Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Supporting limitations on government since 1920 ACLU
Madison and Hamilton .. New York State .. Federalists versus Anti-Federalists
Hamilton did not support everything he ends up defending in the Federalist.
Compromise. Men compromised for a greater good. They later had quarrels over exactly what they meant when they said........
and then Madison was asked what the Framers meant on something and in a letter he wrote to a friend to look not to what the framers thought they meant or understood, but look to what the ratifiers thought and understood they were ratifying because it was not the clerks who gave the document authority and power...it was the ratifiers...the people.
The US Constitution was written behind closed doors. No official minutes were kept except some record of the proceedings. A compromise was reached. The document was sent out to state conventions elected by the people, not to the State governments/legislatures. They got to choose an up or down vote.
Not very democratic in the popular sense. Representative democracy in a republic.
So what's your point? That the argument for the constitution as displayed in the federalist papers were written in ill faith and meant to deceive, and therefore, not an accurate portrayal despite heavy use to this day by the Supreme Court?
The Federalist were an argument. They are not law. The Constitution was written by an agreed upon process by both Federalists and anti Federalists. It came out of a committee as a compromise.
Heavy use when and in what cases? Please, first you have the audacity to say "No government limitation ever got a liberal excited." when that is patently untrue (see: ACLU ) and now you hump the back of Federalist 41 as if that were the word of god. Well it's not. It was written as an argument to convince the good people of NY to vote for ratification.
Considering he noted the same objections to the idea that the constitution grants limitless power in federalist no. 41...
Who has put forth the argument you are knocking down -- that the Constitution grants limitless powers to the executive or any other branch?
I think the easier question to ask is what power does the current administration believe doesn't exist in the Constitution under the jurisdiction of the federal government?
So what's your point? That the argument for the constitution as displayed in the federalist papers were written in ill faith and meant to deceive, and therefore, not an accurate portrayal despite heavy use to this day by the Supreme Court?
The Federalist were an argument. They are not law. The Constitution was written by an agreed upon process by both Federalists and anti Federalists. It came out of a committee as a compromise.
Heavy use when and in what cases? Please, first you have the audacity to say "No government limitation ever got a liberal excited." when that is patently untrue (see: ACLU ) and now you hump the back of Federalist 41 as if that were the word of god. Well it's not. It was written as an argument to convince the good people of NY to vote for ratification.
Citing an organization founded by communists doesent help your case. The left naturally places the collective before the rights of the individual, and therefore, the property we have in our rights, our lives, and our physical property are compromised. Ergo, there is no power that a liberal does not beleive the federal government falls short of. Can you name one?
Considering he noted the same objections to the idea that the constitution grants limitless power in federalist no. 41...
Who has put forth the argument you are knocking down -- that the Constitution grants limitless powers to the executive or any other branch?
I think the easier question to ask is what power does the current administration believe doesn't exist in the Constitution under the jurisdiction of the federal government?
Supporting limitations on government since 1920 ACLU
Oh, and citing an organization founded by communists Who rarely defend property rights doesn't help your case. Indeed, all laws are by design to protect property and all laws that that place the collective before the individual diverge from that.
there you go again. Collective? Ayn Rand? Are you a Randian Nitwit?
Homework: The ACLU American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
enough...
The predecessor to the ACLU was the National Civil Liberties Bureau (CLB).[58] The CLB was founded by Crystal Eastman and Roger Baldwin in 1917.[59] Supporters of the CLB generally fell into one of three groups: social reformers, Protestant clergy, and conservative lawyers.[60] In 1918, Baldwin became the primary leader of the CLB, as Eastman succumbed to ill health.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
"No government limitation ever got a liberal excited." - Publius1787
yet the facts say differently
So Pube is just (in my not so humble opinion) a garden variety troll not worthy of serious debate with.
why? hyperbole, hysteria, alarmist crap, paranoia, ideological rigidity, pure poppycock as talking points...and worse...
a semi-literate, self-educated pseudo-intellect with a poor grasp of Early American History
there was a great thread a week or so ago on natural law and natural rights.
I don't even remember if Pube ever made it there...but he's a big bore here. Anyone who mentions collectivists, the Soviets, Communists...and links leftists and liberals to all of that is obviously an old school anti-commie stuck in the past ... "all dressed up with no one to blow" was a phrase we used in my old neighborhood when describing people like Pube when they'd get all impressed with themselves
While the idiots at The Blaze laughingly got their election predictions from Rove and Morris, they did spout some wisdom before falling back into the pit of wingnuttiness...
Five Reasons Why the Obamacare Decision Might Not Be As Bad As You Think | Video | TheBlaze.com
The smaht thinking is that their is lots certain liberals and many progressives will not like about the Obamacare ruling when it is used in later cases.
Conservatives were just caught off guard. They wanted an ideologically pure decision, but Roberts cares more about the Court and the nation than he does about ideology.
His split on Obamacare was very Marshall-esque in more than a few ways
there was a great thread a week or so ago on natural law and natural rights.
I don't even remember if Pube ever made it there...but he's a big bore here. Anyone who mentions collectivists, the Soviets, Communists...and links leftists and liberals to all of that is obviously an old school anti-commie stuck in the past ... "all dressed up with no one to blow" was a phrase we used in my old neighborhood when describing people like Pube when they'd get all impressed with themselves
Cute, but was there anything I mentioned about the ACLU that was historically inaccurate?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-recess-appointments-unconstitutional-4.html
and
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-recess-appointments-unconstitutional-5.html
It's where it all devolved. When ideologues get stuck, they get stuck. There is no reasoning with them. Tangents about phantom enemies and attacks on whole groups of fellow citizens as unAmerican and undeserving of respect...
Spotting the Pubes is easy. Getting them to expose themselves usually takesd a few pages of back and forth posts.
another public service brought to you by
Dante
dD
While the idiots at The Blaze laughingly got their election predictions from Rove and Morris, they did spout some wisdom before falling back into the pit of wingnuttiness...
Five Reasons Why the Obamacare Decision Might Not Be As Bad As You Think | Video | TheBlaze.com
The smaht thinking is that their is lots certain liberals and many progressives will not like about the Obamacare ruling when it is used in later cases.
Conservatives were just caught off guard. They wanted an ideologically pure decision, but Roberts cares more about the Court and the nation than he does about ideology.
His split on Obamacare was very Marshall-esque in more than a few ways
Yeah, if I am not mistaken the commerce clause ruling was mere dicta and nothing more. So conservatives shouldent exactly be jumping for joy.
I'm guessing that word will be in the form of "we refuse to hear the case; the lower court ruling stands." If not, however, it will likely be a 7-2 ruling against Obama. Even the liberal justices haven't lost that much integrity.
since you are doing predictions:
Who did you predict would win the Presidential election in 2012 and what did you predict about the SCOTUS and Obamacare?
I predict the SCOTUS will go liberal for the next 20 or so years and the idea of constitutional limitations with respect to federal powers will be ignored in the opposite of what James Madison predicted in the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist no. 41. As far as the presidency is concerned I am going with Hillary should she be able to keep her health up.
With respect to my prediction of Obamacare, I said that there was no authority under the commerce clause and the Supreme Court agreed. However, I also predicted that there was no taxing power that allowed for the individual mandate and the supreme court disagreed. This ruling, of course, makes no since because only a limited number of taxes are allowed under the U.S. Constitution (capitation, excise, etc...). The individual mandate falls under neither category of constitutional taxation. That and never in our history has the SCOTUS ruled that a penalty can reasonably be construed as a tax.
there was a great thread a week or so ago on natural law and natural rights.
I don't even remember if Pube ever made it there...but he's a big bore here. Anyone who mentions collectivists, the Soviets, Communists...and links leftists and liberals to all of that is obviously an old school anti-commie stuck in the past ... "all dressed up with no one to blow" was a phrase we used in my old neighborhood when describing people like Pube when they'd get all impressed with themselves
Cute, but was there anything I mentioned about the ACLU that was historically inaccurate?
It's what you did not mention and what you chose to highlight. Lying through omission is just propaganda by another name..so is deceit and deception whether by purpose or self-delusion.
..never in our history has the SCOTUS ruled that a penalty can reasonably be construed as a tax.
A majority of the Fourth Circuit panel reasoned that the individual mandate’spenalty is a tax within the meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act, because it is a financial assessment collected by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. The majoritytherefore determined that the plaintiffs could not challenge the individual mandate until after they paid thepenalty.1
—————— 1The Eleventh Circuit did not consider whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars challenges to the individual mandate. The District Court had determined that it did not, and neither side challenged that holding on appeal. The same was true in the Fourth Circuit, but that court examined the question sua sponte because it viewed the Anti-InjunctionAct as a limit on its subject matter jurisdiction. See Liberty Univ., 671
We granted certiorari to review the judgment of theCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit with respect toboth the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. 565 U. S. ___ (2011). Because no party supports the Eleventh Circuit’s holding that the individual mandate canbe completely severed from the remainder of the AffordableCare Act, we appointed an amicus curiae to defend that aspect of the judgment below. And because there is a reasonable argument that the Anti-Injunction Act deprives us of jurisdiction to hear challenges to the individual mandate, but no party supports that proposition, weappointed an amicus curiae to advance it.2
II Before turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have the authority to do so. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessmentor collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the per-son against whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a). This statute protects the Government’s abilityto collect a consistent stream of revenue, by barring litigation
to enjoin or otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes. Because of the Anti-Injunction Act, taxes can ordinarily be ——————
2We appointed H. Bartow Farr III to brief and argue in support of theEleventh Circuit’s judgment with respect to severability, and Robert A.Long to brief and argue the proposition that the Anti-Injunction Act bars the current challenges to the individual mandate. 565 U. S. ___ (2011). Both amici have ably discharged their assigned responsibilities.
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.
12 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
Opinion of the Court
challenged only after they are paid, by suing for a refund.See Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U. S. 1, 7–8 (1962).
The penalty for not complying with the Affordable CareAct’s individual mandate first becomes enforceable in 2014. The present challenge to the mandate thus seeks to restrain the penalty’s future collection. Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as atax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars thissuit.
The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise.The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purposeof restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” §7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose todescribe the “hared responsibility payment” imposed onthose who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a“penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2). There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” wouldapply to a “penalty.”
Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty”rather than a “tax” is significant because the AffordableCare Act describes many other exactions it creates as“taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statuteand different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).
Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat itas such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functionslike a tax. It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or a penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. Congressmay not, for example, expand its power under the TaxingClause, or escape the Double Jeopardy Clause’s constraint on criminal sanctions, by labeling a severe financial pun13
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012)
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.
ishment a “tax.” See Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259
U. S. 20, 36–37 (1922); Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S. 767, 779 (1994).
The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act,however, are creatures of Congress’s own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the bestevidence of Congress’s intent is the statutory text. We have thus applied the Anti-Injunction Act to statutorily described “taxes” even where that label was inaccurate. See Bailey v. George, 259 U. S. 16 (1922) (Anti-InjunctionAct applies to “Child Labor Tax” struck down as exceeding Congress’s taxing power in Drexel Furniture).
Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. For example, 26 U. S. C. §6671(a) provides that “any reference in this title to ‘tax’ imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by” subchapter 68B of the Internal Revenue Code. Penalties in subchapter 68B are thus treated as taxes under Title 26, which includes the Anti-Injunction Act. The individual mandate, however, is not in subchapter 68B of the Code. Nor does anyother provision state that references to taxes in Title 26 shall also be “deemed” to apply to the individual mandate.
Amicus attempts to show that Congress did render theAnti-Injunction Act applicable to the individual mandate,albeit by a more circuitous route. Section 5000A(g)(1) specifies that the penalty for not complying with the man- date “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.” Assessable penalties in subchapter 68B, in turn,“shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes.” §6671(a). According to amicus, by directing thatthe penalty be “assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes,” §5000A(g)(1) made the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to this penalty.
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.
14 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
Opinion of the Court
The Government disagrees. It argues that §5000A(g)(1) does not direct courts to apply the Anti-Injunction Act,because §5000A(g) is a directive only to the Secretary of the Treasury to use the same “‘methodology and procedures’” to collect the penalty that he uses to collect taxes. Brief for United States 32–33 (quoting Seven-Sky, 661
F. 3d, at 11).
We think the Government has the better reading. As it observes, “Assessment” and “Collection” are chapters of the Internal Revenue Code providing the Secretary authority to assess and collect taxes, and generally specifyingthe means by which he shall do so. See §6201 (assessment authority); §6301 (collection authority). Section 5000A(g)(1)’s command that the penalty be “assessed and collected in the same manner” as taxes is best read as referring to those chapters and giving the Secretary thesame authority and guidance with respect to the penalty. That interpretation is consistent with the remainder of§5000A(g), which instructs the Secretary on the tools hemay use to collect the penalty. See §5000A(g)(2)(A) (barring criminal prosecutions); §5000A(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies). The Anti-Injunction Act, by contrast, says nothing about the procedures to be used in assessing and collecting taxes.
Amicus argues in the alternative that a different sectionof the Internal Revenue Code requires courts to treat the penalty as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act. Section 6201(a) authorizes the Secretary to make “assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additionsto the tax, and assessable penalties).” (Emphasis added.) Amicus contends that the penalty must be a tax, becauseit is an assessable penalty and §6201(a) says that taxesinclude assessable penalties.
That argument has force only if §6201(a) is read inisolation. The Code contains many provisions treatingtaxes and assessable penalties as distinct terms. See, e.g.,
15 Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012)
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.
§§860(h)(1), 6324A(a), 6601(e)(1)–(2), 6602, 7122(b). There would, for example, be no need for §6671(a) to deem “tax”to refer to certain assessable penalties if the Code already included all such penalties in the term “tax.” Indeed, amicus’s earlier observation that the Code requiresassessable penalties to be assessed and collected “in thesame manner as taxes” makes little sense if assessable penalties are themselves taxes. In light of the Code’s consistent distinction between the terms “tax” and “assessable penalty,” we must accept the Government’s interpretation: §6201(a) instructs the Secretary that his authority to assess taxes includes the authority to assesspenalties, but it does not equate assessable penalties totaxes for other purposes.
The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate betreated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to thissuit, and we may proceed to the merits.
III The
