Should Pam Bondi and the other AGs appeal the Roberts’ opinion?

[johnwk]

.


Under the rules of the Court, Rule No.44, Rehearing there is a 25 day window in which a ruling may be appealed.



The question is, should Pam Bondi and the 26 States appeal the Roberts’ opinion for the following reasons?



Justice Roberts never identified the kind of tax which Obama’s individual mandate imposes. And of the taxes which Congress may lay and collect which are “duties“,” imposts” and “excise“ taxes, and a direct tax which is here excluded because the mandate tax is not apportioned among the states as constitutionally required, none fit the Founder’s understanding, use and limits of these specific taxes. It appears the mandate tax cannot be sustained under the specific taxing powers granted to Congress and Roberts never identified the specific tax used in conjunction with the mandate.



Additionally, Congress’ taxing powers were granted for specific enumerated functions subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1 (Clauses 2 through 11), and Justice Roberts himself has acknowledged the individual mandate 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 so, not only does the mandate tax appear to not fit within Congress’ specific taxing powers, but the mandate itself cannot be sustained under the specific functions for which Congress has been granted power to lay and collect taxes and are enumerated under Art. I, § 8, cl 1.



So, what is the constitutionally authorized function which authorizes Congress to impose the individual mandate, and what specific kind of tax is levied upon those who fail to buy health insurance?



Without these two questions being answered, the Roberts’ opinion is not only incoherent, but is without a constitutional basis and apparently ignores the specific protections written into our Constitution.



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

[jtdc]

Two threads on the same subject. Now you can't come up with any variety at all.

I'm sure you are on the phone to her every day. It isn't a matter of what they should do, it is a matter of what they will do. The Constitution set up the lifetime appointments. I'm sure Ms. Bondi and the other AG's know how far their efforts would get them with the Robert's Court. So they probably feel it would be a waste of time and money.

Unless Roberts manned-up and admitted his mistake, he will not want to overrule himself. So it is moot. So we must focus on other methods. And they are many. It's been suggested that there are may other lawsuits they can file to tie up implementation of Obamacaretax. And some of those may eventually make their way to SCOTUS. But unless Roberts fast-tracks them it will be too late. And since that is the same as Roberts reconsidering his decision, it is equally unlikely. So the alternatives are political. Its focusing on replacing the President and Senate to repeal that monster. Then amend the Constitution to take away lifetime appointments. Even that would probably futile as it would only affect new Justices.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Two threads on the same subject. Now you can't come up with any variety at all.

This thread is about the course of action to be taken with respect to the Roberts’ opinion.

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 Obama/Roberts’care are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by johnwk

This thread is about the course of action to be taken with respect to the Roberts’ opinion.

And the other thread started out "Pam Bondi must sue again over Obamacare: SCOTUS rejected punishment tax!" The second post in that thread, also by you, was about "The question is, will Pam Bondi and the 26 States appeal the Roberts ruling?" "The time period is 25 days!"

So the big change in this thread is "Pam Bondi must sue" instead of "Should Pam Bondi sue?" And this, to you, is a different topic?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by jtdc

And the other thread started out "Pam Bondi must sue again over Obamacare: SCOTUS rejected punishment tax!" The second post in that thread, also by you, was about "The question is, will Pam Bondi and the 26 States appeal the Roberts ruling?" "The time period is 25 days!"

So the big change in this thread is "Pam Bondi must sue" instead of "Should Pam Bondi sue?" And this, to you, is a different topic?

Did the other thread have a poll. NO!


JWK




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

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Did the other thread have a poll. NO!

Sorry, but it's really lame. Should we do something? "Yes" or No"? Obviously we should do "something". The poll should be seeking what to do. Like:

• Should we accept the SCOTUS decision and move on?
• Should we appeal the decision to the SCOTUS and expect them to reverse themselves?
• Should we move to Impeach Justice Roberts?
• Should we amend the Constitution to take away lifetime service?
• Should we focus on replacing the President and congress with those who would repeal Obamacaretax?

[johnwk]

I’m beginning to believe the 26 State Attorney Generals who challenged Obamacare may have acted more to pacify the people’s outrage over such an extraordinary assumption of power by the federal government, then actually having Obamacare overturned by the Court. Remember when Obamacare was passed, instead of going directly to the Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction in such cases and which I then constantly pointed out, these AGs diddled and dallied for almost two years in lower courts which helped to diminish the people’s outrage by giving the people hope the law would be rightfully struck down. And now that Justice Roberts has upheld Obamacare as being within Congress’ taxing power, but has failed to identify which specific kind of tax is used __ an impost, duty or excise __, the State Attorney Generals, including Pat Bondi, have not yet filed for a rehearing under the Court’s Rule No. 44, and asserted that neither an impost, duty or excise tax, as our founding fathers understood and applied these taxes, would allow the federal government to tax a citizen of Florida, or any State, for failure to have health insurance ___ a subject matter beyond the delegated powers of Congress, and one in fact retained by the States via the Tenth Amendment! And since the tax is not apportioned, it cannot be claimed to be a “direct tax”, which in fact it appears to be! Unless there is a subject matter over which Congress has power to lay and collect taxes for, such as in Flint vs. Stone Tracy which taxed the privilege of a government granted corporate charter and measured of the amount of tax to be paid by the profits and gains realized under the corporate granted charter, the Obama mandate tax would in fact have to be direct and requiring an apportionment.

Additionally, although Justice Roberts rightfully concluded that the individual mandate cannot be sustained under Congress’ power to regulate commerce, he failed to identify the enumerated power beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1 for which Congress has power to lay and collect taxes, and then tax a citizen of Florida, or any State, for the sole reason of not having health insurance.

And the question is, why are the 26 State AGs not filing under Rule No.44, Rehearing and putting the Court on Judicial Notice with regard to Congress’ defined and limited taxing powers?

JWK





“He has erected a multitude of new offices (including those formed under Obamacare), and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by johnwk

I’m beginning to believe the 26 State Attorney Generals who challenged Obamacare may have acted more to pacify the people’s outrage over such an extraordinary assumption of power by the federal government, then actually having Obamacare overturned by the Court.

You're just now getting that? You are slow.

Originally Posted by johnwk

And the question is, why are the 26 State AGs not filing under Rule No.44, Rehearing and putting the Court on Judicial Notice with regard to Congress’ defined and limited taxing powers?

So now you are changing the question? I'm surprised you didn't start another thread. First you Stated:
"Pam Bondi must sue again over Obamacare: SCOTUS rejected punishment tax!"

Then you started this thread questioning:
"The question is, will Pam Bondi and the 26 States appeal the Roberts ruling?"

Now you ask
"why are the 26 State AGs not filing".

Why wasn't that among your survey questions?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by jtdc

You're ......... ?

JWK





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

[ArrogantBastage]

Do we not understand that this has been litigated? SCOTUS decided. You think Roberts wants a do over? Forget it. This is not the route to kill Obamacare.

Let the thread die. It ain't happening.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ArrogantBastage

Do we not understand that this has been litigated? SCOTUS decided. You think Roberts wants a do over? Forget it. This is not the route to kill Obamacare.

Let the thread die. It ain't happening.

Apparently you have missed the unbridled taxing power which is implied in the Roberts opinion and allows Congress to break the chains of the specific kinds of tax which Congress may lay and collect and the limits attached to each. Keep in mind Roberts never identified what specific tax allows for the Obamacare mandate tax.

JWK




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

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by johnwk

So this is your out when cornered?

Originally Posted by johnwk

Apparently you have missed the unbridled taxing power which is implied in the Roberts opinion and allows Congress to break the chains of the specific kinds of tax which Congress may lay and collect and the limits attached to each.

Does it ever occur to you that you aren't the only one who can see what's happened? Your problem is that, like the rest of us, you are powerless to do anything about it. Did you contact Bondi and the rest of them? What did they tell you? This is our "Representative Government". We can squawk all we want. But unless somebody in power is willing to act, we are all screwed. I hate to look at the news. It is depressing.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Keep in mind Roberts never identified what specific tax allows for the Obamacare mandate tax.

Why bother? As I understand it, tax bills must originate in the house. So if this is a tax, Roberts should have thrown it out as unconstitutional. Do you think that would fly. Almost everything Congress passes these days is unconstitutional in one way or another. But everybody who took an oath to uphold the Constitution seems to be looking the other way.

[ArrogantBastage]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Apparently you have missed the unbridled taxing power which is implied in the Roberts opinion and allows Congress to break the chains of the specific kinds of tax which Congress may lay and collect and the limits attached to each. Keep in mind Roberts never identified what specific tax allows for the Obamacare mandate tax.

JWK

[/size]

Sorry bro but I have missed nothing on this. The fact that the penalty has now been defined as a tax it takes it completely out of SCOTUS' hands. They have no authority over taxing legislation. There is nothing left for them to rule on here. Congress only has unbridled taxing authority as long as we, the people, allow it to happen. Committed Socialists make up about 15-20% of this country. Committed conservatives make up another 20-25% of the country. It's that other 55-60% that we, the conservatives, must focus on in turning opinion to our side so that the votes begin to swing heavily in favor of conservatism and sanity.

Our VOTES influence Congress and their voting on bills will then be influenced in the right direction. Whenever they pass a piece of crap like Obamacare we hve to flood them in mass with letters, calls and a threat to their future in Congress.

Want change? Focus on that 55-60% of the population. It's hard work but it's worth the fight if you desire to return this country to it's greatness.

[ArrogantBastage]

One last thing. The thread header states "Should Pam Bondi and the other AGs appeal the Roberts’ opinion?"

Appeal to who? There is NO "court" higher than SCOTUS. As I pointed out, change will only come in the court of public opinion. Start influencing it! BTW, you won't do that much here as most of us are on the same page.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by jtdc

So this is your out when cornered?

.

Wrong pal. That is what I do when you decide to personalize the thread and post insulting remarks.


JWK

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ArrogantBastage

One last thing. The thread header states "Should Pam Bondi and the other AGs appeal the Roberts’ opinion?"

Appeal to who? There is NO "court" higher than SCOTUS.

See:Rule No.44, Rehearing there is a 25 day window in which to file for a rehearing. Why not use every available option to establish Roberts has engaged in judicial tyranny? Roberts’ opinion did not establish which “tax” he asserted the Obama mandate tax is. And this gets to the heart of his tyrannical opinion! Perhaps I see this tax issue better than most because I spent countless hours in a research project at the University of Maryland researching the founding of our country, especially the taxing powers granted to Congress by our Constitution.

Sorry if I upset you.

JWK



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

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ArrogantBastage

Sorry bro but I have missed nothing on this. The fact that the penalty has now been defined as a tax .

And which constitutionally authorized "tax" has been identified by Roberts? A duty, impost, or excise? Surely it cannot be a "direct tax" as that would require an apportionment among the States.

The fact is, the Roberts' opinion is incomplete without identifying the specific tax allowing the federal government to impose a penalty upon a citizen of Florida, or any state for that matter, for not having health insurance. And this is why a rehearing is necessary!



JWK

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Wrong pal. That is what I do when you decide to personalize the thread and post insulting remarks.

Hey "pal", you can't see beyond your nose. You take on a single issue and expect everyone to agree with you. You very seldom dialog. You lecture! If someone asks you a question you can't answer you post several paragraphs of quotes you have repeatedly posted. Here you start a second thread on the same topic. Your thin excuse is "This one is a poll". But the question is meaningless. It seems to be just an excuse for you to repeat the same quotes you posted before. Try to come up with realistic solutions instead of reactionary rhetoric. A dictatorship can be most efficient. No debate, everybody moves in the same direction. But in a democracy there is compromise, which can make the direction unclear. You don't believe in compromise/democracy. You want a dictatorship run by you.

Originally Posted by johnwk

See:Rule No.44, Rehearing there is a 25 day window in which to file for a rehearing.

See:Rule No.44, Rehearing . The judges determine if there will be 25 days or less! It is a placebo. But you repeatedly post the same thing as if we don't get it.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Perhaps I see this tax issue better than most because I spent countless hours in a research project at the University of Maryland researching the founding of our country, especially the taxing powers granted to Congress by our Constitution.

I see the problem. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." You are a would-be teacher, and haven't a clue as to how the real world works.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Sorry if I upset you.

Try to think outside of your box.

Originally Posted by johnwk

And which constitutionally authorized "tax" has been identified by Roberts? A duty, impost, or excise? Surely it cannot be a "direct tax" as that would require an apportionment among the States.

Here you go repeating, again, the same thought. You didn't answer my question about the constitutionality of the "Tax" originating in the Senate. As I said, nothing Congress does is constitutional.

Originally Posted by johnwk

The fact is, the Roberts' opinion is incomplete without identifying the specific tax allowing the federal government to impose a penalty upon a citizen of Florida, or any state for that matter, for not having health insurance. And this is why a rehearing is necessary!

And if it is a tax, how could it originate in the Senate? Sorry to be repetitive, but that is apparently the only way to communicate with you. I know that is insulting to you, but you don't respond to direct questions. So I'm looking for a way to communicate with you other than just agreeing with every word you write and praising you.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Hey "pal", you can't see beyond your nose. You .......

JWK

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by johnwk

JWK

Another brain freeze, right John?