A Legal Analysis of Justice Robert's Healthcare Decision on the Individual Mandate


The recent Supreme Court healthcare decision, more specifically, the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, (No. 11-393) case, upholding the Obama-team (Obama-Pelosi-Reid) Healthcare law and its compelled purchase of a corporate healthcare insurance product by all American citizens, is clearly an erroneous decision with regard to the individual mandate portion of the law.   Furthermore, while the law has now been upheld in theory by the high Court as a constitutional "tax",  it may still be challenged again in the federal courts in the future when put into actual practice, and may not be upheld again then, once so tested, after the tax is actually forcibly imposed on and collected from a citizen who does not want to do business with any insurance company that pays for abortions and provides contraception (as they all must now do); and, who challenges the forcible imposition and collection of the tax as an undue burden upon, and violation of, his constitutional right to live by his own personal religious beliefs specifically regarding things like abortion and contraception.


This first error in this case of course obviously arises from the high court's invention of a new extra-constitutional federal authority to compel the citizens to consume corporate products, or suffer some form of government-imposed punishment (a tax) for their choice to not consume (for whatever reason, economic, religious, etc.); and the second obvious error of course comes out of the fact that the court wrongfully re-writes the law on its own, as a tax, rather than simply applying or rejecting the law as it was actually written by Congress, which law was not written as a "tax" law, but as a penalty imposed under the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.


I believe that these basic errors were committed by a Chief Justice who clearly was more concerned with the potential political backlash and liberal media flak and attention that would have resulted from a proper decision at law under the Constitution, than he was concerned with his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and its philosophy of a limited government, that is only legitimately empowered to engage in only the specifically enumerated powers specified in the Constitution for it to engage in!  It is absolutely plain and clear that the U.S. Constitution, in regards to the individual mandate, clearly requires the striking down of this repugnant law and mandate (or tax).  In the opinion of the author of this article, this Supreme Court decision and opinion is nothing but the SOPHISTRY of the courts that Thomas Jefferson warned the American People to be wary of in the future. 


In my opinion, this is one of the worst decisions in the history of the court, - right up there at the top of the list, with all the other all-time worst decisions like  Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), in which the Supreme Court ruled that under the Constitution black persons were not human beings, but instead were sub-human; Buck v. Bell (1927), allowing States to forcibly sterilize the mentally retarded; Korematsu v. United States (1944), allowing the federal government to order Japanese Americans into internment camps based on nothing but federal paranoia and hysteria, as opposed to any factually indicting evidence; and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), allowing the States to segregate public services by race under the fraudulent separate but equal doctrine. 


This healthcare decision, incredibly, as I will demonstrate, opens the door for the first time in history to the federal government now being allowed to tax, not just uniformly or by apportionment, as required and only allowed by the Constitution, but rather, based on nothing more than specific personal political or religious beliefs and or practices, and, whether or not they philosophically or politically agree with the government and or the current administration's policies and programs!  Aside from the on-going legal misapplication of the federal personal income tax laws, this healthcare decision represents one of the greatest (worst) judicial limitations ever imposed on the liberty and economic freedom of the whole American people by an obviously erroneous decision of the high court !


This decision opens the door for the first time in American history to the very real legal reality of an American government that is now apparently allowed, and is allegedly now empowered, to arbitrarily and capriciously directly tax some of the American people, simply based on whether or not they philosophically agree with and support the current crop of political leadership on certain government policies or programs; and, will, or will not, do as they are told by the government within those programs.   But, only if they actually have the courage, fortitude, and faith to actually insist that they will live their own lives by their own personal life philosophies, customs, habits, and religious beliefs, and not by those dictated to them by the federal government or current administration.    That all being said, let's look at the decision.


First, Congress did not write this healthcare insurance law as part of the U.S. tax code, nor even as a law imposing a "tax".  The law was written by Congress as a legal mandate to buy insurance, allegedly derived from, and based on, the federal powers granted under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, with a penalty being imposed on the individual person for failing to obey the mandate to buy a government approved insurance policy.


So the Court, in its immense wisdom, correctly held that the law was not authorized by the Constitution under the interstate commerce clause, as the law was actually constructed and written by Congress, and that the penalty could not be sustained under that interstate commerce authority (which is a legal authority and power that is actually given to the government by the Constitution to exercise); but¸ then the Court ruled that the penalty for failing the unlawful interstate mandate could theoretically be upheld as an exercise of the authorized taxing powers rather than as the penalty imposed under the interstate commerce regulation powers; even though the law was not written by Congress as a tax (as the word tax does not even appear in the act); and even though the power to compel citizens to buy a healthcare insurance product from a private corporation, or to forcibly compel the citizens to participate in any medical care system, are not legal powers or authorities that are actually granted anywhere in the Constitution to the federal government to legitimately exercise!   Oh my.   So, let me get this straight now, the court (correctly) wants me to believe that the government cannot use the interstate commerce powers to compel me to buy healthcare insurance, or engage in interstate commerce;  but now, under this new healthcare law, Congress can tax me if I don't do what I am told and do business with the government's corporate partners and buy healthcare insurance?  This is despite the fact that insurance and healthcare are never mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as part of the  federal authority or the specifically granted powers to be legitimately exercised by the central government?   This is obviously legal nonsense; judicial  sophistry, if you will, because the federal government cannot compel the conduct of individuals with respect to the holding of specific personal religious beliefs of any kind.


If the Congress cannot compel you to commerce under the interstate commerce clause, then no penalty can be legitimately laid on you for refusing to engage in the commerce desired.   And, if they can, then what other INactivity can be legitimately punished by the government with a tax?  Sleeping too much?  Laziness?  Your religious beliefs maybe?  Your own personal "life philosophy" possibly? Your own personal religious customs and habits? (like refusing contraception or abortion?)  Your political affiliations?  Your religious affiliations?  Your faithful adherence to any non-governmentally approved philosophies, charity, moral standards, and or belief systems? Enjoyed in America until now by all Americans as an inherent right unquestionably guaranteed under the Constitution for over two hundred and twenty years, but suddenly, under this decision invented by one man, those rights are now made subject to some new federal power to tax, invented by one Justice of the Court, acting on his own, under legislation where the word "tax" never actually appears in the text of the bill?   Didn't Obama, Harry Pelosi and Nancy Pelosi all swear before its passage that this legislation absolutely was not a "tax"?


Remember the power to tax is the power to destroy!  Do you really believe that the federal government should be (and allegedly is) now legitimately empowered to destroy your religious beliefs and practices by taxation; as this law will clearly do to the Catholic religion by compelling all persons, regardless of their personal beliefs on such matters, to buy insurance from an insurance company that is now required by law to pay for both contraception and abortions?  Or does this decision just represent more ludicrous sophistry from the cult of the omnipotent state, that wants you and all Americans to believe that you have no real power, liberty, or freedom in this world, and that you can be controlled and compelled at any time by the State or federal governments to behave in any way that they desire or demand legislatively, regardless of your own personal economic situation, and or beliefs - religious or otherwise, - or you will be punished, and or taxed?  Can you please explain to me just exactly how that sort of government posture is ever perceived as being a legitimately representative government?


But according to the Supreme Court's analysis provided by Chief Justice Roberts in this most recent healthcare decision, this penalty, as it was actually written by the Congress, according to him, isn't really a penalty at all, its a "tax"!   Again, this is despite the fact that the word "tax" never actually even appears in the bill or legislation, and despite that fact that this reading of the law was repeatedly vociferously disavowed by both its authors in Congress (the Pelosi-Reid progressive socialists in Congress), and its other pre-enactment advocates and backers, including the President himself, both before and after enactment!   And then, Justice Roberts summarily concludes in his Opinion that this tax is not a constitutionally prohibited direct tax, because it is not a capitation, but rather, is perfectly legitimate in the manner legislated as a tax, even though there is no tax that is ever actually imposed in the law as it was actually written and enacted by Congress? 


So, what we are going to do now, is take a good hard look at this part of the opinion and try to assess whether or not these legal proclamations of Justice Roberts actually "hold water", as it were, legally, under the known and widely accepted principles of law; and then, if his conclusions regarding the matter are actually legally sound when considered in light of the historical controlling holdings on the federal taxing powers possessed  under the U.S. Constitution.   First, in attempting to justify the holding in this decision, Justice Roberts writes in the Sebelius Opinion on page 32:


"... That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a conditionnot owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS.  Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn­ing income.  And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax."                 (emphasis added)


First of all, these summary legal conclusions from Justice Roberts are disingenuous at best, and an outright fraud being perpetrated on the American People by him at worst, as this is not a proper or sound legal analysis of the true facts, or of the controlling constitutional law.   I contest his obviously erroneous conclusion that the alleged tax on the defined "condition" is not an (unconstitutional) direct tax, and will specifically address that obviously erroneous claim in a point by point analysis (and critique) in this article in a moment, but for now, just so that we cover all the legal bases and angles potentially resulting from this decision, lets suppose for the moment that the Court is right, and the tax is not a direct tax as Justice Roberts summarily declares in his opinion.  Justice Roberts goes on:


"A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.  It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other cir­cumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared respon­sibility payment is that it is triggered by specific cir­cumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."   Sebelius, supra, pg. 41   (emphasis added)


I will explain why this conclusion of Justice Roberts is just plain wrong in a moment, but for now, hypothetically speaking, if the tax is not a direct tax as Justice Roberts so simply concludes, then it must be an indirect tax, right?   This must be true because the Constitution only authorizes the federal government to impose two types of federal taxes, direct, and indirect!   Furthermore, no federal tax can be both direct and indirect, and no tax can be neither[1].  Well then, if the tax is not a direct tax, and under the Constitution it must be either direct or indirect, then the tax must be an indirect tax.  So, what kind of indirect tax is it?  Where is the legal analysis of this critical and essential element of the decision in Justice Robert's Opinion?  It doesn't exist!  That's ABSURDLY ridiculous, and, in the opinion of this author, completely fraudulent!  To simply conclude that the tax is not direct, and then engage in no analysis what-so-ever of the indirect constitutional taxing powers, and how this alleged tax then "fits" into one the three established categories of indirect taxation allowed, impost, duty, or excise, is so patently fraudulent that it is unheard of in the annals of American jurisprudence.  An analysis of the legitimacy of the alleged tax as an indirect tax is absolutely essential to establish the legal, constitutional  legitimacy of the tax.  Yet Justice Roberts gives us nothing, - nothing but a completely dishonest total avoidance of the critical and essential precedential analysis of what is absolutely the controlling constitutional legal issue! 


Now, why would Justice Roberts completely leave out of his opinion this critical and essential analysis and discussion of the indirect taxing powers after concluding the tax is not direct?   (Gee, I wonder?)  Well, let's examine the legal issue in light of the controlling historical Supreme Court decisions, Opinions, and case law, and I think that maybe you will begin to understand.  First, very briefly, and in easily verifiable summary:  The U.S. Constitution of course, gives the federal government the lawful authority and legal power to lay and collect taxes in the United States of America, both directly and indirectly.


However, those taxing powers are very carefully LIMITED and SEPARATED by that authorizing document, in both scope and authority, so that they do not intrude upon or invade the jurisdiction and authorities of the legislatures of the fifty States, or the fundamental, constitutionally enumerated and preserved rights of the American People.   To wit: all direct taxes are required under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution to be apportioned to the state (Treasuries) for payment, and are never collected from the American people themselves, even when directly laid on them or their property or condition; and, under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, direct taxes are also required to be laid in proportion to the most recent census (thus controlling how much each State's share of the direct tax will be when it is apportioned to them for payment by the State Treasury).  Both of these constitutional provisions, specifically limiting the federal authority to tax directly, still exist and must be given force of law within the collection operations and court decisions of the U.S. government and its courts, notwithstanding (irregardless of) the adoption of the 16th Amendment (see Brushaber v Union Pacific R. Co and Stanton V. Baltic Mining Co.), which did not repeal or amend these pre-existing Article I provisions of the constitution controlling, and limiting, the federal power to tax directly (only when apportioned to the States).  This is true because it is not a legitimate application of the law, or the Constitution, to use one law, or clause, to destroy another.  The Article I provisions regarding direct taxation have never been repealed or amended, they must be given force of law.   


Meanwhile, the 16th Amendment does not even contain the word "direct", therefore, as a tax without apportionment, and in light of the pre-existing Article I clauses prohibiting direct taxes unless proportionately apportioned (to the States), the Amendment can only authorize an indirect  tax, and cannot authorize a direct tax without apportionment, because that interpretive application of the Amendment would have the legal effect of wrongfully using the 16th Amendment to destroy the Article I provisions, when the Amendment doesn't even actually contain the word "direct", which is obviously present in both of the identified Article I clauses!


In an obvious attempt to justify and sustain his faulty reasoning in this Opinion, Justice Roberts writes in this decision, defending his summary conclusion, that:


"... it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that every­one must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution."




This statement and conclusion are both completely false because the Constitution certainly DOES guarantee the citizens that they MAY completely avoid federal taxation through inactivity, by commanding that ALL direct taxes BE APPORTIONED TO THE STATES for collection, thus relieving the citizens from the burden of ever having to pay ANY direct tax, FOREVER;  because it is the State governments that are constitutionally required through the apportionment clause to pay ALL the direct taxes imposed, from their Treasuries, thus allowing the People to escape completely, forever, the payment of any federal direct tax or capitation!  Under the U.S. Constitution, they must ALL be apportioned to the States for payment, and never to the citizens themselves.


So while it is true that capitations "are expressly contemplated by the Constitution", it is also true that the citizens are constitutionally completely removed from all legal responsibility for the payment of any direct tax (or capitation) by the apportionment clause.   Justice Roberts' unsupported claim that "the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity", is easily exposed AS A TOTAL LIE!   Does he really think that we are all that stupid!  Justice Roberts, in going on in the Opinion, then concludes:


"Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchas­ing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one."


This claim is just stupid of course, because whether or not Congress has done something properly, is of course completely dependent upon whether or not they are legally allowed to do it, (i.e.: are they authorized by the Constitution to so specifically act ?).    And furthermore, I will show later that this ruling certainly does invent a brand new taxing power for the federal government to wield, that previously did not exist.    His claim that it does not, is simply legal NONSENSE, - and by throwing this claim in here he seems intent on preemptively "heading off" the legal criticism that he obviously knows he is going to get for this logic and faulty rational.  This is because it certainly is a completely new taxing power that he invents here on his own in this decision, i.e: the "shared responsibility payment"!   But Justice Roberts summarily concludes in this opinion that the alleged tax is not direct, so we move on in this discussion, hypothetically assuming for this part of the discussion that he is correct on this point (he is not, but we'll get to that).


So then, if the tax is not a direct tax (hypothetically), that logically brings us next in this discussion to the subject of indirect taxation under the U.S. Constitution, right ?  Because if this healthcare tax is not a direct tax as Justice Roberts so blithely concludes, then it must be an indirect tax, right?  (Because its got to be one or the other!)     Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution gives the federal government the legal authority to tax indirectly, and it divides that granted constitutional power into three classes of legally authorized indirect taxes: imposts, duties, and excises.   


Additionally, under Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 3 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is given complete legal authority over all foreign affairs and foreign persons in America.  These sections of the Constitution grant complete legal authority to the federal government to exercise power over all foreign affairs, including our international foreign agreements with other nations (treaties), and, over foreign persons living and or operating inside the United States, and over all of their activities conducted within the United States.  


Furthermore, Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution prohibit any and all of the States from enacting any individual agreements with foreign entities or nations, or taxing their imports.   All foreign relations are therefore plainly and clearly constitutionally regulated and legislated, and taxed, only under federal law, within this granted federal jurisdiction, from which the States are prohibited from acting within. So first, in analyzing the indirect constitutional authority to tax, in accord with this constitutional federal authority over all foreign activity, we have the indirect category of "Imposts", that are authorized as the first form of indirect taxes that are constitutionally authorized for the federal government to impose under Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl 1.   Imposts, are taxes laid on foreign goods being imported into the United States for sale here, and, they are also taxes imposed on the activities of foreign persons who are residing or visiting (and acting) within the United States lands or territories.


Now clearly, a federal healthcare tax that is imposed on citizens in America who choose not to buy insurance cannot be sustained as an impost, as no foreign activity or foreign person at all is necessarily involved (unless we are all going to be compelled to do business with a foreign doctor, which is ridiculous!).  So this new healthcare tax cannot possibly be classified under the Constitution as an indirect tax of the category "Impost"!  (However, if Congress would allow individuals to buy health care insurance across state lines, then it could tax, under the interstate commerce clause, anybody and everybody who chose to purchase their insurance from an out-of-state provider!  But apparently, it is more important to Congress to maintain the profit streams of the in-state corporate insurance monopolies that currently exist, than it is to provide We the People with reasonably priced, competitive, national insurance options, from a corporate provider anywhere in the United States.)


Next in our analysis of indirect taxation comes, “Duties”, the second form of indirect taxation that is authorized by the Constitution for the federal government to engage in, are taxes laid on goods and products manufactured in the U.S. (America), that are being exported to foreign markets for sale outside the United States in some other part of the world.  However, America has basically foregone these types of taxes and has very few “duties” in existence (now) that have been imposed by Congress on American manufacturers and exporters, and the articles they export for sale outside of America.  Our government properly does not punish our own manufacturers (and people) for selling successfully to “overseas” or foreign markets.


However, again, the federal healthcare tax that is imposed on citizens in America who choose not to buy insurance, also cannot be sustained as a duty, as again, no foreign or export activity is necessarily involved in purchasing healthcare insurance in the United States.


So this new "tax" that Justice Roberts invents on his own from the subject legislation (that does not contain the word "tax"), constitutionally speaking, cannot be either a "Duty", nor an "Impost" because no foreign activity is involved.   That brings us to the last of the three categories, or forms, of indirect taxation that are authorized under the Constitution for the federal government to exercise, the power to tax by "Excise".  We have previously extensively addressed the federal authority to tax by excise; what an excise tax legally consists of; and how the reach of this granted constitutional authority is limited in application by the nature of the underlying activity conducted (which legal reality Justice Roberts completely ignores in his erroneous opinion), but we review it all now again.


Black's Law Dictionary defines excise taxes specifically based on the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. ruling of the Supreme Court in 1911:


Excise taxes are taxes "laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. "privilege tax". Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition

The chief justice delivering the opinion of the court in Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363, 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305 (1904), in speaking of the words 'duties,' 'imposts,' and 'excises,' said:


“We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.


Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities.  Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680.


The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.


If we are correct in holding that this [income tax] is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376.”

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107, 151-152 (1911)


As was identified above, it was specifically held in the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)[2] ruling, that:


"Excises" are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges ... the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods [or the simple earning of income]. " Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680." Flint, supra, at 151


The excise taxing authority also includes the power to tax “income” under the 16th Amendment, but not directly, only income derived from the defined indirectly taxable activities that are subject to the federal excise taxing authority (see Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.)


However, plainly and clearly, we can now quickly and easily see from these original controlling Supreme Court rulings that the federal healthcare tax also cannot be upheld as a legitimate or constitutional exercise of the indirect federal powers to tax by excise, as the tax (penalty) does not come within the defined purview and legal reach of the federal constitutional authority to tax indirectly by excise because when you refuse to buy a healthcare insurance product there is no "manufacture, sale or consumption" of any "commodity within the country"; there is no "license to pursue any certain occupation" that is needed or enjoyed; and there is no "corporate privilege" that is involved with the individual person's refusal to buy an insurance product from a corporation; and therefore there is clearly no legitimate legal constitutional basis to uphold the healthcare (penalty) tax as an indirect tax, because it can cannot be deemed to be any of the three constitutionally allowed forms, impost, duty or excise.


Therefore, if the tax is NOT a direct tax, as Justice Roberts summarily concludes, it is also NOT a legitimate indirect tax either because it cannot be justified and sustained as either an impost, a duty, or an excise, which are the only real legal possibilities under the Constitution!   Therefore, if Justice Roberts is correct about the healthcare tax  not being a direct tax, then he has plainly and clearly, unlawfully and unconstitutionally, invented and created on his own with this decision, a completely new form of indirect taxation - the shared responsibility payment (as he puts it in the Opinion), as a new power to tax indirectly for the federal government to now exercise extra-constitutionally.


So it certainly would appear from an honest analysis of Justice Roberts own logic, that contrary to his own conclusion, he certainly has invented with this decision an entirely new authority for the federal government to tax, that does not exist within the Constitution, nor previously within the controlling Supreme Court decisions constituting the case law on the limits of the federal power to tax! Maybe this is why Justice Roberts left this critical element (a discussion of the indirect taxing powers) out of the Opinion entirely, and instead just leapt to the summary conclusion that it was sufficient to only declare and announce that the tax was not a direct tax, without ever discussing what type of indirect tax it must then be!   This was obviously both erroneous and disingenuous, and cannot be sustained through an honest review of all of the applicable clauses of the Constitution and controlling case precedents, together with a proper application of the constitutional taxing powers within their true historical, limited, context.


So, now that we have logically and factually determined that it is constitutionally impossible to legally sustain this healthcare penalty (the tax) as a legitimate indirect tax under the indirect taxing powers and authorities actually granted by the Constitution to the federal government to legitimately wield and exercise, lets go back and re-examine Justice Roberts' summary conclusion that it is not a direct tax, and some of the other statements (conclusions) written in the opinion that are factually, and therefore legally, questionable as well.


First, Justice Roberts and the high Court, did not even bother to try to interpret and apply the law as it was actually written by Congress, (wrongfully avoiding that actual written application) but rather, entirely re-wrote the law on their own, allegedly transforming the substance of the law from the interstate commerce penalty that Congress wrote, to a tax that the Supreme Court authored on its own.  As pointed out earlier, the word "tax" does not even appear in the text of the legislation, and this healthcare law was specifically disavowed as a tax by the president himself, and its democratic congressional authors, before enactment.  


It is not the legitimate, or constitutional job of the courts to correct the legislative errors made by Congress.  This has long been recognized and held true repeatedly by the federal courts.  Historically, it has always been recognized by the courts that tax laws have a  clear potential for effecting a derogation and degradation of personal rights, liberties, and property interests, and that therefore those (taxing) statutes are subject to a strict application of the rules of construction, and any ambiguities or omissions must be resolved against imposition of the tax.  In Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914), the Supreme Court clearly acknowledged this basic and long-standing rule of statutory construction:


"Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen.  Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201, aff'd 201 F. 918; Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57."             (Id at p. 265, emphasis added)


I would like to suggest here, that the lack of the actual word "tax", and the lack any language in the new healthcare law actually "imposing" any "tax", should be sufficient to establish a factual ambiguity and raise a reasonable doubt as to whether or not Congress actually wrote a tax law, or an unconstitutional interstate mandate with an un-enforceable "penalty", which cannot be sustained in practice as a legitimate "tax", even if it has been sustained now here in this healthcare case, in theory.


The supporting historical case cites continue; in United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 44 S.Ct. 69 (1923), the Supreme Court clearly stated at pp. 187-88:


"On behalf of the Government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153."     (emphasis added)


And again, in United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, the court also held:


 “The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar"


This rule of strict construction against the taxing authority was reiterated in Tandy Leather Company v. United States, 347 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1965), where Judge Hutcheson of our 5th Circuit eloquently and unequivocally proclaimed at p. 694-5:


". . . In ruling as he did, that the taxpayer had the obligation to show that sales of the articles in suit were not subject to the excise taxes collected, the district judge was misled by the erroneous contention of the tax collector into misstating the rule of proof in a tax case. This is: that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid.


"The Government's claim and the judge's ruling come down in effect to the proposition that the state of construction of appellants' kits had reached such an advanced level that the tax levied on the finished products could be collected on their sale, though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians!  There is no warrant in law for such a holding. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at p. 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211.


In 51 American Jurisprudence, "Taxation", Sec. 316, "Strict or Liberal Construction", supported by a great wealth of authority, it is said:


'Although it is sometimes broadly stated either that tax laws are to be strictly construed or, on the other hand, that such enactments are to be liberally construed, this apparent conflict of opinion can be reconciled if it is borne in mind that the correct rule appears to be that where the intent of meaning of tax statutes, or statutes levying taxes, is doubtful, they are, unless a contrary legislative intention appears, to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer or citizen. Any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer. * * *'


"The judgment was wrong. It is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiffs and for further and not inconsistent proceedings."


     The federal courts have repeatedly recognized as indisputable these “canonized” standards of legal construction.  In  Commonwealth Natural Resources, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 529, 536, 248 S.E. 2d 791 (1978), at pg. 795:


"A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that a statute be construed from its four corners and not by singling out a particular word or phrase.”  


The hornbook rule reminds us that tax laws are strictly construed, and that when the letter of the law is subject to more than one interpretation, it must be construed against the imposition of the tax, the rule of interpretation of taxes being:


"that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid." Tandy Leather Company, supra, at 694.


Furthermore, the courts of the United States, including the Supreme Court, do not possess any legislative powers to author law.   Under the Constitution of the United States of America, it states at Article I, Section 1, clause 1:


All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, …”. 


This provision of the Constitution very plainly and clearly commands that ONLY Congress can write enforceable law.   The Supreme Court and Justice Roberts are not authorized to effectively create with their rulings, a tax law that was never authored by Congress as a tax !   So, while the courts do possess the power to reject a provision of law written by Congress, or a statute, in its entirety, for want of constitutionality; they do NOT possess the power to amend, edit, alter, or change the written law from the actual language used and employed by Congress, who possesses “All legislative powers”.  


The courts have a  plain and simple judicial duty to apply the statutes as written by Congress, to the circumstances, facts, and evidence of the case as presented and argued in the instant matter before them.  They are prohibited from re-writing the law on their own as Justice Roberts has so foolishly and erroneously attempted to do in this Sebelius Opinion.  The statutes are almost always simple and clear, without ambiguity or conflict.   The laws simply mean what the words used in them by Congress say, and nothing more can be legitimately read into the law, or assumed about it into existence by the courts, as has erroneously been done in this healthcare case decision.   The following U.S. Supreme Court cases below clearly reveal these irrefutable facts.   In Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 249, 117 L.Ed 2nd 91 (1992), the court identifies that:


"When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction -- that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says, there is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete."  Id. at pg. 254


In Reiter v Sonotone Corp., 442 US 330, 337, 60 L Ed 2d 931, 99 S Ct. 2326 (1979), the court recognizes its duty to begin with the specific words of the statute:


"As in all cases involving statutory construction, "our starting point must be the language employed by  Congress,", 


And again, in Richards v United States, 369 US 1, 9, 7 L Ed 2d 492, 82 S Ct. 585 (1962), the court indicates that:


“we assume that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used."


In Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 US 102, 108, 64 L Ed 2d 766, 100 S Ct. 2051 (1980), the court again recognizes:


"…absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language  must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." 


And in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 US 115 L Ed 2d 764, pp. 767 – 973, the court simply states:


"When the terms of a statute are unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete except in rare and exceptional circumstances." 


In Fuller v. United States 615 F. Supp. 1054 (D.C. Cal 1985) , West’s Key 188 quoting Richards v. United States 369 US 1, 9, 82 S. Ct. 585, 590, 7 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1962), the court expands on this point:


"The starting point in any endeavor to construe a Statute is always the words of the Statute itself; unless Congress has clearly indicated that its intentions are contrary to the words it employed in the Statute, this is the ending point of interpretation."


And, this is echoed in Estate of Cowart  v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 US 120 L Ed 2d 379, 112 S Ct. 2589 (1992), the court wrote:


"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a  statute speaks with clarity to an issue, judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning--in all but the most extraordinary circumstance--is finished; courts must give effect to the clear meaning of statutes as  written."


And again in Beecham v. United States, 511 US 128 L Ed 2d 383 (1994):


"The court's task is to determine whether the language the legislators actually enacted has a plain, unambiguous meaning." 


And in recognition of the lack of judicial power to alter written law, in Federal Trade Com. v Simplicity Pattern Co., 360 US 55, p. 55


"The United States Supreme Court cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute." 


And continuing, from Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, 447 US 102, 64 L Ed 2d 766, 100 S Ct. 2051 (1980), the court again, consistently holds:


"The starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself; absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive."


In United States v. Lexington Mill & E. Co., 232 US 399, pp. 409. (1914), the court reiterates:


"We are not at liberty to construe any statute so as to deny effect to any part of its language. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that significance and effect shall, if possible, be accorded to every word.  As early as in Bacon's Abridgment, § 2, it was said that 'a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word, shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.' This rule has been repeated innumerable times."


In Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 479 F2d 1143, the court again is consistent in its recognition of both its own duty, and the limits of its own power to create effect with its rulings:


"Courts have no power to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect to their ideas of policy and fitness or the desirability of symmetry in statutes."


In Russello v United States, 464 US 16, 23, 78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983) (citation omitted), and Keene Corp. v United States, 508 US 124 L Ed 2d 118, 113 S Ct. (1993), the court recognizes that:


"This fact only underscores our duty to refrain from reading a phrase into the statute when Congress has left it out.  Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another ..., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion."


And in American Tobacco Co. v Patterson, 456 US 63, 71 L Ed 2d 748, 102 S Ct. 1534, the court again confirms the impropriety of the courts' attempting to add to legislation, words, phrases, or unintended meaning, which is not actually there in the written law as authored by Congress,


"It is not a function of the United States Supreme Court to sit as a super-legislature and create statutory distinctions where none were intended [by Congress]."


In Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 US 1, 26, 51 L Ed 2d 124, 97 S Ct. 926 (1977) the court declares:


"Going behind the plain language of a statute in search of a possibly contrary congressional intent is "a step to be taken cautiously" even under the best of circumstances."  


Subsequently, in Water Quality Ass'n v. United States, 795 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1986), where, citing and quoting Calamaro, the court added at p. 1309:


"It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statute's language. DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956); see also 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.38 (4th ed. 1984). Similarly, the Secretary has no power to change the language of the revenue statutes because he thinks Congress may have overlooked something."


And finally, in Reinecke v. Gardner, 277 U.S. 239, the court stated with finality:


"The extension of tax by implication is not favored"


In Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, pp. 314 - 315, 82 L Ed 858. (1938), the court again affirms the concept of a limited government, of clearly established powers, that if not specific and clear, should not be allowed to operate in favor of the government, to the disadvantage of the taxpayer:


"In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is -presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively;  that, if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer..."


And finally, in Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2d 863, the similarly court commands,


"Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government" 


The hornbook rule, that tax laws are strictly construed, and that when the letter of the law is subject to more than one interpretation, it must be construed against the imposition of the tax and for the individual, the rule of interpretation of taxes being against the implication of tax by presumption.  Again, this rule of strict construction, and against presumptions made by the taxing authorities, was emphasized in Tandy Leather Company v. United States, 347 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1965), where Judge Hutcheson of the 5th Circuit eloquently and unequivocally proclaimed at p. 694-5:


"that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid."  Tandy Leather Company, supra, at 694. 


Apparently Justice Roberts is unaware of any of these controlling legal precedents and legal standards of law for statutory construction that work together to absolutely prohibit him from legitimately declaring that the interstate mandate and penalty, as the law was actually written by Congress, is not really a penalty, but rather is actually a tax!  There is no authority what-so-ever, in the Constitution or the law, for the Court, or Justice Roberts, to re-write the law on their own as a tax in place of the penalty authored by Congress!   The high court is clearly usurping the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Congress in attempting to do so in this case, and he must not be allowed to get away with it.


In the beginning of this article I said I would come back to, and expose, the flawed legal reasoning behind Justice Roberts illogic in this case.  We will do that now.  If you remember, he wrote:


"That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS.  Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.  Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn­ing income." 


The only problem here is that the condition he ascribes to triggering the tax, is the natural condition of the human body, into which it is born of this earth (under GOD?), without insurance; and thus, the tax is indeed an unconstitutional direct tax on the human existence because it is not apportioned to the States for collection (or laid in proportion to the census), but rather is laid ON THE condition OF being human and of existing in this world in the natural condition given to you by the Creator.  (What? You say there is no "Creator".  - Oh, I see, - you get your beliefs; - and I don't get mine!)


It is not constitutionally sufficient, nor allowable (nor authorized), to justify the application of any federal tax, direct or indirect, simply because one chooses to live by his faith in God, rather than by any government mandate like one requiring the purchase of a government approved healthcare insurance plan from a company that sinfully pays for abortions, which many Catholics consider murder.    Unlike "buying gasoline" and "earning income", which are both positive acts or actions that we have already seen are legitimately made subject to the federal excise taxing authority (under Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.), refusing to buy insurance is not a positive act, it is INACTIVITY based on adherence to personal beliefs, by right, which rights, and the exercise of such, CANNOT be legitimately taxed by the government. 


In this healthcare case, the triggering "condition" (not having insurance) assumed to be taxable by Justice Roberts, is NOT a "condition" at all, that is legitimately subject to the indirect federal taxing authority!  IT IS THE NATURAL CONDITION UNTO WHICH THE BODY IS BORN.   It is based on your existence!   That is NOT a constitutionally  taxable "condition" (existing) upon which the imposition of any legitimate indirect tax, or non-apportioned direct tax, may be based!    Theoretically of course, the tax could be imposed constitutionally as a direct tax, rather than as an indirect one, but if you remember, Justice Roberts specifically concluded the tax (penalty) was not a direct tax!  And of course, if it were to be imposed as a constitutional direct tax, it would of course have to be apportioned to the States for payment, and could not be laid on, or collected from, the individual person!


To irrefutably demonstrate the point that this ruling does indeed, and will indeed, constitute the unlawful and unconstitutional direct taxation of the human existence (without the required apportionment) if this decision is allowed to stand in the future, I offer the following hypothetical scenario.  Suppose I am a Catholic who, because of my deeply held religious beliefs and convictions, refuses to buy a health insurance policy from a company that provides, and pays for, abortions and contraception.  Of course, the law now requires all of the insurance companies offering healthcare policies in America to pay for abortions and contraception, so I would therefore be unable to buy a policy from any insurance company without being compelled to first give up and violate my own personal religious beliefs and convictions.    Now, up until this travesty of a decision from  Justice Roberts, it has long been recognized, from the beginning of this nation, that the federal government cannot legally or legitimately punish me (or lawfully tax me), simply because I exist with certain religious beliefs.  BUT NOW THAT Constitutional PROTECTION IS GONE, - it been completely taken away by this despicable decision. 


Now, according to Justice Roberts, the government will indeed be allowed to tax me directly, (by stealing the money from my pay without even any clear imposition of any tax), simply because I insist on living my own life according to my own religious beliefs (placing my faith in a belief in God, not with an insurance company), while only participating in those things and activities that I believe in and agree with, while freely refraining from those that I do not; which freedom is apparently no longer allowed by this new tax law written by Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court, instead of Congress!   Thus ends the concept of a limited representative American government.  Under this decision, if allowed to stand, it has now become a despicable repugnant vile thieving lying despotic dictator.   So, now I will be punished (taxed) by the federal government simply for adhering to my religious beliefs, by refusing to give them up where they disagree with government policy, and for no other reason at all!  So the government is now effectively empowered under this decision to directly tax its political opposition, while exempting its supporters from the tax.  Doesn't that scare you just a little bit?  Does that sound like America to you?  Does that sound like the equal protection, equal opportunity, and equal rights that the Constitution supposedly guarantees all Americans, even those who politically oppose the government?  Or does it sound more like one of the repugnant and oppressive socialist systems of government that came from the Soviet Union, Communist China, or Nazi Germany?


The reason why this decision is so despicable, and scary, is that if the courts, or Congress, can just arbitrarily and capriciously define "conditions" that make a person directly taxable while exempting certain others, well, what other "conditions" might they then come up with to tax you directly?  Being a Democrat, or a Republican?  Why not? According to this decision the democrats, when they had control of both houses of Congress and  the executive office two years ago, could have passed a law that taxes anyone who politically opposed them and will not voluntarily give their Democratic Party or their corporate sponsors) a political contribution (money) every month under the premise of national "shared responsibility payment"!  (Just like the Democrats did with this health care insurance law that was passed in both houses without a single Republican vote).  After all, don't we all have an obligation to support the government, no matter who's in power?  This decision opens the door for the first time in American history to the U.S. government now being allow to tax just its political opposition (half of the American people), simply based on the fact that they oppose the current administration's policies!  


Can I now be required to  make a "shared responsibility payment" to the Democratic party every month (or the Republicans), in the name of supporting the U.S. government (as opposed to healthcare)!  After all, doesn't everybody have a moral obligation to support the government!  So why shouldn't the government  be allowed to tax its political opponents if Congress passes the law?   How about atheists?  Can we tax them for refusing to join the rest of us in our belief in God?  If they (liberals) can tax us for not joining them in their belief in insurance, why can't the Republicans (conservatives) tax them for refusing to join  in their most important beliefs when  they are in power ? 


Because that is constitutionally repugnant TYRANNY AND DESPOTISM, NOT representative government, and it's all UNCONSTITUTIONAL, irregardless of what Justice Roberts says in his crazy, erroneous Opinion, that's why! 


DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM with this decision YET !


This healthcare tax is essentially, and in reality, a THOUGHT TAX, that the democrats (liberals) are attempting to impose on anyone who thinks differently than they do or who opposes their policies (like conservatives), irregardless of whether or not that opposition is based in religious belief, factual truth, economic reality, or a constitutional right to one's own opinion.  This ruling now says that you have no legal power to claim, or exercise, any of these rights anymore!  How is that possible?  It effectively says that the government is now allowed to tax directly and without apportionment, any person who disagrees with the party in power and its policies, and who will not alter their life's behavior or belief systems, simply based on being told by a Congress to do so (in unconstitutional law)!  This is not representative government, this is tyranny, despotism, totalitarianism, and oppressive repugnant rule.  This is BEING RULED BY THE DICTATOR, and LIED TO BY THE COURT; where the tyrant simply takes the form of an entire party or political philosophy, rather than the form of a single individual!




Also, if you read the decision you will see, as noted several times above, that throughout the opinion Justice Roberts seems to latch onto the phrase "shared respon­sibility payment" as part of the legal justification for this new healthcare insurance law (tax).  However,  the term "shared respon­sibility payment"  is NOT in the U.S. Constitution as a legitimate authority upon which to base the laying of a tax.   A compelled "shared respon­sibility payment", that is collected directly from the people, but only from some of the people (who disagree with the party in power), outside of the indirect powers to tax (by impost, duty or excise), is an unconstitutionally DIRECT tax that attempts to punish those who merely THINK or BELIEVE differently than the government, thus destroying the freedom of the individual to live as he sees fit; as opposed to how the government demands he live; which will always, inevitably, break down into an abject form of slavery where every act and action, and now even every thought, is attempted to be controlled and dictated by the government (or is at least tried to be controlled), or is taxed out of existence through the power to destroy that taxation manifests!


A "shared respon­sibility payment" sounds to me exactly like the progressive, liberal, clearly socialistic, and most probably communistic, nonsense, that the U.S. Constitution absolutely prohibits from ever becoming American program, policy, or law, because the founding fathers knew then (even if our political leaders do not know or understand it now), that socialism  is the proverbial ROAD TO HELL.  You know, the road that is paved with good intentions, but which ultimately only leads you to ruin, - through the complete loss of all private property, wealth, and prosperity, and which destroys the American quality of life, under the oppressive rule of a dictatorial tyrant (the government)!   So when Justice Roberts writes:


"A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.  It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other cir­cumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)"


He is of course correct that it is not a legitimate and LEGAL (constitutional) capitation tax, but he is wrong that it is not a direct tax, because there is no real "condition" triggering the application of the tax (as an indirect tax) other than your human existence.  A tax on your human existence, that you must pay in order to exist and live by your own religious beliefs, is indeed an unconstitutional direct tax, and a prohibited form of capitation taxes.   It is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL direct tax because it is not a direct tax that is apportioned to the Sates for payment, as is constitutionally required under Article I, Section 2, clause 3. 


This repugnant law has the very chilling legal effect of allowing the government to try to make it illegal, or at least taxable, to disagree with the government and or the current crop of politicians, i.e.: the democratic party that was in majority power from 2008 to 2010.  IF this ruling is allowed to stand in practice, or if the law is not repealed by Congress almost immediately (as soon as possible after the 2014 elections), the free America that we have known for all of our lives will be completely destroyed by it within 10 years.   If the Democrats can make you buy a healthcare insurance policy and pay monthly premiums to their corporate insurance partners (lobbyists) under the guise and pretense of a "shared responsibility payment" demanded in the name of the need for a national healthcare system, tell me then, could the Republicans make everybody buy a new gun every year, and ammunition every month from their corporate partners, in the name of a "shared responsibility payment" demanded in the name of the need for a national defense system? WHY NOT? 


So where does it end?   Can they compel you to buy your next car from their corporate partner, GM (who they bailed out)?    Can they make you buy your insurance policies from their insurance partner AIG (who they also bailed out)?  Can they make you buy inefficient solar panels, or only very expensive organic produce?   Not under the Constitution they can't, because these are not granted powers.  But now, somehow, through the magical appearance and wonderful application of this improperly adopted theory of socialistic "shared responsibility payments", all of these things can now be compelled by Congress if they want to, according to Mister Roberts and the folks up on Says-a-me Street.  It's clearly, all completely removed from true fact and rational logic; from understanding; and from any true legal authority to tax; and as such is a completely INSANE interpretation of the law and the Constitution, comprising nothing but socialistic, communistic, fantasy and nonsense!


This ruling allegedly allows the government to now directly tax the natural condition of human life (that refuses to change the natural condition and enter the artificial condition (as an insured person)), based solely on one's thoughts, philosophy, customs, habits, beliefs and or practices, and nothing else;  with no federal constitutional legal authority necessary any longer, to impose any tax that the government wants to claim lies within this communistic "shared responsibility" framework and payment system of national needs that each new administration invents and tries to mandate.  Mandated socialism and communistic sharing, are not legitimate elements of the federal government's operations that are authorized in the Constitution for the federal government to utilize in representing the American people, precisely because this type of dictatorial law is not representative government, IT IS only TYRANNY and DESPOTISM.


We have entered an era where the American government is now going to apparently be allowed to order around and control every act of the American people, and then directly tax its political and philosophical opposition, based solely on the fact that someone opposes the government's plans, programs, or policies, rather than supports them, - and for no other reason at all; - without any overt taxable act ever being committed by the taxed (punished) individual.


It is absolutely clear now, that we absolutely must repeal the 16th Amendment as soon as possible, as it has now wrongfully become in operation the equivalent of the 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto[3].  And now it has become the alleged legal basis and justification for these types of threatened "thought taxes" and "shared responsibility payments", that are to be imposed on us from now on, on anyone who disagrees with whatever National Socialist policies that the current administration or Congress comes up with (the good intentions paving the road to hell).    I'm sorry, but wasn't "National Socialist" the actual name of the NAZI party in Germany?  And now here we are, arriving at the gates to the same hellish existence because one man refuses to uphold the Constitution and the law as actually written, for fear of the political flak that would come his way for ruling honestly and correctly, as he has sworn an oath to do.  FOR SHAME, FOR SHAME, where is the integrity! Where is the American faith and courage; surely it is not present in this cowardly ruling from Justice Roberts! 


This decision will now become the alleged legal basis for the government being allowed to write laws that command you to act, behave, or perform (for them or their crony corporate supporters), in a particular or certain way, or they will tax you directly in punishment for not doing as you are told by your new MASTERS!  (No longer your representatives!)


But "shared responsibility payments", that are collected directly from the people simply because they exist (but disagree with the government), are very definitely a form of tyrannical direct taxation; they are just not constitutional direct taxation because the imposition of the tax is arbitrary and capricious, not being imposed on all persons uniformly, and the collection of the tax not being apportioned to the States for payment.


Rather, the tax is based on nothing but thoughts and or minority thinking, rather than being legitimately based in any real, occurring, taxable act or action, and thus cannot be legitimately deemed as constitutional unless it is apportioned to the States for collection, and has been laid in proportion to the last census!  Which was not, and has not, been done.  Please tell me that you do understand completely, the perils, evils, and potential consequences of allowing the government (administration) to tax or punish minority thinking!  That is surely the road to HELL, an NOT a prosperous American future!


Let's conclude then by reviewing all of the legal problems and unresolved legal issues we have found in this healthcare decision that we have identified so far:


1.  It erroneously constitutes judicial legislation, as Congress did not write the tax law, per se, and Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court wrongfully did (through the decision), which he is not allowed to do because that usurps the exclusive constitutional legislative jurisdiction of the Congress to write federal law.


2.  It invents a law as a tax that isn't actually written anywhere in the published law for We the People to be able to read and reference.  (Would someone please show me where in the written law any "tax" is imposed?)


3.  It is the worst sort of judicial activism because it is now a law deemed to actually be a tax by the judges alone, created and deemed to exist as a tax solely by way of the ruling of the  Supreme Court, while being denied as such (a tax) by the Congress, the actual authors of the law, and not actually written as such by them!


4. It is no form of legitimate authorized indirect tax, i.e.: impost , duty or excise.


5. It constitutes unconstitutional direct taxation without apportionment.


6. It constitutes unconstitutional direct taxation without proportionate imposition of the tax.


7.  The historically known rules controlling the legal standards of statutory construction have been ignored and violated in their totality in the Opinion, in holding that the unconstitutional interstate commerce mandate/penalty authored by Congress was actually a tax.


8   It is not a congressionally authorized tax on income or anything else that is legitimately taxable, but rather, wrongfully imposed on unpopular or minority choice, thought, beliefs, or practices.


9.  It's an unconstitutional direct tax on personal choice, beliefs and or practices (- i.e.: to be without insurance), that is not imposed on anything legitimately made the subject of any constitutional federal power to tax. 


10.  It has the effect of allowing the government to selectively tax religious beliefs and practices, and the government's political or philosophical opposition.


11.  It unconstitutionally directly taxes the natural human condition, i.e.: your human existence, simply as a function of that existence (where it refuses to obey the national socialist orders to buy insurance); BUT it does so ONLY if you politically DISAGREE with the socialist government and won't change your habits and beliefs when ordered by them to do so.


12.  It is unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious to tax (or not ) on the basis of agreeing with the government (or not).


13.  It's an unconstitutional thought tax - i.e.: a tax on thinking a certain way that the government disagrees with, because the constitution does not authorize the federal government to tax individuals based on someone's thinking or thoughts, or inactivity, on or regarding any subject!


14. There is NO constitutional authority to tax a condition as simple as your physical existence, or based solely on your personal religious beliefs or practices.


15.  There is NO constitutional authority, direct or indirect, for Congress to impose a tax on individuals themselves, on a "shared responsibility payment" basis!


16.   For all of the above reasons this healthcare decision is plainly nothing but egregious reversible judicial error.


And finally, overall, the healthcare law is really nothing more that a 1.76 trillion dollar tax increase, replete with profits for the insurers and inflated salaries for the government gatekeepers who will not provide any healthcare at all, but instead will simply, from now on, manage your access to the healthcare providers, playing gatekeeper to the system and its doctors, but only within their budgetary constraints, of course.  This law is not any form of a real healthcare delivery system, which could easily be built if the liberal progressive elements of our political existence weren't so single-mindedly focused on destroying the existing private employer-sponsored healthcare insurance system, and socializing the entire healthcare industry and all of its operations under a single-payer (by the government) delivery system; which is what they all really want.    Can the government now legally tax the members of the various religions, (i.e.: the Amish, the Quakers, the Catholics, the Jews, the Muslim and Islamic faiths, etc.), based only on their religious beliefs and practices,  or their refusal to come to, and practice, the government's collective beliefs and practices  demanded regarding insurance (including abortion & contraception)? 


Of course, only time will tell if this ridiculous portion of the decision (regarding the individual mandate), and the ludicrous legal theories advanced in it (as outlined above), will actually be allowed to stand, and will continue to be upheld in the federal courts, or, if it will be reversed and stricken down when the enforcement of the tax, in its actual application and practice, once adopted, is tested by someone who has been compelled to pay the alleged tax, rather than just the theoretical test that was applied here in this despicable healthcare decision by Mister Roberts (and the liberal, constitutionally ignorant folks up there on Says-a-me Street).


Of course, there's a lot more critique of the despicable decision I could provide in this article, but I believe that what we have covered and provided so far is sufficient for this article.


In closing, I would like to note that it is of course not all of the Supreme Court justices who have momentarily gone insane, just apparently, Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the court.   In dissent, at least some of the justices identified the very same legal issues and constitutional problems that I have identified in this article for you: 


In Dissent


"For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Man­date merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Repre­sentatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990).... Impos­ing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitu­tional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.


The Government’s opening brief did not even address the question—perhaps because, until today, no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that §5000A is an exercise of the tax power. And once respondents raised the issue, the Government devoted a mere 21 lines of its reply brief to the issue. Petitioners’ Minimum Coverage Reply Brief 25. At oral argument, the most prolonged statement about the issue was just over 50 words. Tr. of Oral Arg. 79 (Mar. 27, 2012). One would expect this Court to demand more than fly-by-night briefing and argument before deciding a difficult constitutional question of first impression.



Of course, “insurance” and “health care” are not the same, and are actually quite different.  How do you get to one, from the other?  Insurance is a business, and medicine is a calling.   One is for profit, the other, for the good of humanity.   That is why there is a basic understanding that doctors should be willing, to a certain extent, to forsake the earning of dollars and profits under the Hippocratic oath, and instead make sacrosanct the delivery of medical care to all in need, regardless of any ability to pay (or not).   Insurance companies don't do that.  They grant and deny health care requests based on dollars, and thus manage your access to health care. They do not provide the actual care (products and services) needed.  Further, they exist only to turn a profit for their shareholders, not to provide health care to the people of the nation.  Thus, increasing the overall health care costs of the nation by making it necessary to provide profits for the insurance companies and their shareholders within the cost structure of the health care delivery system.   This, of course, will only raise overall health care costs for the nation, not lower them.    This will diminish the amount of health care actually delivered to the people, not increase it.  Doctors and hospitals deliver health care, not the insurance companies.  As a business, insurance companies are designed and intended to deliver PROFITS to their shareholders, not health care to the needful.  The more insurance “coverage” you have across the nation within the “system”, together with fewer policy choices and more mandated coverage of the previously uninsurable (the mentally ill, drug-addicted, obese, alcoholic, etc.); the less health care will actually be delivered to those in need who are treatable (because the insurance companies will deny tests and treatment), AND THE MORE EXPENSIVE CARE WILL BECOME FOR ALL, as more and more profits are sucked out of the system across time by the insurance companies, who, over time, will BUY more favorable legislation from Congress, and more favorable legislative changes to the laws, through their economic control of the politicians, - that will raise fees, decrease coverage, and increase the power of the insurers to deny benefits and care to ever growing numbers of people, and we all go back to square one.


If you are interested in how to provide a real national healthcare system, that actually provides real health care, rather than just "insurance" that only manages (and ultimately denies) your access to the real healthcare facilities (like the doctors, hospitals, clinic,  drugs, etc.) visit:


[1] Direct taxes are apportioned to the States for collection under Article I, Section 2, clause 3; and indirect taxes are paid by those persons engaging in the activity that is made federally taxable by impost, duty, or excise, and who are made liable for the payment of the tax by the statutes.   It is constitutionally impossible for both parties to be responsible for the payment of the tax.  It can only be one or the other, and it must be one of the two as only the State pays the direct taxes, which are apportioned to it per the last census; and the statutorily responsible individual persons  pay the indirect taxes, which must be imposed uniformly under Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1.

[2] Flint v Stone Tracy Co. is accepted now as controlling constitutional law, having been cited and followed over 600 times by the U.S. Supreme Court in its rulings, as the authoritative definition of the legal scope of the constitutional "excise" taxing authority. 

[3] The 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto reads: "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax" !