Actually, you should be able to demand that your employer take NOTHING out other than your normal taxes. After all, you “MUST” “voluntarily” file a w/h authorization for them to withhold anything at all.

So what are these ‘normal taxes’ that an inapplicable individual and non-employee under the IRC would be paying? Is the OP implying that IRC employees (taxpayers) can not volunteer for this mandate but volunteer to be taxpayers? I’d love to observe and document how that goes for one of them who is willing to try it.

Who ever wrote this article has not a clue BOBT12. That’s all I am going to say and then leave it for individual readers to decide for themselves.

Federal laws and contracts to perform with Walmart are two essentially different things.

Again, this individual mandate–a tax or whatever it may be–let’s call it an elephant is NO DIFFERENT THAN any other federal Article I law passed and codified in USC. Do you understand that? I don’t think you do because you keep talking about someones intention to contract for a tax law…which is nonsense.

Repeat after me…all federal (civil–article i or general) laws function by the consent (volunteering) of the governed–either implicitly (by actions) or explicitly (by applying for it).

There is not an ounce of difference in how this mandate (law) works from any other federal Article I mandate (law)–the only difference is character/specialty or subject-matter.

And Roberts does agree with you to the point that the mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’ commerce clause–aside from that he couldn’t disagree more with you. You claim some nonsense while Roberts tells you that it is a tax mandate instead on all applicable individuals.

Perhaps you need to understand, or rather question, who this ‘applicable individual’ is or how one volunteers or becomes one. Now that’s a relevant and proper question but stating that the mandate is void and invalid is nonsense and a complete frivolity non supported by any legal evidence whatsoever. And I believe this nonsense stems from your belief that because it is not outright mandated on ALL individuals irrelevant of their actions and circumstances it, therefore, must be not valid and special law, when in fact, again, ALL AMERICAN FEDERAL ARTICLE I law functions this same way. No American Article I law is outright mandated on all individuals–that’s an impossibility because, as Roberts explains, such laws presuppose one’s partaking/participation in the subject regulated first to be applicable to him second.

Furthermore, while it is and can only be an indirect tax, the assumption is that it applies to the American taxpayer, and we all know that everyone is presumed a taxpayer.  And this presumption is based in reality BOBT12–most Americans are taxpayers, whether intentionally or unintentionally the facts are that most Americans working for living file tax returns and make themselves taxpayers.  Therefore Roberts perhaps found it unnecessary to elaborate that this tax mandate presupposes one’s participation in the federal revenue collection system as a taxpayer–but that should be a given to anyone who understands the basic principles of American Jurisprudence.  Furthermore, Roberts IS a federal taxpayer and has probably been one most of his adult life, and properly so as a member of federal judiciary, thus he probably never had a vested interest into looking how exactly the IRC works, unlike you and me.  Thus for all we know he truly may believe that everything a man earns is taxable and that all Americans are taxpayers–the former being a communistic principle in itself, the latter being a factual observation of realities around him.

Again, if the OP said, unless you are already a taxpayer you need not comply with Obamacare i would not have any objection whatsoever and would agree with it 100%.  But it does not say that–it falsely alleges that the law is destroyed, inapplicable and void and should not be complied with, and this is simply not factual.

Well BOBT12 i could not disagree with you more on the assessment that if the individual mandate was a proper and valid exercise of Congress’ commerce clause that then it would be strictly mandated on all individuals as opposed on only applicable individuals, or those involved with commerce in one way or another.  That’s exactly what Roberts explains as an impossibility.

EVEN IF it were a valid mandate under the commerce clause, Congress’ power to regulate individuals under the commerce clause PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY TO BE REGULATED.

As far as tax goes, no one is arguing about indirect and direct taxation.  You are bringing up a non-argument and making it an argument.  

I cannot help you understand this any better and there is no point in furthering the discussion.  We will agree to disagree.

I contend that whether the mandate is an exercise of commerce powers or tax powers it remains strictly a mandate on applicable individuals–ie. individuals involved in either commerce or tax subjects/specialties. See pink above.

You, on the other hand, contend that if it were upheld as a commerce law it would be a strict mandate on ALL individuals, irregardless of their involvement in commerce. 

I strongly disagree with your contention–i dissent from your opinion.  But i do understand why you are confused about this now and why you keep pushing the voluntary component and principles of indirect taxation which i find irrelevant, because, as expressed many times over, i contend that all Congress’ Article I powers are exercised only on applicably (voluntary) participants in subjects regulated by those powers.  You do not.  You seem to think that Congress can impose an Article I mandate on an individual who does not partake of the subject regulated by the mandate.  I contend you are gravely misguided.

I agree to disagree. End of story.

In the final analysis, however, I still must disagree with your view that the Opening Post is misleading. The post is accurate in every way. It is not the OP’s fault that many people are unjustly, through ignorance, fraud, or force, encouraged to sign “voluntary” documents, such as the IRS Form W-4, etc. The mandate only exist for those who “volunteer” to it. Thus, it’s not a mandate, but rather, voluntary action. If people don’t understand they are volunteering to be servants to a merciless system, then it is high time that they wake up to this reality. This is clearly the point the OP is attempting to rightfully drill home! People must first become aware of the fact of the situation that confronts them. With the knowledge, for instance, that the mandate actually has a voluntary basis, they can take action that is more in line with their true intentions.

 

1. We can agree to disagree but that doesn’t change the factual and explicit words of Roberts that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing power.

2. The OP is misleading in a big way in reference to 1.

3. What you talk about in the above quote can be said about every law.  

3.1. Every law is a mandate of some sort.

3.2. Every law, even though a mandate, is not applicable to an inapplicable individual–or one who has not availed himself of the subject regulated by such law.

3.3. But once an individual elects to become an applicable individual–one factually involved in commerce or incurring a tax liability (subject regulated for eg.)–the law mandates certain duties upon him.

4. Therefore you are, yet again, bringing up a non-argument and trying to make it a relevant argument.

5. The OP’s stance is that the mandate is destroyed.  It is most certainly not!

6. The OP is therefore misleading.

Remember:

1. Every law is a ‘mandate’ in itself.  

2. Yet, every civil law is voluntary in itself–the mandate only taking effect once one volunteers/subjects himself to the law by partaking of the subject being regulated by such law.

2.1. An example is the Fair Labor Standards Act which only applies to individuals or entities involved in commercial enterprises having a substantial effect on interstate commerce, or just straight involved in interstate commerce. 

2.2. FLSA is a mandate on such applicable entities or individuals in 2.1. but not on anyone else.

3. This law/mandate is not different BOBT12 and you know it.

Ok BOBT12, in language you should understand.

1. Average Joe Schmoe gets a job.

2. Average Joe Schmoe signs a W-4 and submits it to his employer.

3. Individual mandate to carry health insurance just became obligatory on average Joe Schmoe.

And that folks is the individual Obamacare mandate explained in three easy steps.  After steps 1 and 2 there is nothing VOLUNTARY about it anymore, and the nomenclature fits perfectly–it becomes a mandate!

Folks, if you are confused about as to what a mandate is, BOBT12 explained it very well.

A mandate is:
 

man·date (mndt)

n.

1. An authoritative command or instruction.

However, you can feel free to show where the mandate exist within the IRC.

 

Here…http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A

(a) Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage

An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

 

The mandate is not unconstitutional.  Where are you getting this from my blind friend? 

I’ll keep the sentences short and clear.

1. The mandate was held to not be a commerce power but a tax power.

2. Whether it is a commerce law or a tax law is immaterial to its underlying validity.

3. Because this is a valid tax law then it is a valid mandate on every individual taxpayer.

4. If it were a valid exercise of commerce power, it would be a valid mandate on every individual involved in commerce.

5. If it were a valid exercise of navy power, it would be a valid mandate on every individual involved in navy.

6. If it were a valid exercise of mail delivery power, it would be a valid mandate on every individual postman/mailman.

7. End of story.

You are focusing on a voluntary/involuntary issue and missing the underlying principle that it is a valid mandate on EVERY individual taxpayer, or anyone subject to the revenue laws (partaking of the subject voluntarily).

1. This is law.

2. Law is war of words.

3. You need to choose your words carefully.

4. Then you need to arrange them properly to make a legal argument.

5. The legal argument you are making is frivolous–argument being that it is an unconstitutional mandate.

6. Nothing WHATSOEVER in the Roberts opinion states that the mandate is unconstitutional and invalid.

7. Prove me wrong.

The TAX takes on the character of an “indirect tax

Still, there is NO ACTUAL MANDATE. 

 

Yes it does and there is.  The mandate is on every individual involved in the subject within Congressional regulation under Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1.  

Sure, he would have concluded that the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS A VALID EXERCISE of congress’s power under the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause!

 

And according to you then the individual mandate would not be voluntary but would actually be mandated right?

Well, if that is the case, i could not disagree with you any more.

First, the commerce clause does not authorize Congress to mandate participation in commerce but only to regulate interstate commerce and intrastate commerce having substantial effect on the former.  

Second, no Article I Congressional power can strictly mandate something on the individual, be it commerce, tax, navy, currency or delivering mail.  If you do not get that you need to start your learning curve from the beginning.  For it to be a valid mandate on an individual, such individual has to be already voluntarily involved in the subject being regulated, be it commerce, tax, navy, currency or delivering mail.

Third, and most relevantly to this thread, Roberts did not JUST conclude that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’ commerce and necessary and proper clauses BUT HE ALSO concluded that it instead is a valid exercise of the tax and necessary and proper clauses.  

In conclusion, in relation to its voluntary nature it matters not whether this law is promulgated under the commerce clause or the navy clause or the tax clause, it is STILL VOLUNTARY–as in requiring one to volunteer by their actions of partaking in the subject being regulated.  In relation to its validity, it is fully valid and it is called an individual mandate because it is on every individual taxpayer, which a majority of American’s are for they file tax returns and volunteer themselves.  This is also how it is going to be enforced–waiting for one to file and declare oneself an individual under the IRC (taxpayer) and then slapped (mandated) on them.  This is just like the rest of the American laws–navy laws have mandates on navy individuals, commerce laws have mandates on individuals involved in commerce, etc etc.

Of course NOT! However, that is what a mandate does attempt to do. Yet Roberts said that the MANDATE IS NOT A VALID EXERCISE OF CONGRESS’S POWER. END OF STORY, END OF THE MANDATE. 

 

The above is a complete and fabricated lie of course.  Roberts said that while not a valid commerce power it is a valid tax power.  End of story, as you would suggest.

What you can’t grasp is that the individual mandate is a valid power and mandate over all individuals partaking/having a tax liability.  So Roberts explains, not so lucidly though, that this mandate is a mandate on individual taxpayers and not individuals involved in commerce.  That’s the jist of it.  I hope for your sake you get it and that you stop spreading misinformation such as that it is not a valid mandate, when in fact it is a valid mandate on all individual taxpayers.

I think the SCOTUS opinion overrides the OP, don’t you?

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C*, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44.

 

Now, you say that the OP demonstrates the individual mandate is destroyed because it is not a valid Congressional power under the commerce or necessary and proper clause. Then i ask you, would it be involuntary and any more mandated if it were an exercise of the commerce power?  Or would someone still have to be involved in commerce first for this to be mandated on him under the commerce clause? In other words what changes with it not being mandated under the commerce but under the tax clause?  I argue NOTHING changes as far as voluntary principles go except one has to be an individual partaking of a subject regulated under the taxing power instead of an individual partaking of a subject regulated by commerce power, or by straight out volunteering.

Do you get what i am saying?  In either instance the participating (partaking) is completely voluntary.  In the first instance the partaking would be of commercial nature, in the second of a tax nature.  

Or are you implying that if Obamacare were a law promulgated under the commerce clause it would be 100% mandated and involuntary?  If so, how would you suggest Congress would apply this mandate on individuals not involved in commerce?  By forcing them into commerce??  If that’s the case, then i say that is a bogus claim of same frivolous character as the claim that the individual mandate is an involuntary mandate forcing individuals into paying a tax.  You obviously are not buying the later idiocracy so why buy into the former? (if you are)

Similarly, is the Motor Vehicle Code an involuntary mandate on everyone or only people choosing to partake of transporting goods or people using public highways and operating motor vehicles?  (commerce)

So when you say…

Therefore, when Roberts converted the mandate, he admitted there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to agree to be covered by ObamaNoCare, or pay any “penalty” whatsoever.

 

…are you implying that if it weren’t converted, or if it were an exercise of Congress’ commerce (or some other) power, that Congress could mandate an involuntary legal obligation to buy insurance? Am i understanding your argument correctly? It seems to be completely congruent with the OP.

If that’s the case i strongly urge you re-examine your stand and think about basic principles, like consent of the governed, which makes EVERY American civil law voluntary, whatever its source of power.  But whether you will volunteer by partaking of commerce/tax subjects or strictly volunteer, that is PURELY your choice ALWAYS.

So Obamacare’s individual mandate is no more destroyed because promulgated under the taxing power of Congress than it would be under the commerce clause, which is why the OP is COMPLETELY MISGUIDED, ERRONEOUS and MISLEADING to the general uninformed American reader, and can only lead to him getting himself in legal troubles by arguing the frivolity promoted by the OP–which is that the individual mandate is destroyed and somehow invalid because not a proper exercise of Congress’ commerce clause.

*I kept posting/referring to Part III-B instead of Part III-C–i just noticed my mistake and cannot correct my posts.