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.
Not even close.
Apples and groundhogs.
not really. the argument was that government couldn't force people to buy something.
i think the founders did, no?
not really. the argument was that government couldn't force people to buy something.
i think the founders did, no?
Choice: buy health insurance or pay a shared responsibility payment, a penalty to be collected by the IRS
sounds like a tax to me.
Not even close.
Apples and groundhogs.
not really. the argument was that government couldn't force people to buy something.
i think the founders did, no?
But that is because providing for the common defense is clearly remitted to the federal Government... healthcare... meh, not so much. But, clearly, you know all about that - you being a lawyer an' all.
After spending numerous months examining American laws in search of a precedent where the federal government forced people to buy items against their will (individual mandate), and I believe I may have found something.
The Founding Fathers themselves enforced an individual mandate with the Militia Acts of 1792, which required that all able-bodied citizens must purchase "a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack." As you can see, there is a precedent for having the federal government force people to buy things against their will, and it was by the Founding Fathers themselves.
Please bear in mind that there was no war going on in 1792, so the Militia Acts of 1792 was not a draft, it was an individual mandate, just like Obama's Obamacare mandate. Do you think this proves Obama's individual mandate to be constitutional?
As the government paid for the troops supplies, weapons, etc., that allowance would have been given to the militia members as well... covering the cost of their required supplies.Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States
Choice: buy health insurance or pay a shared responsibility payment, a penalty to be collected by the IRS
sounds like a tax to me.
collection of penalties function like taxes, but they are not taxes.
The IRS can collect other monies owed the government .. monies that are not specifically taxes.
Distinctions without a difference? Nope, the distinctions are very real and constitutional.
not really. the argument was that government couldn't force people to buy something.
i think the founders did, no?
But that is because providing for the common defense is clearly remitted to the federal Government... healthcare... meh, not so much. But, clearly, you know all about that - you being a lawyer an' all.
one can choose to make a payment and avoid buying health insurance
Do you mean that mandate that was originally a Republican idea?After spending numerous months examining American laws in search of a precedent where the federal government forced people to buy items against their will (individual mandate), and I believe I may have found something.
The Founding Fathers themselves enforced an individual mandate with the Militia Acts of 1792, which required that all able-bodied citizens must purchase "a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack." As you can see, there is a precedent for having the federal government force people to buy things against their will, and it was by the Founding Fathers themselves.
Please bear in mind that there was no war going on in 1792, so the Militia Acts of 1792 was not a draft, it was an individual mandate, just like Obama's Obamacare mandate. Do you think this proves Obama's individual mandate to be constitutional?
Democrats are such stupid tools. They are even happy about this tax. 
I know that Obama Supporters are generally clueless but here's a free clue for you:
The Supreme Court already decided on this.
You're welcome.
I know they did, but they only did that because it was the right thing to do, not because it was constitutional. We still have to convince people that it really is constitutional, and not just because those unelected bureaucrats said so.
It's a health-care TAX!!! So of course it is Constitutional.
wrong: the mandated 'shared responsibility payment' is a penalty the act lays on those who choose not to pay it. The penalty is to be collected as a tax.
Didn't SCOTUS call it a tax?
So, it's a tax, no matter WHAT Dainty says it is.
Romney will require that everyone own and read a Bible, it's Constitutional
Not even close.
Apples and groundhogs.
not really. the argument was that government couldn't force people to buy something.
i think the founders did, no?
sounds like a tax to me.
collection of penalties function like taxes, but they are not taxes.
The IRS can collect other monies owed the government .. monies that are not specifically taxes.
Distinctions without a difference? Nope, the distinctions are very real and constitutional.
For example?
But that is because providing for the common defense is clearly remitted to the federal Government... healthcare... meh, not so much. But, clearly, you know all about that - you being a lawyer an' all.
one can choose to make a payment and avoid buying health insurance
Still being forced to pay for something I should have a choice to pay or not.
It's a health-care TAX!!! So of course it is Constitutional.
wrong: the mandated 'shared responsibility payment' is a penalty the act lays on those who choose not to pay it. The penalty is to be collected as a tax.
The tax is imposed on those not purchasing health care. It is not a penalty, it is a tax.
It's a health-care TAX!!! So of course it is Constitutional.
wrong: the mandated 'shared responsibility payment' is a penalty the act lays on those who choose not to pay it. The penalty is to be collected as a tax.
The tax is imposed on those not purchasing health care. It is not a penalty, it is a tax.
Romney will require that everyone own and read a Bible, it's Constitutional
1. Which Bible?
2. How will he enforce such a dictate?
3. Will he provide funds to educate those who cannot read?
4. Will he produce an audio book for the blind?
5. What will he do to those who prefer the Koran?
5. Will the Book of Mormon replace the Gideon Bible in Hotel Rooms?
6. Will he dictate Holy Water be placed in the Minibars?
