Article Image


Written by Subject: Constitution

July 21, 2012


Therefore, It’s Constitutionally Prohibited

Editor’s Note: Of all the mandates in the Constitution, there is only one that is repeated twice: direct taxes must be apportioned. Judge Roberts has admitted this. Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare, Roberts confessed direct taxes “must be apportioned among the states.” To avoid this constitutional restraint, Roberts falsely declared Obamacare’s individual mandate is not a tax on the ownership of personal property and “is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several states.” The decision is erroneous. Most troubling is the fact that both the majority and the dissent refused to deal honestly with the issue of direct taxes.   

On June 28, 2012, five of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court upheld the most controversial provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”): Section 5000A, popularly known as the “individual mandate.” Right-click to download the decision.

Under 5000A, those who can afford to but do not purchase health insurance will be required to make an additional payment to IRS for each month they go without the insurance. The payment will be exacted from the worker’s income and will be legally unavoidable. Justice Roberts wrote:

“Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b).”

The Obama administration argued in Court that what it called the “shared responsibility payment” was authorized under the Commerce Clause.

Judge Roberts ruled the Commerce Clause does NOT authorize this type of payment. However, Chief Justice Roberts then held Congress had the power under the “Tax Clause” to exact the payment.

We sharply disagree and here challenge the logic of the Court’s decision that Congress has the power under the Tax Clause to require the People to buy a product or pay a tax to the Government for not purchasing the product, without apportioning the tax among the several states.

Congress’s taxing power is specified in three sections of Article I:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union ….”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises… but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Of all the mandates in the Constitution, there is only one that is repeated twice: direct taxes must be apportioned. It means exactly what it says.






One-Time or Monthly donations via PayPal

To make a one-time, donation to the Foundation, click here or use the PayPal "
Donate" button below. 

  No PayPal account or log-on is necessary!


Check for the
 latest scheduled Constitution Lobby Webinars!

Imagine a  *non-political*, well-funded, locally controlled organization in every state dedicated solely to defending the state and federal Constitutions. Imagine just 3% of Americans joining together to Organize and systematically hold every government official across the nation, from city councilmen to the President, accountable to the the Rule of Law!

This IS the WTP Constitution Lobby project!
Learn more: Constitution Lobby



1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Bob Schulz and his people may be missing the point entirely. Here's why. We have the right to freely contract with Government.

I don't like the idea of Obamacare any more than Bob Schulz. But what if I did? What if I wanted Obamacare to be applied to myself? What would I need to do to get it? Would I have to sign some kind of paperwork with Government to be eligible to pay into the Obamacare plan in the Obamacare way?

The only way Obamacare will be applied to anyone, is if they have a Social Security number. And the only way that they can maintain a SSN as an active SSN, is to use it. A social Security account is not required, legally, for anyone. Nobody is required to get a SSN.

If you get or use a SSN, you do it voluntarily, by placing your signature on a form. The form might be an application of some sort. It might be a simple agreement. It might be a contract. But whatever it is, when the signature is added to a form that has the SSN on it, the whlole Social Security Law is made to apply... by agreement. Your signature on the form, and Government's acceptance of the form, make it so.

Nobody forces you to get a SSN, or to use it after you have it. You do it voluntarily. In some cases, living might be difficult if you try to live without the SSN, but it can be done. So it is your free choice when you make the whole SS Law applicable to yourself.

When you signed the paperwork using the SSN, you thought you knew what you were signing into. Now, you are finding out that you didn't know. And Government didn't tell you all the details of what you were doing when you signed. So it was virtually fraud on the part of Government when you applied for and used the SSN.

This is your way out. Fraud nullifies all contracts and agreements. But are you going to use your way out? Are you going to get rid of your SSN because of Government fraud? If you are not going to walk away from your Social Security Account voluntarily, then you are agreeing to it voluntarily... and everything it includes... including Obamacare, which will attach to your SSN.

You can't have it both ways. Either you agree to Social Security and Obamacare, or you don't. Your only other two options are to force Government to back down on Obamacare like Bob Schulz is attempting to do, or you can find the law that restricts Government from attaching Obamacare to your SS Account.