SCOTUS “TAX” RULING ALLOWS AMERICANS TO IGNORE OBAMACARE ON TECHNICALITY
by Penbrook One
Sunday, September 16, 2012

OBAMACARE EXPOSED AS INELIGIBLE TAXATION: Obama’s presidency was just the first of many illegitimate events to occur after the 2008 election. Now, it appears Obamacare, ironically, may indeed be an unenforceable piece of legislation, as well as illegal, because of a preeminent constitutional mandate which explicitly requires that all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives.
by Pen Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – The framers clearly wrote the Constitution with enduring "Alpha-like" qualities knowing that future generations would try to circumvent its authority in order to illegally usurp power and control the lives of humanity’s advanced most affluent citizenry.
The framers of the Constitution, in their astonishing wisdom, included the presidential eligibility mandate of Article II knowing that, someday, a foreign usurper like Barack Obama might try to run for president. They even anticipated the nation of such a foreigner’s origin correctly when they wrote the Natural born eligibility mandate out of concern to prevent a British usurper from assuming power in America! Obama was born to a British citizen father making him legally ineligible to run for the U.S. presidency regardless whether he was nominated, elected and inaugurated.
It also appears they even understood that selection of such an illegitimate candidate could not be prevented, yet, more importantly, by inducing such a righteous exaction, they established a legal incrimination against tyranny which can never be removed, essentially creating an irreversible locking mechanism which eternally banishes men like Obama as an illegal, illegitimate, criminal office occupier…regardless of how many people vote for him.
They also wrote procedural doctrine for the passage of tax laws, having suffered the atrocities under the British monarchy in its attempt to illegally tax Americans without affording them representation under the law. Ultimately, as history has taught mankind for thousands of years…such vile notions result in violent revolution against such governments and, moreover, the destruction of that government is eventually meted by the will of ultimate authority.
The current members serving in all three branches of the American government must be forcibly brought to submission under the law. If they refuse to bow willingly, let the law break their legs. They must be subjugated by the inescapable judgment that the U.S. Constitution was written by superiorly inspired subjects of acute intellect and deeply rooted morality bearing a far more developed sense of statutory authority under a higher righteousness.
When making his ruling in favor of Obamacare, Judge Roberts was correct in his assessment that Congress has the legal authority to tax as his legal justification for upholding the law. In his vigor to rule officiously, he stipulated passage of Obamacare under the condition that the transaction of money from working Americans to the government in the form of an individual mandate and subsequent punitive charges were thereby and forever to be legally enjoined upon Obamacare as “taxation”. Otherwise, Obamacare is not legally binding.
Therefore, by requiring every American to have health insurance by paying this SCOTUS-defined “tax”, the highest judiciary authority in America thereby made Obamacare into a Constitutionally controlled tax legislation.
Unfortunately, seeded in this shallow legal morphology, head judge Roberts failed, abysmally, to acknowledge the first fundamental rule of taxation which explicitly requires that any and all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives and, from there, be conveyed through both houses of congress by a specific process, in order to be a legally enforceable tax.
Obamacare did not originate in the fertile ground of our dedicative representation just as Obama’s eligibility did not originate in the Natural born citizenship defined by natural law. Therefore, by allowing such an ill-conceived statute outside the boundaries of the constitution's preeminent order, Roberts rendered Obamacare unenforceable, even though it was determined to be morphologically legal.
Obamacare, like Obama’s presidency, was spawned from the damnable corruption of the Democrat-dominated U.S. Senate, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (as chair of the DNC she signed the fraudulent Official Certification of Nomination in August of 2008), and thereby failed to be validated through proper procedural constitutional jurisdiction.
The framers win, again…by TKO!
Therefore, Americans may simply ignore the Obamacare mandate and its punitive charges under the authority of the Constitution because the U.S. government has no legal authority to enforce payment of them. The demand for payment is not legitimate because it was declared a tax which was not carried properly through legal channels.

In the court’s explicit declaration that the individual mandate charges were a “tax”, the very ruling induced the preemptive constitutional requirement that the healthcare bill, according to centuries of U.S. tax law, must have originated in the House of Representatives, not the Senate, in order for “revenue increases”, a.k.a. taxation, to be legally enforced.

Obamacare, therefore, fails to even qualify as a tax.
WND’s Bob Unruh writes the following:
“The penalties Americans will be required to pay under Obamacare for going without health insurance were declared constitutional in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts’ assertion that the assessments are taxes.
But a legal challenge to the federal government takeover of health-care decision-making says that’s a problem, because Harry Reid created the Obamacare legislation, with all of its new “taxes,” in the U.S. Senate.
The Constitution requires any tax bills to begin in the House.
The demand for an explanation is being raised in an amended complaint filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a man who believes the new bureaucracy isn’t legal.
“If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said Paul J. Beard II, the principal attorney for the organization.
When lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act, with all of its taxes, “Did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases?” Beard asked.
The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.
“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.
PLF explained that under the Supreme Court’s decision in June, the Affordable Care Act now charges a “tax” on Americans who fail to buy health insurance.
But Reid introduced the tax plan in the Senate, not the House, as the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires for new revenue-raising bills, in Article I, Section 7, the legal team argued.
The plaintiff in the case is Iowa small business owner Matt Sissel, who chooses to pay for medical expenses on his own. He objects “on financial, philosophical, and constitutional grounds to be ordered by the federal government to purchase a health care plan he does not need or want, on pain of financial penalty.”
“I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” said Sissel. “I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I’m very concerned about Congress ignoring the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”
He served in the Army National Guard until 2008 and spent two years in Iraq as a combat medic. He received the Bronze Star and now owns an art business in Iowa City.
“It’s dispiriting to see our lawmakers treat the rules set out in the Constitution with disrespect, as if they’re just suggestions, or as if members of Congress are too important to follow them,” he said.
His lawsuit was filed before the Supreme Court opinion was released by Roberts, but it was on hold while that case from the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states was pending.
The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case alleged that a mandate to buy insurance was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed. But Roberts’ opinion simply changed the “penalty” as it was enacted by Congress to a “tax” and deemed it constitutional for that reason.
Reid took a House-passed bill that helps veterans buy homes, eviscerated it and inserted the Obamacare language.
“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a vital safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters – members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”
The Sissel complaint is being amended to challenge the entire law on that basis.
The amended complaint explains that Roberts specifically approved the “shared responsibility payment,” which the Obama administration said was not a tax, as “a tax.”
“The chief justice explained the apparent inconsistency in concluding that the ‘shared responsibility payment’ is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”
His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.
But Roberts’ holding that the payments are taxes “raises new questions about the tax’s conformity with other constitutional provisions,” which the court left unresolved, the legal filing said.
“Despite the fact the act raises considerable revenues, it originated in the Senate, not the House,” the brief argues. “The Affordable Care Act was not the result of a lawful amendment of H.R. 3590, because the subject matter of the one had nothing whatsoever to do with the other.”
The Obamacare law already was under attack in the courts for its “mandate” that employers pay for abortifacients for employees. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Christian organizations that say the mandate violates freedom of religion.
In a Michigan pending case, the government insisted it has the authority to “substantially burden the exercise of religion”on two conditions.
If it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”