| “
|
| The
first enumerated power that the Constitution grants to
Congress is the "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and
excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States." |
CLICK FOR VIDEO |
The text indicates that the
taxing power is not plenary, but can be used only for defined ends and
objects—since a comma, not a semicolon, separated the clauses on means
(taxes) and ends (debts, defense, welfare).
This punctuation was no small matter. In 1798, Pennsylvania Rep. Albert
Gallatin said that fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Gouverneur Morris, chairman
of the Committee on Style at the Constitutional Convention, had
smuggled in the semicolon in order to make Congress's taxing power
limitless, but that the alert Roger Sherman had the comma restored. ...
The punctuation debate simply reinforced James Madison's point in
Federalist No. 41 that Congress could tax and spend only for those
objects enumerated, primarily in Article I, Section 8 [Continue
WSJ]
We
are now faced with a new constitutional dilemma, it seems to
me. That is, what if a significant number no longer care about
original intent, or even about the constitution itself—except as a
cloak of legality where none exists? What then?
|
|
” |
What then? Hell, we're damn near there. Liberals are fixin to find out what 'useful idiot' means.
ReplyDeleteTim
So what?
ReplyDeleteThe Obamacare act will rack up a shitload of debt.
The "penalties" for not participating will be applied to that.
As that jackanapes Roberts has shown us, we can't depend on our serving for life nine man legislature to get us out of this.
If I have my druthers, the new Congress will impeach Roberts and Ginsburg. She twice made the point during oral arguments that the penalty was not a tax:
ReplyDelete"The Tax Injunction Act does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law, rather than to raise revenue. And this is not a revenue-raising measure because, if it's successful, they -- nobody will pay the penalty, and there will be no revenue to raise."
For Justice Ginsburg, "revenue-raising measure" = tax. And "this is not a revenue raising measure."
And on the second day she said "this penalty is designed to affect conduct. The conduct is buy health protection, buy health insurance before you have a need for medical care. That's what the penalty is designed to do, not to raise revenue."
Note that Justice Ginsburg is not asking a question, she is stating her position.
This means that Justice Ginsburg flipped her tax position from the oral argument to the final publishing of the decision.
She abandoned her own legal conclusion because it was the only way to have the law upheld.
Likewise Roberts. They have not upheld their oath and are blatantly legislating from the bench.
If the new Congress doesn't impeach them, then we can hope the Leftist bastards choke on their mandated broccoli.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick
There are more of us than there are of them. They are NOT going to like it when we start pulling their own tricks against their favored classes and politicians, and they find the constitution no longer protects them.
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't think we will, either.
Agreed, Anon.
ReplyDeleteIf we were less moral, we could easily run the lot of them out of the country and still stay within the law.
Kratman's Caliphate
( electronic version is free at Baen books link ) is an example ... he has a real conservative bad guy win the US presidency ... the type the leftists keep accusing us of being.
One who immediately starts pardoning everyone who assassinates left wing judges and politicians, and encourages lefties to emigrate in order to continue breathing, since he refuses to protect them from angry conservatives.