The dissent is a lot more fun to read than Roberts' sipsappery.
...The phrase “independently authorized” suggests the existence of a creature never hitherto seen in the United States Reports [i.e., Supreme Court opinions]: A penalty for constitutional purposes that is also a tax for constitutional purposes. In all our cases the two are mutually exclusive. The provision challenged under the Constitution is either a penalty or else a tax. Of course in many cases what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action; or what was imposed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. But we know of no case, and the Government cites none, in which the imposition was, for constitutional purposes, both.5 The two are mutually exclusive....--quoted at PowerLine
...If §5000A were a tax, these two classes of exemption would make no sense; there being no requirement, all the exemptions would attach to the penalty (renamed tax) alone....
"Words mean what I say they mean, no more or less...."--Humpty Dumpty Roberts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Gee...
Saint Revolution Dad29 06/29/2012 11:32 AM blog comment...
excerpt:
"...Roberts has taken it upon himself to PERSONALLY endemically redefine what is a tax, i.e., augment the present definition of a tax and/or add a new DEFINED tax WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL INPUT, and then Roberts uses his false personal redefinition as a false basis for a false ruling.
Roberts' false ruling ENDEMICALLY and INTRINSICALLY "re-does" existing law...TAX law.
I didn't know Roberts was double-dipping as an IRS employee.
...Roberts has no right to do such.
...
By the by, when one doesn't pay one's taxes, there are imposed penalties and interest.
So, is Roberts stating that a "penalty" is REALLY a "tax" cloaked into a different word and that the "penalty"/tax qualifies for penalties and interest and, if one doesn't fulfill the purchase obligation NOR pay the "penalty", that non-payment of a "penalty" will impose penalties and interest?! In other words, paying a penalty on a "penalty"?
Where does this ludicrous Escher painting end?!
...and, if a tax, how is it not an UNAPPORTIONED tax and, thus, UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Roberts not only wants it both ways, he wants it ALL ways...i.e, HIS way, i.e., once again redefining law...
This government is completely COMPLETELY broken...and out of its collective mind..."
...AND...
Saint Revolution Dad29 06/28/2012 6:59 PM AM blog comment...
excerpt:
"...as also SCOTUS, in all its bullshit arrogance and buck-passing decision making, in the end, agrees with Pilate:
"...quod [OTrauma] scripsi, scripsi...".
SCOTUS...another completely broken slant of government.
Tax, my ass.
Just do your job and make a REAL decision, you jackass..."
Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.
Gee...
Saint Revolution Dad29 06/29/2012 11:32 AM blog comment...
excerpt:
"...Roberts has taken it upon himself to PERSONALLY endemically redefine what is a tax, i.e., augment the present definition of a tax and/or add a new DEFINED tax WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL INPUT, and then Roberts uses his false personal redefinition as a false basis for a false ruling.
Roberts' false ruling ENDEMICALLY and INTRINSICALLY "re-does" existing law...TAX law.
I didn't know Roberts was double-dipping as an IRS employee.
...Roberts has no right to do such.
...
By the by, when one doesn't pay one's taxes, there are imposed penalties and interest.
So, is Roberts stating that a "penalty" is REALLY a "tax" cloaked into a different word and that the "penalty"/tax qualifies for penalties and interest and, if one doesn't fulfill the purchase obligation NOR pay the "penalty", that non-payment of a "penalty" will impose penalties and interest?! In other words, paying a penalty on a "penalty"?
Where does this ludicrous Escher painting end?!
...and, if a tax, how is it not an UNAPPORTIONED tax and, thus, UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Roberts not only wants it both ways, he wants it ALL ways...i.e, HIS way, i.e., once again redefining law...once again, proving Ann wrong.
This government is completely COMPLETELY broken...and out of its collective mind..."
...AND...
Saint Revolution Dad29 06/28/2012 6:59 PM AM blog comment...
excerpt:
"...as also SCOTUS, in all its bullshit arrogance and buck-passing decision making, in the end, agrees with Pilate:
"...quod [OTrauma] scripsi, scripsi...".
SCOTUS...another completely broken slant of government.
Tax, my ass.
Just do your job and make a REAL decision, you jackass..."
Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.
Post a Comment