Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Levin Dissents

Levin Dissents

Ratings: (0)|Views: 71|Likes:
Published by whentheycome666
Levin dissents
Levin dissents

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: whentheycome666 on Apr 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





We've once again made contact with our leader...Mark Levin.Hello my friends I am Mark Levin,our number 877 381 3811.I think youl want to stay tuned for the entire 3 hours. Were going to take our time here and werenot going to put smiley faces on things, and candy coat things because your mature and youdeserve the truth. Eric Holder was held in contempt a few hours ago and the supreme court ledby chief Roberts held you in contempt this morning. John Roberts apparently has evolved, didn'ttake him that long. The accolades from the left have already started.With the Obamacare andArizona decisions Roberts activism is now fervently evident. Arizona was a brutal attack on the10th amendment, an expansion of the federal preemption power beyond what actually is providedin the constitution. The decision today as I will get into it in some great detail is a brutal assaulton individual sovereignty. Now we have something akin to the Warren court,it's still evolving butwe will find out one day I'm sure.There are conservatives out there,It's painful to watch these people bending over backwards topretend this was a great victory, but their wrong. Their dead wrong. Just because five lawyers inblack robes one of whom was purported to be a conservative, A man I knew a long time ago,issue a decision of the sort that they issued doesn't make it proper. As a matter of fact thisdecision I would go so far to say is lawless, absolutely lawless. Thats why people are stunned."Wow.. where did he come up with that?" He concocted it, more in a moment.We had Anthony Kennedy of the four dissenters who wanted to throw the entire Obamacare lawout,the entire law. The Chief justice saved it under A truly absurd and truly stupid argument that I'llget to as I said latter. Chief Justice John Roberts saved Obamacare despite its multipleconstitutional violations. We had four justices including Kennedy who wanted to throw the entirething out and I hear some conservatives claiming," wow...we narrowed the Commerce Clause jurisprudence." Are these people serious?I also hear the talk about about politics. "Well now were really going to have to win this election,"thats all quite true and I'll talk about that latter but how do we fix the constitution? We can repealObamacare, we damn well better, but how do we fix the constitution now that yet again it's beenabused, now that yet again a provision of the constitution has been misused to support agovernment program that is a direct assault on the individual. How do we fix that? "New justicesMark," Really? You mean like Roberts? You mean like Souter? You mean like John Paul Stevens?And I can go down the list.I was on Niel Cavuto's show yesterday and he made a point, he said " you know, some of these justices.. they may be affected by how their perceived by the media and the public." I said- It'strue but it only happens to Republicans,they seem to get this disease. Those four leftists on thecourt, those left wing judicial activists, there was never any doubt about what they were going todo. They wanted to run wild with the Commerce Clause,why? because their stateists. Justbecause their dressed up in robes doesn't mean their not what they are.So the bottom line with the Roberts court decision is you cant regulate inactivity but you can tax it.Wow...what a win for conservatives, he narrowed it. But wait a min...let me think...you cantregulate inactivity but you can tax it? And why would you tax it? Well i think you tax inactivity toforce people to do something they may not want to do right? Now were mincing words aren'twe?! Like good judicial activists. So those who can afford insurance but don't have it are requiredto buy it or their going to be taxed and the word tax in this context was never used by
Congress....ever. Quite the contrary, I'm not going to bore you with the audio.("Absolutely not a tax increase" - President Obama , ABC News interview 09/20/09http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQMkOScXctY )White House Budget Director Jeff Zients,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPbTbe_qGMUThey insisted as did Obama, "It's not a tax," and then theres Roberts "but it is a tax," "no it's not atax," "yes it is a tax," "no," "yes yes yes," "no." Well what is it? It's whatever John Roberts says itis, so today it's a tax and yet yesterday at this time it was a penalty. "Mark,why does that matter?"because the constitution explains what kind of taxes the federal government can lay and beyondthe enumerated taxes it cant lay any. The supreme court actually has precedent on this point, lotsof it ,none of which supports what John Roberts did. None of it.What kind of taxes are permitted under our federal constitution? There is the direct or capitationtax. It's a tax on the individual. The constitution requires direct or capitation taxes, a headtax ifyou will, to be apportioned among the states. That means each state must pay it's portion of thetotal tax based on the states percentage of the general population. Very confusing isn't it? Thatswhy it's never done.Then under the constitution you can have an excise tax. But excise taxes require some sort ofaction or activity on the part of an individual so surely this cant be that either, can it? No.What about an income tax under the 16th amendment? Well even John Roberts doesn't attemptto justify the penalty as an income tax because if your not doing anything your not creatingincome.So it's not a direct or capitation tax, it's not an excise tax, it's not an income tax,and you knowwhat John Roberts says in response to all that? "Oh lets stop fiddling around withlabels," ....excuse me?? Stop fiddling around with labels? We have all kinds of case law on howcrucial it is..."lets not fiddle around with labels,"...oh.Roberts begins with an obvious and frankly goofy almost condescending civics lesson in thebeginnings of his opinion like he believes this decision will be read in every town square...andcertainly on MSNBC. After explaining how the national government can only exercise enumeratedpowers he says this case concerns 2 powers that the constitution does grant to the federalgovernment but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin tothe police power which is reserved to the states. As soon as hes {done} paying lip service to thelimited federal power he carries on with a jumbled bizarre throughly inconsistent legal analysis.Ladies and gentlemen, I spent a carrier reading court decisions, his part of the majority opinion isstupid. It is truly incoherent. It's terribile. He gets the commerce clause and the necessary andpowers clause analysis correct but he contorts the tax clause beyond recognition. I don't eventhink he understands them to be honest with you (because they can get complicated).Lets walk through this. You ready? We will touch on the different aspects of the decision and I'llsum it up. What I notice os that a lot of people want to conflate the constitutional stuff with the
political stuff. Were going to take this step by step so you can understand what in fact a disasterthis is. So you'l know more then George Will and Charles krauthammer and several of the otherswho are saying, "well he confined the Commerce Clause issu and now it's political so lets go getem." I'm not opposed to the latter but lets understand what happend to our constitution today andlet us never forget that the constitution belongs to us. Not to temporary politicians not to judges itbelongs to you. This decision is so absurd it's so internally contradictory that if I were JohnRoberts I'd be embarrassed to have my signature on it.Yesterday we were told a 5-4 decision show that the court is political today we have a 5-4decision and the court is magnificent.See the duplicity of Akhil Reed Amarhttp://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/29/obamatax-apologistsThe genius that is the supreme court 5-4 vote...unbelievable.I want to remind you of a couple of things,first of all the chief justice Earl Warren..I mean JohnRoberts and his fellow justices wanted to hear in specific 4 issues at oral argument. They wanted4 issues briefed by the various parties.. The individual mandate,. The anti injunction act,. severability. medicaidOpps,they forgot to ask for a brief on the tax issues and they didn't even really argue it during allthose hours of unprecedented days of oral argument. My goodness,what happend? Kind of a lastminute decision ay?Well we at Landmark Legal did brief this issue. We were among the only parties to brief this issue.We briefed it more thoroughly then the government <* insert original link here> that would be theObama administration. You can go on our brief at Ladmarklegal.org and you can see it. We say-the individual mandate's penalty provision hence forth the court has said it will be a tax provision.Why? Because they say so. It can not be justified as a permissible tax under any constitutionaltest. The arguments proffered by the federal government that this provision constitutes apermissible exercise of congresses taxation authority fail under all established precedence andshould be rejected by the court. Had congress determined the penalty provision constituted a taxit would have labeled it a tax and statements by members of congress and Obama madeconcurrently with its passage would have reflected as much.You see ladies and gentleman, congress knows how to pass tax statutes, it knows how to passtax language, it does it all the time and here I guess they just forgot.The federal governments latest brief concedes the point without realizing it referring repeatedly tosection 500a as a penalty. Even if this court assumes that section 500a is a tax it still fails tosatisfy the constitutional restrictions on taxes set forth in article 1 section 9 clause 4, Prohibitionon capitation of direct taxes unless apportioned amongst the states. The 16th Amendment theincome tax and the limitations set forth by this court as applicable to other article 1 section 8 taxes

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->