From: legal_reality
Subj: Fwd: Sotomayor Delays Obamacare's Birth Control Mandate
Subj: Fwd: Sotomayor Delays Obamacare's Birth Control Mandate
2 January A.D. 2014
Since this obama death/health scare scheme is "approved" judicially as a "tax," we know that the obligation is entered into one and only one way: "voluntarily," which is not a political statement but rather a commercial statement.
To make a note about semantics, there's a world of difference between a "stay" and a "temporary injunction." So, where the discussion at that link strays way off the reservation and describes this stay of judgment as a "temporary injunction," "stay" is correct; "injunction" is the wrong semantics for that situation. The concept is in the ball park, but the semantics take the concept way off the reservation.
To make a procedural note, "stay" requests go to individual Justices. So, all we know for sure from this one is that the case arises in a circuit to which Sotomayor is assigned. That's just to say that we have no idea whether she'll be writing/siding with the majority or submitting a dissenting ruling. All we know with this "stay" is that it was likely requested and denied at the trial court and then likely requested and denied in the appellate court. (Unless there's a request in the lower courts, the Supreme Court is very unlikely to grant it.) So, here, it's requested in and granted by the Supreme Court, and since other matters have been put on stay by the respective appellate courts, it's the "judicial" thing to do, regardless.
To the merits, will this (or any) catholic institution get relief from this "You'll aid and abet the government's abortion agenda" mandate, despite their religious views on the matter?
In general, IF that entity is a "taxpayer," THEN the answer is no. There will be no relief.
So, that begs a very interesting question or two.
What if a "taxpayer" is relieved from the "You'll aid and abet the government's abortion agenda" mandate despite the religious preference on the matter?
That will communicate in spades that the commercially relevant act of "volunteering" isn't that of being a "taxpayer" but rather that of "signing up" for "obama care." This author will be very surprised if that's how this works out. It'll be fine to be "overruled" on this one, but if there's a judicial institution in this nation that tows the line on enforcement of commercial agreements, it'd be the Supreme Court.
What if a non-taxpayer is relieved? In other words, what if this "Little Sisters" entity isn't a "501(c)(3)" (or equivalent) entity? Those are "exempt" entities, but to acquire that "tax" "exemption," they take on the whole of that cloak for regulatory purposes. So, if it's a regulated entity for purposes of Title 26, then, to take a position, this author fully expects that they're going to have to comply. If it turns out that this catholic charity does get relief from "obama care," in any way, then this author will be very sure that such entity not only isn't a "taxpayer" but also isn't even an "employer" for purposes of "withholding." Down that path, this author is very confident that these (catholic) charitable institutions are up to their eyeballs in all the typical financial traps for the unaware.
One thing that the catholic health-care entities have going for them is their organizational starting place. The "big" entities are "public juridic persons." A rose by any other name. Those are basically not-for-profit "corporations" set up in Rome. Whether they qualify as "ambassadors" or not is a question for further study. The point is that there may be an aspect to the matter that comes with a terrific cover-story. However, even (internationally) foreign commercial entities are more than welcome to "volunteer" to be "taxpayers."
This author is expecting that the entire "world" of "christendom," and, yes, we can debate what that is, but, to take for the moment the inclusion of everything that even tangentially purports to be affiliated, however loosely, with Scripture, that "world" (in America) is going to get the "obama care" enema. Thing is, there'll be nothing but dehydration as a result, rather than anything beneficially curative.
As that "world" gets more and more and more sick and tired of, and from, the daily enema, there may be some contemplation to the notion that "voluntary" isn't something that's in the hands of the congress to decide but rather in the hands of the individual (and the commercial enterprise) to decide.
It's this author's hope that Messiah will remanifest in time that the relief for the overcomers will arrive in time to have them avoid the worst of it. That means "soon." (three years or less) As for those who are "outside the wall," where there's crying and gnashing of teeth, there may be all kinds of time to benefit from the study of how to get and stay loose from the "income tax" system.
As for the legal result of the "religious" challenges to the 100% "voluntary" act of assuming the commercial role and duties of "taxpayer," this author fully expects that the whole of "christendom" is going to be held to the deal they've made (with the Canaanites). Either our Yes is Yes, and our No, No, or it isn't. Where it isn't (yet), then we've got some work to do to get it there. In the present "deal," there is no "out" clause for the "government's" commitment to the abortion agenda. As Chief Justice Roberts described the matter in the NFIB ruling, it's one of these "package deal" matters. One doesn't have to get in, but once in, one buys into the whole enchilada (as modified from time to time by the legislative whim, which, as is the way with Darth Vader, not something that's likely to improve in time).
This matter has absolutely, positively nothing, whatsoever, to do with religion, and it'll be very, very interesting to see how the Supreme Court phrase their decision.
To be relieved from the purely voluntary act of agreeing to aid and abet the abortion agenda, one has to learn how to stop being a "taxpayer." It's a commercial problem, not a political problem, not a religious problem, but a commercial problem. It's a study into individual responsibility and the "right (not) to contract" (which should be rephrased as the "right (not) to enter into any agreement"). It's a problem solved by time in the law (of man) library rather than in the church (Law of God) library. In the Law of God library, we find where God clobbered the daylights out of Israel, via the Famine (War, Famine, Pestilence, and "Beasts" -- The Four Sore (Great) Judgments), due to the hideous abuse of the treaty with the Gibeonites committed by Saul. David solved the problem, and that cost the lives of seven of Saul's descendants. The point is that the agreement made in God's name (or by God's people who proclaim to be His people) are enforced first by God! The "taxpayers" aren't up against the irs; they're up against God!
"Just say No!" isn't just for drugs (and alcohol) any more. We've got to want to learn how to tell the "government" No, and we're about to get a crash course in motivation down that very path.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
Since this obama death/health scare scheme is "approved" judicially as a "tax," we know that the obligation is entered into one and only one way: "voluntarily," which is not a political statement but rather a commercial statement.
To make a note about semantics, there's a world of difference between a "stay" and a "temporary injunction." So, where the discussion at that link strays way off the reservation and describes this stay of judgment as a "temporary injunction," "stay" is correct; "injunction" is the wrong semantics for that situation. The concept is in the ball park, but the semantics take the concept way off the reservation.
To make a procedural note, "stay" requests go to individual Justices. So, all we know for sure from this one is that the case arises in a circuit to which Sotomayor is assigned. That's just to say that we have no idea whether she'll be writing/siding with the majority or submitting a dissenting ruling. All we know with this "stay" is that it was likely requested and denied at the trial court and then likely requested and denied in the appellate court. (Unless there's a request in the lower courts, the Supreme Court is very unlikely to grant it.) So, here, it's requested in and granted by the Supreme Court, and since other matters have been put on stay by the respective appellate courts, it's the "judicial" thing to do, regardless.
To the merits, will this (or any) catholic institution get relief from this "You'll aid and abet the government's abortion agenda" mandate, despite their religious views on the matter?
In general, IF that entity is a "taxpayer," THEN the answer is no. There will be no relief.
So, that begs a very interesting question or two.
What if a "taxpayer" is relieved from the "You'll aid and abet the government's abortion agenda" mandate despite the religious preference on the matter?
That will communicate in spades that the commercially relevant act of "volunteering" isn't that of being a "taxpayer" but rather that of "signing up" for "obama care." This author will be very surprised if that's how this works out. It'll be fine to be "overruled" on this one, but if there's a judicial institution in this nation that tows the line on enforcement of commercial agreements, it'd be the Supreme Court.
What if a non-taxpayer is relieved? In other words, what if this "Little Sisters" entity isn't a "501(c)(3)" (or equivalent) entity? Those are "exempt" entities, but to acquire that "tax" "exemption," they take on the whole of that cloak for regulatory purposes. So, if it's a regulated entity for purposes of Title 26, then, to take a position, this author fully expects that they're going to have to comply. If it turns out that this catholic charity does get relief from "obama care," in any way, then this author will be very sure that such entity not only isn't a "taxpayer" but also isn't even an "employer" for purposes of "withholding." Down that path, this author is very confident that these (catholic) charitable institutions are up to their eyeballs in all the typical financial traps for the unaware.
One thing that the catholic health-care entities have going for them is their organizational starting place. The "big" entities are "public juridic persons." A rose by any other name. Those are basically not-for-profit "corporations" set up in Rome. Whether they qualify as "ambassadors" or not is a question for further study. The point is that there may be an aspect to the matter that comes with a terrific cover-story. However, even (internationally) foreign commercial entities are more than welcome to "volunteer" to be "taxpayers."
This author is expecting that the entire "world" of "christendom," and, yes, we can debate what that is, but, to take for the moment the inclusion of everything that even tangentially purports to be affiliated, however loosely, with Scripture, that "world" (in America) is going to get the "obama care" enema. Thing is, there'll be nothing but dehydration as a result, rather than anything beneficially curative.
As that "world" gets more and more and more sick and tired of, and from, the daily enema, there may be some contemplation to the notion that "voluntary" isn't something that's in the hands of the congress to decide but rather in the hands of the individual (and the commercial enterprise) to decide.
It's this author's hope that Messiah will remanifest in time that the relief for the overcomers will arrive in time to have them avoid the worst of it. That means "soon." (three years or less) As for those who are "outside the wall," where there's crying and gnashing of teeth, there may be all kinds of time to benefit from the study of how to get and stay loose from the "income tax" system.
As for the legal result of the "religious" challenges to the 100% "voluntary" act of assuming the commercial role and duties of "taxpayer," this author fully expects that the whole of "christendom" is going to be held to the deal they've made (with the Canaanites). Either our Yes is Yes, and our No, No, or it isn't. Where it isn't (yet), then we've got some work to do to get it there. In the present "deal," there is no "out" clause for the "government's" commitment to the abortion agenda. As Chief Justice Roberts described the matter in the NFIB ruling, it's one of these "package deal" matters. One doesn't have to get in, but once in, one buys into the whole enchilada (as modified from time to time by the legislative whim, which, as is the way with Darth Vader, not something that's likely to improve in time).
This matter has absolutely, positively nothing, whatsoever, to do with religion, and it'll be very, very interesting to see how the Supreme Court phrase their decision.
To be relieved from the purely voluntary act of agreeing to aid and abet the abortion agenda, one has to learn how to stop being a "taxpayer." It's a commercial problem, not a political problem, not a religious problem, but a commercial problem. It's a study into individual responsibility and the "right (not) to contract" (which should be rephrased as the "right (not) to enter into any agreement"). It's a problem solved by time in the law (of man) library rather than in the church (Law of God) library. In the Law of God library, we find where God clobbered the daylights out of Israel, via the Famine (War, Famine, Pestilence, and "Beasts" -- The Four Sore (Great) Judgments), due to the hideous abuse of the treaty with the Gibeonites committed by Saul. David solved the problem, and that cost the lives of seven of Saul's descendants. The point is that the agreement made in God's name (or by God's people who proclaim to be His people) are enforced first by God! The "taxpayers" aren't up against the irs; they're up against God!
"Just say No!" isn't just for drugs (and alcohol) any more. We've got to want to learn how to tell the "government" No, and we're about to get a crash course in motivation down that very path.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
-------- Original Message --------
|
Subject:
|
Sotomayor
Delays Obamacare's Birth Control Mandate
|
|
Date:
|
Tue,
31 Dec 2013 23:49:56 -0600
|
1 comment:
This bitch is a disgrace to the Hispanic Community, she so in awe of herself she can't believe she made it this far and to keep her place of honor she is willing to do wherever it takes and kiss as much ass as she can.It was obvious from the beginning that she was going to do as she was told. She's got SLAVE written all over her.
Post a Comment