I swear, this is close to the last one of these. I think.
I was born with a debt I cannot pay to those who gave me my liberty. Now I have to go into debt which I cannot pay to pay to keep it.
Liberty has always had a price, but only now is it measured in dollars.
Liberty is not taxable.
We now need a government program to assist those poor people who can’t afford their liberty tax.
Just to be clear, those stars you see after you get punched in the face by Jason Statham are not silver linings either.
I am continually trying to figure out if Charles Krauthammer is the dumbest smart person or the smartest dumb person of all time.
I have faith but remember folks, just because Jesus and His Church eventually triumphs doesn’t mean the US will be around to see it.
June 29, 2012 at 8:28 pm
This ruling is actually one of the most pro-states rights rulings in a long time. The court has set precedent now that the commerce clause CANNOT be used to force you to buy something. They also said Congress cannot attach strings to blackmail states into doing something. By the court calling it a tax it ensures Obama's loss, and at the end of the day the Federal Governments powers have been more limited by the ruling than they have been in a long time. I am optimistic that the American people will rise up and throw out this law, and that future cases to come will now have the precedent of this case which limits the federal government. At least that is how I can keep my head from popping off.
June 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Mr. Patrick Archbold, any thoughts on how it maybe possbile that the MSM and the Obama administration will suddenly cite Scripture and quote render unto Ceaser?
June 30, 2012 at 1:40 am
Liberty is not taxable.
Liberty is not taxable.
Liberty is not taxable.
Liberty is not taxable. It bears repeating
June 30, 2012 at 3:00 am
This ruling is actually one of the most pro-states rights rulings in a long time.
Justin Bieber is actually the machoist singer to come on the scene in a long time.
Adam Sandler is actually the most gifted actor to grace the big screen in a long time.
The New York Jets are one of the most successful organizations the NLF has seen in a long time.
Sorry. I thought we were playing the "outrageously untrue statements" game. It is Friday, after all.
June 30, 2012 at 7:19 pm
The artificial sovereign person constituted by the sovereign personhood of the individual, of each and every citizen, must be acknowledged by the government. The human beings’ soul, with its conscience, must be accorded the rights endowed by our Constitution, among the Bill of Rights and other un-enumerated rights acknowledged in the Ninth Amendment. The soul of the artificial person of government is contingent upon constant reconstitution by the souls of its people. When the artificial sovereign person of the government reneges on fulfilling these duties towards its citizens, it rejects its reason for being and ceases to exist. This government forfeits its sovereign power to authorize, to lead and to employ. Taxation without representation results when the artificial person of government refuses to acknowledge and protect the freedom endowed by “their Creator”, to the souls of the human beings from the first moment of “their” existence. Taxation without representation exists when the government taxes people without acknowledging their rational, immortal souls.
July 1, 2012 at 2:56 am
what I've learned from the last two days: Vitriol in victory marks the winner as a loser.
July 1, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Mandating persons or corporations (which are owned and run by real persons) to pay insurance for another specifiable person to cover their purchase of abortifacients, sterilisations or contraceptives when that person desires same is not comparable to the imposition of a State tax – in respect of any element that is at issue in the suits or in respect of the fundamental principles that are involved. It is a radical and oppressive prescription – unjust in its interference in relations between persons quite apart from the fact that the matter being purchased is not an objective good and can reasonably be found to be an objective evil (that is not in any way related, except in a negative way, to a person's health). Moreover, a specific tax (which this Mandate is not) can be objectively unjust, in which case non-compliance is morally licit and may be a moral duty.
July 1, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Précis of the Roberts decision:
This is a truly crappy piece of legislation.
Of course Congress does not have the power to force you to buy health care.
It does have the power to impose a tax on you if you don't buy health care, broccoli, or anything else it thinks you should buy. The government may claim this is not a tax–that's just a shallow attempt at deception.
You think this is a pretty shoddy way to do business? Well, I didn't vote for the son of a bitch, and it's not my job to save you from the folly of your political choices.
(Commentary: I don't like the result. In particular, I don't yet understand where this particular taxing power comes from. On the other hand, our side supposedly admires "strict construction," saying we want judges who will interpret the law, not impose their personal policy preferences; and it is the other side that has the propensity, when defeated in the political (i. e. democratic) arena, to take the fight to the courts.)