Share This Article with a Friend!

A 21st Century Dred Scott Decision

The 2010 Tea Party wave election was all about the repeal of Obamacare and the individual mandate. If millions of Americans were enraged by the passage of Obamacare before the Supreme Court decision upholding the individual mandate was announced, their outrage will reach revolutionary fervor now that the mandate has been upheld.

Conservatives believe with every fiber of our being that the plain language of the Constitution and our other founding documents, to say nothing of American history, demanded that the Supreme Court strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional.

John RobertsToday, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court of the United States – the body the Framers of the Constitution created to protect the citizenry from tyranny – has chosen to join infamous courts of the past, such as the Taney Court that made the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision finding that slaves had no rights and the Fuller Court that ruled to institutionalize Jim Crow discrimination in Plessy v. Ferguson in stripping Americans of their freedom.

Those infamous decisions were eventually reversed, as this one should be.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a stark reminder that one presidential appointment to the Supreme Court is all that stood between our freedom and the tyranny that will grow ever greater now that the individual mandate has been upheld.

If there was any reminder needed of what is at stake in this presidential election, the fractured vote upholding the mandate is it.

There are now 130 days until Election Day. The Supreme Court has spoken, and the real work of protecting America from tyranny is now in the hands of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.

Share this

Three Classes of Taxes Authorized in the Constitution? - WRONG!

In an article published today on “Coach is Right”, the following statement appears, suggesting that three classes of taxes are authorized by the United States Constitution:


“Indeed nowhere in the massive text of the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate referred to as a tax. Although ordered to be collected by the IRS, the mandate is deliberately and diligently referred to as a “penalty” throughout. The reason?  “To be a constitutional tax, it must be an excise tax, an income tax, or a proportional capitation tax.” (3) These are the ONLY types of tax which the United State Congress has a recognized, constitutional power to impose.”


This is not correct.  Nowhere in the Constitution is the income tax set out as a third class of authorized taxes.


Mark Levin made the same mistake in his commentary on June 28 following release of the Roberts decision, as discussed below.  


This is the subject of much confusion and misunderstanding throughout America as a result of deliberate obfuscation and misdirection supplied by the government acting through Congress, the courts, and the IRS itself. Numerous cases have been brought in the courts attempting to resolve this issue, but corrupt federal judges have refused to allow the relevant Supreme Court decisions to be presented in evidence.

The following comment was posted this morning to the “Coach is Right” article titled “Chief Justice Roberts gets tax decision WRONG, provides Congress with unlimited power”. 




Comment to “Coach is Right”:


May I respectfully suggest that you are making the same mistake that Mark Levin made in his comments yesterday?


Both of you are suggesting that the Constitution authorizes three classes of taxes - a direct tax ("capitation") which must be apportioned in accordance with Article I Section 9; an indirect tax ("duties, imposts, and excises") which must be uniform in accordance with Article I Section 8; and an "income tax" in accordance with the Sixteenth Amendment.


This assertion is simply not true.


The Brushaber decision by the Supreme Court [Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR. Co. - 240 U.S. 1 (1916)] made it absolutely clear that the Sixteenth Amendment authorized no new power of taxation which did not exist prior to that amendment:

"...the Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case (an 1895 Supreme Court decision, Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co.,  ruling that the income tax is unconstitutional)…the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended... (the purpose was not) to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes."


Thus the Supreme Court in Brushaber is saying that the income tax can only conform with the limitations of the Constitution as an indirect tax, which is a class of taxes falling on voluntary activities, and requiring uniformity. The income tax does not satisfy these constitutional requirements as an indirect tax except in very limited circumstances which do not affect most Americans.


The Supreme Court affirms this understanding in a subsequent case [STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)]:


" the previous ruling (Brushaber) it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment..."


The Supreme Court could not have made the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment more clear (even if it was legally ratified, which it was not). Yet those in government with an interest in imposing an income tax have buried the Brushaber decision, and have convinced the American people that there is a law requiring Americans to file income tax returns and pay taxes on private earnings.


The fact is that no such law exists, and there is no separate class of taxes under the Constitution labeled "income tax". Any purported tax on income, or any other federal tax, must survive under one of the constitutionally-qualified tax provisions as either a direct tax which is subject to apportionment, or as an indirect tax which is subject to the requirement of uniformity.


The income tax is neither (although it is unconstitutionally enforced by the IRS as an unapportioned direct tax), and this new Obamacare "tax" is likewise neither.


In Mark Levin's comments on the Obamacare decision, the following statements are made:


“What kind of taxes are permitted under our federal constitution? Well, there’s a tax that is called a direct tax or capitation tax…it is a tax on the individual. The Constitution requires direct or capitation taxes (a head tax if you will) to be apportioned among the states…


Then under the Constitution you can have an excise tax. But excise taxes require some sort of action or activity on the part of the individual. So surely this tax can’t be (an excise tax).


What about an income tax under the Sixteenth Amendment? Even John Roberts doesn’t attempt to justify the (Obamacare) penalty as an income tax.”


It is long past time for the  federal income tax be exposed for the fraud that it is.


Is it too much to expect from our conservative commentators that they be constitutionally accurate when discussing taxes?


Perhaps you and Mark Levin should get hold of Peter Hendrickson’s expose of the income tax hoax titled “Cracking the Code”.


What you will find in that little masterpiece will shock you, and make you so angry that what has been done by Chief Justice Roberts will seem trivial by comparison.

Penalty, Mandate, Tax.

Jet is correct it is referred to in the IRC as a Penalty.

But you don't have to pay it. There is no enforcement mechanism:


26 USC § 5000A - Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage

(g) Administration and procedure
(1) In general
The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.
(2) Special rules
Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(A) Waiver of criminal penalties
In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) Limitations on liens and levies
The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

Supreme Court Appointments--Upholding Obmacare

Justice Roberts just blew out of the water the argument that Conservatives should support Mitt Hussein Romneycare because of the court appointments Barack Obama would make.  It was a Bush appointee that saved Obmacare. It is clear liberal Republicans like Romney and any judges they appoint are going to govern like liberals regardless of campaign rhetoric.

With regards to Mitt Hussein Ronmeycare's statements about supporting Obamacare repeal, I don't believe a word the Etch-A-Sketch candidate says.  After all, lying is O.K., according to leftist morality, when it is done to advance a "Progressive" purpose.  The ends justifies the means after all. Even mass murder is fine as long as it is done for a "Progressive" purpose.

Remember, “Read my lips: no new taxes”?

As I have asked before, why are radical left-wing Republicans called "moderates"?

What Tyranny?

Boy what a bunch of sour grapes you are. We are the richest nation on earth and dead last in taking care of our nations health care for our citizenry.

People travel very long distances and wait in very long lines to see doctors, dentists etc... at free clinics set up around the country because they are poor and can't affort health insurance. It's gotten so bad that now the military's medical unit's are being used to help our misfortunate souls. 

And you have the audacity to call this life line tyranny. 

Who and what are you? Are you even Americans ? I ask because you don't sound American. Our people are mostly generous and compassionate, but you, who the HELL are you?

Are you even Christians ? I ask because Christ did instruct us to take care of the poor, so you don't sound like Christians either. So again who the Hell are you?  


NOW, it is time to implement a nation-wide TAX REVOLT ... REFUSE to pay federal taxes, DO NOT FILE A TAX RETURN ... Defy the U.S. government!  STARVE THE BEAST ... The Federal government is NO LONGER LEGITIMATE ...

The agents of our Federal Government have WILLFULLY and HABITUALLY subverted the Constitution; and therefore it is right and proper that the American People REVOLT AGAINST THEM --- INCLUDING BY FORCE OF ARMS! 

The Federal Government has willfully plotted and acted to betray the agreement they signed with The People ... Now WE MUST rise up against them!  "DON'T TREAD ON ME!"

 The time is fast on our heels - and may already be here -- when bloodshed is our only remedy.

Judge Roberts Brilliant Manuever

Me thinx me sees traces of USFJ Thomas Penfield Jackson's playbook here. SCCJ Roberts refused to allow the USSC to be held accountable, where the voters had failed. The voters are having to answer more directly now for their past idiot moves in both the congress and the presidency. Roberts took advantage of a looming election to allow the voters another chance to correct or not, its mistakes of the recent past. Personally, if George 43 had resigned for health reasons and allowed Dick Cheney take over January 2, 2007, we wouldn't have this mess. This goes beyond "ObamaCare"; its our foreign policy, federal judgeships, etcetera, ad infinitum, ad naseum. This is first hand knowledge speaking about my much revered Judge Jackson. I was lucky to have this most principled jurist decide two cases for me at the Prettyman Court in D.C. A true Barrister Artist at work.

We can not count on the Supreme Court

We can not count on the Supreme Court to defend the Constitution.  Even if Obamacare is repealed, that will still leave in place 75 years of Supreme Court decisions which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional limits.  We must now resort to the ultimate power the Framers left us - amendment.  Only constitutional amendments restating and re-affirming those original limits will save our Republic.  Of course, Congress will never initiate such amendments.  Therefore, we must first reform the amendment process to enable the states to initiate and enact amendments without having to go through either Congress or the unworkable and dangerous mechanism of a convention. See

What A Blow

I wondered about our Chief Justice from the beginning.  Sometime, about a month ago, I was telling a relative that you could see him, and the liberals team up to keep Obamacare.  I, and others mused that the Arizona ruling could be the canary in the coal mine.  The canary died, and America is not far behind it.

Chief Justice Roberts strikes back?

Those who think Chief Justice Roberts did President Obama a favor to thank him for his infamous lecture in the midst of a Joint Session of Congress, might also conclude that it will be only an accident if it turns out to be so.  Now we have seen a huge volume of evidence of why Nancy Pelosi said you have to vote for now and read about later!  Already it is clear that those milions who are now to be told that, contrary to Obama's promise, the odious annual fee for non participation, is really a tax designed to pay for the fact that without coverage, these people would eventually join, in order to have their later in life show 'previous conditions' that Obamacare covers. So, the IRS will do the enforcing of collecting taxes with a few thousand new collectors.

States that are cost impacted big time by the decision on Medicaid formulas will add more to the likely discovery that Obamacare is going to be three or more times as costly as was advertised when Congress read the government's own budget office review. We are two years closer to that point and only months away from the last chance to change Congress and the Presidency in November or know that it will not be repealed and replaced with a good solution to the problems of the past.

Once we pass the 'point of no return' we can only discover that is when Obama will have achieved the mission of his career mentor- Saul Alinsky and the crowd of the 1968 Democrat Chicago Convention terrorists. Combine collapse of the economy, the health care, energy and food industries and we will only be able to take joy in having taken America to a point of exceptional inferior global status. 

This quote is the scariest of

This quote is the scariest of them all:

"real work of protecting America from tyranny is now in the hands of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party."

So now all our hope rests with the grandfather of Obocare.

How can we trust a pragmatic chameleon from Massachuchetts to lead us to victory?  Is he Washington? Is he Lincoln?  Is he Reagan?

So now the establishment have found a cause to re-ignite us Tea Partiers to do their bidding once again.....Only to be tossed aside as "useful idiots" by the Washington elites once after the election. 

I smell something in the air today...the pungent ordor of revolution.  We need a "real" leader...and we need him now.

A 21st Century Decision

"There are now 130 days until Election Day. The Supreme Court has spoken, and the real work of protecting America from tyranny is now in the hands of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party."

I fail to see the logic in your statement. It was a Republican president who appointed the current chief justice. The one, who by the way, was the swing vote in upholding Obamacare. The decision just further points out that there is no political solution to the problems that face us. Voting is a waste of time and effort.

Come off it. The uninsured

Come off it. The uninsured are a liability to the rest of us because we already pay for their healthcare and we get infected from thieir poorly treated diseases, In the Us liability is handled with insurance, If you cut hair or sell bonds or fly a plane there's always a liability so some government authority will require you to carry insurance.Complain all you want about repressive government. It's worse to be left to the tender mercies of overpriced pharmaceuticals and greedy inefficient insurance com companies. Before healthcare became a for profit business we had ethical pharmaceutical companies  and efficient insurance. You bought major medical. If you couldn't afford a specialist you could see him/her at the hospital clinic where the doctors volunteered in exchange for hospital privileges. Everything changed when healthcare became a business. That's why we have medicare and all kinds of legislation.