The Supreme Court is wrong: ObamaCare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Schiff Report - 6/28/2012 Two wrongs do not make a right. The fine for not buying health insurance is not a tax, its a penalty. And even if it is a tax, its unconstitutional anyway, as its a direct tax that must be apportioned. The Supreme Court is wrong twice.

Note on the Income Tax. The Supreme Court in the Pollock case struck down the Income Tax taxes because it was an unapportioned direct tax, as it taxed wages and rents, which amounted to direct taxes on land and labor. After the 16th amendment was passed, the court in Burshaber ruled that the Income Tax, to be consistent with Pollock (a descison the court said it was in no way changing), must be imposed not as direct tax, but as an indirect, excise tax. According to the court, that meant separating income from its source. So for example, neither wages nor rents would be taxable, only the income derived from wages and rents, once both were first separated from their source, such as labor or land. The only way to do that is through a corporate balance sheet, so according to the Supreme Court, the only income that congress may tax indirectly, without apportionment is corporate income. Taxes on personal income, such as wages or rents are direct taxes, and must be apportioned, which is why the present personal income tax is voluntary. A mandatory personal income tax would violate the apportionment provision of the U.S Constitution, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in both Pollock and Burshaber. Of course, if you do not volunteer, you go to jail, which is why the current income tax is being enforced unconstitutionally.

Listen to The Peter Schiff Show Weekdays LIVE and FREE on http://www.SchiffRadio.com
Follow me on Twitter @SchiffRadio
Friend me on http://www.Facebook.com/PeterSchiff
Buy my new book at http://www.tinyurl.com/RealCrash

• Category

  News & Politics

[sicktoaster]

But the insurance companies did not cause nor are they necessary for (in the future) the advancement. There's no reason we need insurance companies as part of the system at all.

[sicktoaster]

That depends on the care and the cost, and it's never 100% cost-prohibitive unless you're extremely poor. As an extreme example, it wouldn't be cost-prohibitive for someone to pay a penny for an organ transplant.

Insurance as a private, for-profit industry raises prices on everybody. There are things that would've been affordable without insurance except that insurance exists and then producers find it economically to charge higher prices.

What we need is a public financial need insurance...

[PerfectMods]

what the man says is true, I have tske ap united states history and tommorow taking one of those cute easy NY regents on us gov. One study activity involved going through supreme court cases and also review of checks and balances. As a government educated 11th grader i can assertively say affordable care act is out of line constitutionally

[GeorgiaKev]

Hospitals, like any other business, have expenses they have to pay. They can't cover their expenses without adequate revenue coming in. When a doctor gives someone a discount or tells them they don't have to pay for services, that lost revenue has to be made up elsewhere--this means somebody else will end up paying more for their services. There's no such thing as a free lunch, somebody still has to pay for it. People must have insurance coverage so they can pay for their own medical care.

[John Hendon]

you assume that the doctors only care about money. more than likely the doctors would treat him and if he truly could not afford to pay they would do it for free or at a price he could afford.

[GeorgiaKev]

That's impractical. Supposing someone is walking down the street and has a massive heart attack. He's raced into the E.R. completely unconscious and needing immediate medical attention in order to have a chance to live. How is the hospital supposed to determine whether or not he has health insurance and/or can afford to pay before they start treating him?

[John Hendon]

if they do not receive government funds ( they should not) then yes. should you be forced to provide a product to someone?

[GeorgiaKev]

So you're saying that hospitals should be allowed to turn people away and refuse to treat them?

[John Hendon]

get the government out of healthcare. If the hospital would want to help me they would and If they didn't then I would die.

[GeorgiaKev]

So when you get sick or injured, you'll run to the E.R. and force me to pay for your medical bills? I DON'T THINK SO!

[John Hendon]

what the hell are you talking about? if I don't want to buy health insurance I won't.

[GeorgiaKev]

Take some responsibility and buy your own health insurance coverage like the rest of us have to.