I'm very interested in legal/logical reasoning showing Obamacare to be illegal in spite of the USSC's ruling today. My take is below. Please feel free to critique and add your own - bonus points for being as concise and plain as possible.

The PDF of the text related to the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11p....

The core of the majority opinion rests on considering the Act legal under the Constitution's taxing authority (Section 8, as limited by Section 9) - all other avenues were abandoned by the majority. (Below text in italics are from the USSC's PDF on the decision - bold text is my response.)

Page 41: "Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that every- one must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution."
Yet, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken", as Section 9 of the Constitution states. The proposed "tax" violates Section 9.

Page 42: "Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one."
Congress has no authority to lay a direct tax unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. This remains a Section 9 violation.

Page 43: "We have already explained that the shared responsibil- ity payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36."
Nope, as all examples given are ACTIVITIES - not one example of precident was given for laying a direct tax on inaction. This is an unprecidented - and massive - expansion of federal power.

Page 44: "The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain in- dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax."
A direct tax on inactivity, without proportion to the Census, without precident. A Section 9 violation, an unprecidented power grab, or both.


Additional comments:

Arguments in favor of Commerce Clause authority rests on Wickard v Filburn, which in this case might as well be Dred Scott v Sanford. So-arguing justices are wrong, plainly.

Page 41: "we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macom- ber, 252 U. S. 189, 218–219 (1920)"
This is a claim of ownership on my body by fedgov.

Page 41: "The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property."
My own body is therefore not considered to be owned by myself, or to be my own personal property.

When I had a chance, I was going to dig a bit deeper on this website (very detailed analysis, I think):

http://www.oyeztoday.org/healthcare/

Quote:

I'm very interested in legal/logical reasoning showing Obamacare to be illegal in spite of the USSC's ruling today.

Whether you like it, or not, when the SCOTUS rules on something in the affirmative, then that makes it Constitutional and Legal. That is what a SCOTUS ruling *does* = it rules something to be Legal and Constitutional.

Your opinion does not matter, only that of a sitting SCOTUS judge determines what is or is not Constitutional in the US of A.

Accept this or live in a fantasy world of your own creation.

It's done, unless and until another case comes before the SCOTUS.

...and until and unless that happens, PPACA is both Legal and Constitutional.

Ben, do I then take it you mean to say that black-skinned people aren't human? The same SCOTUS ruled that they weren't in the Dred Scott case, and I don't believe that same subject has ever been brought before the court nor formally renounced.

Instead of mere opinion, Ben, I give to you two more court cases that *recognize* (not establish) the legal fact that an illegal law is and remains ILLEGAL, regardless of what any court says:

Marbury vs Madison wrote..

"an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void"

And the coup de grace:

Norton vs Shelby County wrote..

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

In essence, what we have in the case of an illegal law being forcibly implemented by agents of government is literal criminal activity.

For something else to chew on, contemplate the principles recognized by John Bad Elk vs United States in the above context.

Quote:

then take it you mean to say that black-skinned people aren't human? The same SCOTUS ruled that they weren't in the Dred Scott case

For the duration from that ruling until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, yes this was the legal position of blacks in the USA.

Those who think like you get locked up in this all the time.

Basically you cannot read.

Please read very carefully here:

Quote:

when the SCOTUS rules on something in the affirmative, then that makes it Constitutional and Legal.

A court, in the opinions you cite, had to rule that a law was unconstitutional, was illegal.

...had to rule it unconstitutional...

...had to RULE...

You, as a citizen, do not have that right in a nation with the rule of law to selectively pick which laws are legal or not, you want to obey or not.

Ben, clearly, based on these posts, you are quite the stickler for detail.
Can you please provide your precise definition of the word "Constitutional"?
This should be of no great burden to you, as I see you throw the word around quite a bit so you must have some sort of definition in mind.
If you can provide your definition, a lot of us can probably make more sense of your peculiar ramblings 'round her.

Quote:

I'm very interested in legal/logical reasoning showing Obamacare to be illegal in spite of the USSC's ruling today.

The Supreme Court decides what's illegal -- that's why they (The Founding Thieves) made it.

It doesn't have to make sense to you.

They don't care about that.

They care about your obedience.

Ben, you didn't bother to read what I'd posted, nor the evidence I'd used to support my claim:

NO COURT ACTION is necessary to render an illegal (read: unConstitutional) law null and void, or as the Norton v Shelby court stated: "it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Got it? No court action needed, no new ruling required. Note that the NvS court did not create a new concept, either - the opinion of Marbury vs Madison says the same thing in that a law repugnant to the Constitution *IS* void - not "will be void after another decision", not "will be void after a lawsuit" - IS void.

In effect, yes, citizens DO INDEED have the right and duty to evaluate the laws the government would impose for legality. Thus is the sentiment behind the new Indiana law that plainly recognizes that citizens have the right to defend against criminal behavior by government actors. Note that the law did not establish anything new: that same truth was recognized (not established) by the USSC in 1900 with the John Bad Elk vs United States decision.

The legal and moral aspects are clear in the above cases I cite. The only difficulty is a practical one: government actors often have and use guns to impose illegal restraints upon individuals. Government actors operating outside of law are no different than a mugger or a rapist - all commit criminal acts.


Alanha, actually, the Founders did not give the supreme court the power of judicial review - said power was ursurped via the Marbury vs Madison decision. Otherwise, please point out - in the Constitution - where such power to nullify legislative acts of Congress is granted to the supreme court? It wasn't - and the reason being is that any such law was recognized as being a legal non-entity.

The rest of your argument is no different than that which a robber might argue: it doesn't have to make sense; I don't care about you; all I want is yor wallet or your life. "Criminals is criminals."

Quote:

Alanha, actually, the Founders did not give the supreme court the power of judicial review - said power was ursurped via the Marbury vs Madison decision.

Read Hologram of Liberty.

The Supreme Court's powers were essentially left a blank check; and in its very first session, Congress "tested" what it could get away with by granting the SC powers not enumerated.

They planned it all along.

I've read said book by Boston T. Party. It arrives at much the same point as Lysander Spooner's "No Treason".

The end result doesn't change: criminal acts by individuals are still criminal, whether they be done by a mugger or a government employee.

The Constitution is not the be-end-all; read the founding document of the US to see what light it casts ALL such government. The Declaration is what the Founders put into place. The Framers, a different group, were the ones behind the current form of federal government. You'll note objections to disbanding the then-current Articles of Confederation in such places as the Antifederalist Papers. Much of those Papers remain as relevant today as they were over two hundred years ago! (Notably Patrick Henry's speech before the Virginia assembly as well as Federal Farmer's letters.)

Other books by the same authors: http://www.amazon.com/Boston-T.-Party/e/....

An interesting implementation along the lines of which I speak by the Arizona lagislature: http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-a....

Quote:

if approved in November, it would add language saying that federal document may not be violated by any government -- including the federal government.

More to the point, it would allow Arizonans "to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution."

First Constitutional Carry, then this? At this rate, I might have to move soon.

Do we really need anymore than what is written on page 44?

Quote:

It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be interpreted as a tax.

The court told the American public, right to their faces, that they will construe legislation and ignore legislative intent, if necessary, to uphold legislation.