stija
Forum Replies Created
I don’t know what you mean by destroyed…where are you getting this?
What difference would it make if the individual mandate was a proper exercise of the commerce power over the tax power? Would that make any difference in relation to the voluntary nature to participate in this commerce, as opposed a tax?
I do not understand what you are saying when you say destroyed, and i can assure you that any court you would bring that argument in would label you as a protester and frivolous, because the law is not destroyed and invalid but proper and valid as held by the SCOTUS and Justice Roberts opinion.
I do understand that this law, any law or the rest of the IRC, requires my voluntary compliance with it or other acts which would render me subject, but you are not bringing that up as an argument. Your argument, in congruence with the above referenced article, is that the law is DESTROYED and an invalid exercise of Congressional power, something which it most obviously is not.
But this is America so you are entitled to your opinions. Otherwise, i agree with you about rights and no one, nor this legislation, is imposing on your rights, much like the rest of the IRC. If it were so, it would be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment at least. But it’s not.
My whole point is that, while the law is voluntary, NOTHING in Roberts’ opinion DESTROYS the individual mandate. That’s all.
The article EXPLICITLY states that the law is not valid because not a valid exercise of Congressional power when in fact it is valid and proper. Whether one will comply with it is a matter dependent on both the circumstances and ones choice, and NOT on the erroneous and misguided conclusion that the law is invalid. What this invalid notion can create is more bad case law that prejudices me and every other American in the future in court with bad case law and precedent.
Do you get what i am saying? I do NOT want another American arguing that IRC and the Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional or invalid, BECAUSE IT ISN’T. That is not a valid argument to use in court or with the IRS, and after reading that article many Americans will jump on it and opt-out on the principle that it is an invalid exercise of Congressional power when it is NOT.
Dude, Flora dealt with suits for recovery of overpaid taxes and the court explained that no suits for recovery of taxes are allowed until one voluntarily assesses him/herself first, then pays the assessed taxes and only then files suit. In that sense, and in those circumstances ONLY the taxation system is voluntary pursuant to Flora. Are we discussing suits for recovery of taxes paid in this topic?? I allege that we are not, therefore that reference is moot. For anyone who is reported as making wages under Subtitle C of the IRC there is NOTHING voluntary about payment of taxes or withholdings. The only voluntary part is the CHOICE of assessment–either do it yourself or wait for IRS to do it and collect.
For 99% of people out there who are employed, meaning that they have signed a W-4 and submitted it to their employers, the individual mandate is no longer voluntary but obligatory and mandated coverage on employer/employee by their relationship which is federally franchised. That is the real world out there.
Driver licensing laws are voluntary too, but once one is licensed and driving the MVC is no longer voluntary.
But again, the original post EXPLICITLY states that Part III-A of the decision “DESTROYS” the individual mandate. It does NOT because of Part III-B. That is the part that is misleading.
Otherwise, and mark my words carefully so you don’t misrepresent me again, all laws in the USA are voluntary requiring one’s consent of one sort (implicit) or another (explicit). Nothing new there. So saying that this law is somehow different is misleading in itself!
You’re missing the point.
The article implied that Roberts admitted that the individual mandate was unconstitutional as it was an invalid application of Congress’ commerce or necessary and proper clause, and therefore not a valid law. This is PARTIALLY true and very misleading.
The article omits the important detail that Part III-B elucidates on which is that the individual mandate is constitutional law under the Congress taxing power.
Therefore the article is misguiding the readers into forming an improper and moot conclusion. Now whether one is subject to the individual mandate is irrelevant to the discussion and is a matter of:
1. ones factual actions (facts), and
2. ones voluntary assessment and compliance or proper agency assessment.
But the fact of the matter is that it is proper and valid law–contrary to what the article Admin posted suggests. Therefore suggesting that one should tell friends not to comply with a proper law is ridiculous and asking for trouble. On the other hand, one should definitely not worry about going through a red light if not driving, or paying a tax one is not liable to–that is common sense. But that is not to say that one can drive through a red light or not pay a tax liable for because the laws are unconstitutional exercises of Congress’ power, when in fact the laws are valid and proper.
I don’t know whether to cry or laugh. I also think that Romney voters wouldn’t fare much better–although a very few might recognize who Karl Marx is.
Not so really….
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.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to inter-pret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285
U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.4. 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.So while PART III-A concludes that individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’ commerce or necessary and proper clauses, PART III-B explains that IT IS A VALID exercise of Congress’ taxing I:8:1 clause INSTEAD, as the statutes must be construed and interpreted if fairly possible to save them from unconstitutionality.You know better than to post this misinformation Admin, on our ‘misinformation-free’ forums.Filed.
Finished with TOA populated.
Opinions? It’s getting uploaded to ca9 tomorrow.
Thanks.
Finished.
Just have to populate the table of authorities. Will do that tomorrow as my eyes hurt.
Will ‘anyone’ read it and maybe spray some political and religious speech about it. Thanks.
Ok more added. Now its time for the ‘fun stuff’–i.e. legal evidence and closing.
Changed some more.
Added to it.
I cut and pasted it here but that doesn’t work. I started work on it this am. So far so good.
See attached for word pdf file. Feel free offer suggestions. This will have to be submitted by Tuesday midnight San Fran time.
So basically the jist of my argument is that you cannot drive your Alabama civil citizenship vehicle into federal jurisdiction and ask them to create a federal civil vehicle to accept you inside your Alabama vehicle. That is unconstitutional and impossible.
You have to exit one vehicle and enter the other equivalent vehicle. In California this would be a civil citizen/resident of California, equivalent of what you were in Alabama. It is not any different in United States, same concept applies.
Therefore, the point of this exercise is that federales CANNOT hire a state legal vehicle to be civilly employed with them. That would be mixing civil vehicles of different sovereignties. One who wants to work for a different sovereignty has to accept their legal vehicle equivalent (same privileges and immunities) of his sovereignty’s civil vehicle. Thus one who works for federales or accepts benefits is appropriately called federal personnel. Similarly one who accepts benefits from a state or is in the employ thereof can appropriately be called state personnel.
But federal law cannot create a legal vehicle for foreign personnel, except maybe a vehicle called foreign which has no public rights within federal jurisdiction because of foreign and distinct character.
That’s fine. But what if you work for the Feds as a State Citizen? Then what do you do? Avoiding an issue does not solve the problem.
You tell them, hey I am a state citizen and I would like to work for you, can you please tell me which forms to sign. When they give you the forms with instructions you complete them and sign them per instruction.
There is NO FEDERAL CIVIL STATUS that’s equal to state citizenship/domicile (civil status). The two are mutually exclusive, so they will assign you a federal civil status that best describes–better word is equivalent–to your state civil status. Therefore for one who is a state civil citizen (domiciliary) they are extending their own equivalent which is their state civil citizen which happens to be U.S. Citizen. This is mandated through U.S. Constitution Article VI (i believe)–same privileges and immunities doctrine.
Brushaber never elected a federal civil status and because he remained a state citizen he was regarded as a NRA as SUCH state citizen. He was neither the object nor the subject regulated by IRC at the time. If you read the T.D. 2313 it clearly says that income from domestic corporations accruing to (state citizens/nra) is SUBJECT to the tax. Income is subject to the the tax and not Brushaber.
Now when one works for uncle sam one has to occupy such legal vehicle/office within the federal civil laws and that requires getting out of your state legal vehicle (state civil citizenship) and entering into a federal legal vehicle of equivalent rights/status (federal civil citizenship).
I understand what you are saying, that in when you are in your state civil citizenship vehicle you are a foreigner, alien and nonresident of the federal civil citizenship vehicle, and i agree. But the ruse here is that they cannot offer SSA (federal legal vehicle) to a citizens/persons already occupying a state civil vehicle, therefore they have these state domiciliaries accept a federal legal vehicle called employee, so that they can then regulate them through their occupancy of such vehicle.
If one stayed in a state civil vehicle and never accepted the federal civil vehicle of employee, they could not be reached to be taxed or offered benefits.
Do you follow what i am saying? States and feds are sovereign entities vis-a-vis, which means they are distinct and separate. They cannot commingle. You yourself corrected me yesterday by saying that they do not share jurisdiction but SPLIT IT, right?
Well, which vehicle do you want to be in? You can’t occupy both for the same reason, it’s gotta be one or the other. So for federal tax purposes you can stay in your state civil vehicle, but then you cannot be touched by laws operating on federal civil vehicles. Does that make sense?
Similarly, if you want to participate in federal programs or employment, you must exit your state civil vehicle and accept an equivalent vehicle of federal character.
Think about it like this. Let’s say California public employment required you to be a resident legal vehicle of Cali before you could work there. You can’t force Cali to recognize you as a nonresident alien-Alabama civil vehicle occupant-and force them to make room for you as such. It is you who wants employment from Cali, and Cali rules say that you must exit your Alabama vehicle and enter theirs before you can be employed. California CANNOT employ an Alabama citizen while he is occupying such Alabama legal vehicle office–Cali laws do not extend over such NRA.
I hope i am making sense and not just gone off the deep end.
