Friday, July 6, 2012

SCOTUS did what?

I have spent a lot of time reading the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), ie ObamaCare, the arguments to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the ruling from the SCOTUS with regard to the PPACA’s constitutionality. I have decided that somehow I have lost my ability to understand English, employ logic, and communicate with other human beings. However, in that process I have learned that the problem with our country on both a macro and micro scale is the damn lawyers. This seems to most of you to be a juvenile point devoid of deep thought, but please be patient. Follow my thought process for a few paragraphs before your give up on me.

Here is how this thought started (don’t worry I despised lawyers long before this, but this clinched the deal for me); while reading the PPACA, I discovered that it took no less than three separate windows on my computer to enable me to cross reference the textual information as written. It only took three, because I actually had a hard back dictionary on my desk, you know to help with the big words. Most of those words were/are Latin and frequently within the law, used improperly according to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Once I got to the part about ‘‘EXCLUSION OF UNPROCESSED FUELS” around SEC. 1408 page 969 (NKing), I knew this bill was a turd. If you have to hide, mislead, skirt or obfuscate while actually writing the darn thing, you should know it isn’t what most people would call the right thing to do. Additionally, if you have to slip other things into a bill to buy the votes to pass it, you should think twice about the idea in the first place. Obviously I made up my mind. I read, listened and read for almost 2 full months and I could not find a way that this law should be passed, upheld or implemented. Oh was I ever wrong. Only a lawyer could possibly contort words and logic sufficient to explain how in his/her opinion a tax isn’t a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act (which would have prevented the SCOTUS from hearing the case), but is to make it Constitutional under Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes”. I want you to read closely the two paragraphs from Chief Justice Roberts’ decisions with regard to PPACA. How in the [explitive] can both of these things be true?  

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be main­tained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund.”-- (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2011; Syllabus Pg 2.

“3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individ­ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative ar­gument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2011; Syllabus Pg 3.

I am not a lawyer and certainly not the smartest dude running about America, but this is garbage. How can a mandate not be a tax so SCOTUS can hear the case only for SCOTUS to rule it’s a tax?  This is the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone. I am beside myself trying to figure this one out. Anymore, I could care less about the law itself, November will tell us if people care about America, or are just happy to see it drowned in debt. The actual structure of our government has been damaged significantly by this ruling.  Let’s put the shoe on the other foot so liberals can understand.
Liberals your next nightmare bill will be an “individual mandate” to possess a “self-defense” weapon of some sort, so we can save money on policemen. If you don’t purchase the “self-defense” weapon you will pay a “penalty” required to offset the cost of police officers, which you need more than other people who own their “self-defense” weapon. Think about it…………………

Bottom line:  what in heaven’s name is the federal government doing forcing American’s to buy anything at all?

No comments:

Post a Comment