, using loan forgiveness as the carrot.

http://www.finaid.org/loans/forgiveness.phtml

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63210
  • Gender: Male
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2013, 06:41:25 AM »
They've already laid all of the groundwork, using loan forgiveness as the carrot.

http://www.finaid.org/loans/forgiveness.phtml
Good find K, I'm sure not many on the Right even knows about this list of giveaways.
WOW, the only program not mentioned was just getting a damn job and paying it off like the rest of the country.
#WWG1WGA

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2013, 01:01:07 PM »
Good find K, I'm sure not many on the Right even knows about this list of giveaways.
WOW, the only program not mentioned was just getting a damn job and paying it off like the rest of the country.

With government now running the student loan business, the list will quietly keep growing, and every path to loan forgiveness will be to become involved with some form of government, guaranteeing continued government growth, continued redistribution of wealth, and larger blocs of democrat voters.

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5776
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2013, 01:08:51 PM »
You can't actually sell personal responsibility, selflessness, or paying back your damned debts to a majority lol.

But you can sell the Obama menu to them.  Too bad.

Maybe we'll get lucky with a Hail Mary based in IRS, NSA, Benghazi,  etc.

Trip

  • Guest
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2013, 06:29:32 PM »
You can't actually sell personal responsibility, selflessness, or paying back your damned debts to a majority lol.

But you can sell the Obama menu to them.  Too bad.

Maybe we'll get lucky with a Hail Mary based in IRS, NSA, Benghazi,  etc.

Apparently you like to "whistle as you walk thorough the graveyard".

The whole reason I posted this thread was because you believe that RomneyCare is a perfectly reasonable representation of the 10th Amendment as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy".

Curiously those same States all recognize in their constitutions that Bills of Attainder are prohibited to any government, and inherently tyrannous.  In fact bills of attainder were prohibited by British common law, even before this Nation's founding.

We don't need to "get lucky" by hoping for some enormous event to remove the Obama administration.    The problem is not just the Obama administration itself, but the Republican party as well, and RomneyCare is "Exhibit A" for this, but there are many other similar exhibits.

What we need is the restoration of reliance on the U.S. Constitution, and for that to happen we first need to stand up.



Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5776
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2013, 07:34:28 AM »
I was literally not responding to you, or your tangent, in the least.

My post was a personal take on the sorry state of affairs today (Obama voters), as were the 2 prior to mine.

Do you have a problem that should be helped by somebody besides the random strangers on this board  ?

You really can't turn every thread on this board into an angry standoff with somebody.

Trip

  • Guest
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2013, 02:56:30 PM »
I was literally not responding to you, or your tangent, in the least.

My post was a personal take on the sorry state of affairs today (Obama voters), as were the 2 prior to mine.

Do you have a problem that should be helped by somebody besides the random strangers on this board  ?

You really can't turn every thread on this board into an angry standoff with somebody.

Curiously, in a thread I posted, specifically in response to your support of Romney,  so as to define why RomneyCare is equally a gross violation as is ObamaCare,  ... yet you're "not responding to me".

Which is WHY I indicated you were "whistling through the graveyard".  You got that, right?

Your post is a myopic view that can decry those ignorant "Obama voters", while you ignore the enormous ignorance you yourself promote,   resulting in just a different flavor of statism, both of which are entirely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, and individual freedoms!   Yet you don't get that the Republicans are every bit as much a hazard.

Yes, I do have a real problem with the  ignorance of Republican voters, particularly the idiots that call themselves Conservatives, and should know better, when they really don't have any clue what the Constitution indicates, and that their own perversion is every bit as much destroying this nation and our freedoms as Obama's Marxism.

It is not I that turned this issue into an angry personalized standoff.  It was actually you who did so, and have still utterly failed to show any support whatsoever for yours and Romney's corruptions of the 10th Amendment.

Dude, you're a f-n hazard, an ignoramus so blind to what is going on around him that you're a  threat to this country, our freedoms and our future. I really don't mind you being ignorant; but what I do mind is that you had the profound ignorance to be so ignorant, and yet imagine you actually have a clue, and then  engage an extended ad hominem attack against me. As a result of that, I'm endeavoring to teach you, one way or t'other.

If you cannot figure out on your own, even at this late date so long after the election, that something is going on seriously wrong in this country for us to have Romney as our Candidate in 2012,  the absolute worst candidate at the absolute worst time, when he was influential in RomneyCare, and also ObamaCare's structure. 

And Romney's candidacy actually prohibited the GOP from taking  ANY STANCE AT ALL  against the biggest issue of the election, and threat to our very freedoms, so big it has resulted in the total discard of the Constitution: O-care.

Why the flock can't you figure that out on your own?   




« Last Edit: August 07, 2013, 03:02:08 PM by Trip »

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5776
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2013, 03:15:39 PM »
Look shithead, why can't you just stop being so needy as to annoy the hell out of a whole message board with your cloying, whining appeal for someone, anyone to agree with your n-e-v-e-r-e-n-d-i-n-g-b-o-r-i-n-g-a-s-h-e-l-l-s-l-e-e-p-i-n-d-u-c-i-n-g-e-y-e-g-o-u-g-i-n-g-c-r-a-p  ?

Did you notice that nobody but me is responding  ?  They just want it to stop.

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2013, 04:10:26 PM »
The long winded arguments are getting old.

We could fill volumes of books with exactly how the constitution has been so derailed...by both parties.

Now that the SCOTUS has determined that Obamacare is constitutional, barring armed conflict, I don't know what else to do, but work toward the effort to get it defunded.

It took a long time to get to this point; we aren't going to spin back to a constitutional government overnight.

Which is why I don't really like fighting with liberals; I'd prefer to get them to understand that the constitution is just as important to them, too.

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22374
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2013, 04:14:56 PM »
A lot of us, including me, appreciate and read the long posts, even if we reply or not.  The forum isn't going anywhere.
GAB  |  TrumpTown  |  Disqus

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2013, 04:40:02 PM »
A lot of us, including me, appreciate and read the long posts, even if we reply or not.  The forum isn't going anywhere.

I agree. I even like the arguments; but after they get into two or three days.... :blink:

I go cross eyed getting into the stuff that Trip is posting, on my own, but I consider his threads and post to be pretty good, bite sized nuggets of info.

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22374
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: ObamaCare: Why "Tax" vs "Fine/Penalty" is Irrelevant
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2013, 04:41:56 PM »
I agree. I even like the arguments; but after they get into two or three days.... :blink:

I go cross eyed getting into the stuff that Trip is posting, on my own, but I consider his threads and post to be pretty good, bite sized nuggets of info.

I agree.  One thing I hate in modern sound-bite media world are the short "discussions" that don't get into the meat of anything.  I like those who take the time to really get into it.
GAB  |  TrumpTown  |  Disqus

 

Powered by EzPortal