Is a Constitutional Crisis on the way?

[The2ndAmendment]

Nothing "turned into a tax". The law itself didn't change at all.

So you're saying the penalty written in the individual mandate is still unconstitutional, like the court said? And no one will be charged that penalty for not buying insurance? BTW you might want to check the proposed 2014 tax forms for the line to calculate the TAX.

The court didn't say the "penalty" was unconstitutional. They said that it was constitutional, because of the constitutional powers to tax.

It was done this way on purpose, since a Civil Case cannot be forced to adjudicated by a Jury --- except when over $20.

Wait...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you're saying the penalty written in the individual mandate is still unconstitutional, like the court said? And no one will be charged that penalty for not buying insurance? BTW you might want to check the proposed 2014 tax forms for the line to calculate the TAX.

The court didn't say the "penalty" was unconstitutional. They said that it was constitutional, because of the constitutional powers to tax.

It was done this way on purpose, since a Civil Case cannot be forced to adjudicated by a Jury --- except when over $20.

Wait...

Your weird jury nullification conspiracy theories don't make any sense. It's all tilting at windmills.

No one takes jury nullification seriously enough to conspire against it.

 

[OKTexas]

Nothing "turned into a tax". The law itself didn't change at all.

So you're saying the penalty written in the individual mandate is still unconstitutional, like the court said? And no one will be charged that penalty for not buying insurance? BTW you might want to check the proposed 2014 tax forms for the line to calculate the TAX.

The court didn't say the "penalty" was unconstitutional. They said that it was constitutional, because of the constitutional powers to tax.

You might want to read the decision again, if you ever read it in the first place.

a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-stance and application.”
United States
v.
Constantine
, 296 U. S. 287,294. Pp. 33–35

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9558366

This said the court disregarded the congressional language and declared the penalty to be a tax.

A tax that in my opinion will be found unconstitutional when it can be challenged next year. I'm sure you are wonder why I would say that, well let me lay it out real simple so even you can understand. The Constitution prohibits direct taxes, an exception was made by the 16th Amendment for income. The trigger for the individual mandate tax is failure to purchase insurance, not income, making it an unconstitutional direct tax. The mandate tax is calculated after the requirements under the 16th Amendment have been met so it can't be called an income tax.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you're saying the penalty written in the individual mandate is still unconstitutional, like the court said? And no one will be charged that penalty for not buying insurance? BTW you might want to check the proposed 2014 tax forms for the line to calculate the TAX.

The court didn't say the "penalty" was unconstitutional. They said that it was constitutional, because of the constitutional powers to tax.

You might want to read the decision again, if you ever read it in the first place.

a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-stance and application.”
United States
v.
Constantine
, 296 U. S. 287,294. Pp. 33–35

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9558366

This said the court disregarded the congressional language and declared the penalty to be a tax.

A tax that in my opinion will be found unconstitutional when it can be challenged next year. I'm sure you are wonder why I would say that, well let me lay it out real simple so even you can understand. The Constitution prohibits direct taxes, an exception was made by the 16th Amendment for income. The trigger for the individual mandate tax is failure to purchase insurance, not income, making it an unconstitutional direct tax. The mandate tax is calculated after the requirements under the 16th Amendment have been met so it can't be called an income tax.

1. That's actually exactly what I said. The court ruled very clearly that the difference was nothing more than semantics, and therefore constitutional.

2. SCOTUS isn't going to hear this case again, they already ruled that it was constitutional.

 

[OKTexas]

The court didn't say the "penalty" was unconstitutional. They said that it was constitutional, because of the constitutional powers to tax.

You might want to read the decision again, if you ever read it in the first place.

a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-stance and application.”
United States
v.
Constantine
, 296 U. S. 287,294. Pp. 33–35

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9558366

This said the court disregarded the congressional language and declared the penalty to be a tax.

A tax that in my opinion will be found unconstitutional when it can be challenged next year. I'm sure you are wonder why I would say that, well let me lay it out real simple so even you can understand. The Constitution prohibits direct taxes, an exception was made by the 16th Amendment for income. The trigger for the individual mandate tax is failure to purchase insurance, not income, making it an unconstitutional direct tax. The mandate tax is calculated after the requirements under the 16th Amendment have been met so it can't be called an income tax.

1. That's actually exactly what I said. The court ruled very clearly that the difference was nothing more than semantics, and therefore constitutional.

2. SCOTUS isn't going to hear this case again, they already ruled that it was constitutional.

A tax cannot be challenged until it is actually paid and it will be challenged, there are also many cases going through the lower courts on aspects that were never challenged originally, I think several have a good chance to make it to SCOTUS so it will be ruled on again.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You might want to read the decision again, if you ever read it in the first place.

a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-stance and application.”
United States
v.
Constantine
, 296 U. S. 287,294. Pp. 33–35

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9558366

This said the court disregarded the congressional language and declared the penalty to be a tax.

A tax that in my opinion will be found unconstitutional when it can be challenged next year. I'm sure you are wonder why I would say that, well let me lay it out real simple so even you can understand. The Constitution prohibits direct taxes, an exception was made by the 16th Amendment for income. The trigger for the individual mandate tax is failure to purchase insurance, not income, making it an unconstitutional direct tax. The mandate tax is calculated after the requirements under the 16th Amendment have been met so it can't be called an income tax.

1. That's actually exactly what I said. The court ruled very clearly that the difference was nothing more than semantics, and therefore constitutional.

2. SCOTUS isn't going to hear this case again, they already ruled that it was constitutional.

A tax cannot be challenged until it is actually paid and it will be challenged, there are also many cases going through the lower courts on aspects that were never challenged originally, I think several have a good chance to make it to SCOTUS so it will be ruled on again.

I would be very surprised if SCOTUS choses to hear any challenge based on it being a "tax".

They already ruled that as a "tax", it's constitutional - they're not going to change their minds.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No one takes jury nullification seriously enough to conspire against it.

"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence

They did conspire against it. It's called charge stacking. Ever since Prohibition was repealed (by force of Jury) and the WW2 veterans from Battle of Athens were guaranteed to be acquitted, the Jury system has been under attack.

 

[MaxGrit]

1. That's actually exactly what I said. The court ruled very clearly that the difference was nothing more than semantics, and therefore constitutional.

2. SCOTUS isn't going to hear this case again, they already ruled that it was constitutional.

A tax cannot be challenged until it is actually paid and it will be challenged, there are also many cases going through the lower courts on aspects that were never challenged originally, I think several have a good chance to make it to SCOTUS so it will be ruled on again.

I would be very surprised if SCOTUS choses to hear any challenge based on it being a "tax".

They already ruled that as a "tax", it's constitutional - they're not going to change their minds.

It changed its mind all the time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No one takes jury nullification seriously enough to conspire against it.

"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence

They did conspire against it. It's called charge stacking. Ever since Prohibition was repealed (by force of Jury) and the WW2 veterans from Battle of Athens were guaranteed to be acquitted, the Jury system has been under attack.

First of all, jury nullification doesn't change laws. Prohibition was repealed by the ratification of the 21st, not "by force of Jury".

Second, exactly how is the Jury system "under attack"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A tax cannot be challenged until it is actually paid and it will be challenged, there are also many cases going through the lower courts on aspects that were never challenged originally, I think several have a good chance to make it to SCOTUS so it will be ruled on again.

I would be very surprised if SCOTUS choses to hear any challenge based on it being a "tax".

They already ruled that as a "tax", it's constitutional - they're not going to change their minds.

It changed its mind all the time.

Generally not without a change in the makeup of the bench.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No one takes jury nullification seriously enough to conspire against it.

"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence

They did conspire against it. It's called charge stacking. Ever since Prohibition was repealed (by force of Jury) and the WW2 veterans from Battle of Athens were guaranteed to be acquitted, the Jury system has been under attack.

First of all, jury nullification doesn't change laws. Prohibition was repealed by the ratification of the 21st, not "by force of Jury".

Second, exactly how is the Jury system "under attack"?

Duh, what do you think led to its repeal?

 

[FA_Q2]

A tax cannot be challenged until it is actually paid and it will be challenged, there are also many cases going through the lower courts on aspects that were never challenged originally, I think several have a good chance to make it to SCOTUS so it will be ruled on again.

I would be very surprised if SCOTUS choses to hear any challenge based on it being a "tax".

They already ruled that as a "tax", it's constitutional - they're not going to change their minds.

It changed its mind all the time.

That is irrelevant. The question is whether they are going to change their minds THIS time. I think that is a resounding no.

Not only does the SCOTUS not want to bring something this controversial back up but the reality is that this is tied into a thousand other tax realities. Things such as the tax credits you get for buying the right type of water heater or widow are essentially done in the exact same manner that the ACA is done in. IOW, this has been going on a long time and no one really thought anything of it. SCOTUS simply is not going to negate all those practices and their previous decision next year. Possibly in many decades (if the left does not select new judges to replace retiring conservative ones) but not in the near future. I really don’t see such happening until we get another amendment that addresses taxation.

 

[FA_Q2]

For the OP – the constitutional crisis has already happened. It happened many years ago when we, as a nation, decided that the constitution did not really have to be followed. That we can make any clause mean anything (such as the commerce clause which no longer has any real meaning). Like it or not, somewhere we have failed to steward the constitution properly. Somewhere we decided that we would simply ignore it rather than change it when sections because outdated.

And, like it or not, we are going to continue in this fashion for MANY years to come. There is not going to be any real awakening and no real calamity to make an apathetic and mostly ignorant voter base change what is happening. The system DOES work even though it is riddled with severe problems, and it will limp on for many decades to come.

 

[FA_Q2]

Is a Constitutional Crisis on the way?

Nope. The only crisis is the one the far right wackobirds are having as they watch whatever influence they had waste away daily.

I can guarantee that the NSA will be another CC

And how exactly can you guarantee that? Mass surveillance isn't new, it's been going on for decades, and no one has ever had a problem with it until Internet libertarians found out about it.

You’re kidding right? The left had a HUGE problem with it. Well, they did back when Bush was the CIC.

Now the right does.

The problem is that there are too many partisan lemmings that knew this was wrong ten years ago but ignore reality when their guy is in power (and vice versa).

 

[OKTexas]

1. That's actually exactly what I said. The court ruled very clearly that the difference was nothing more than semantics, and therefore constitutional.

2. SCOTUS isn't going to hear this case again, they already ruled that it was constitutional.

A tax cannot be challenged until it is actually paid and it will be challenged, there are also many cases going through the lower courts on aspects that were never challenged originally, I think several have a good chance to make it to SCOTUS so it will be ruled on again.

I would be very surprised if SCOTUS choses to hear any challenge based on it being a "tax".

They already ruled that as a "tax", it's constitutional - they're not going to change their minds.

Wrong, the only thing ruled on is the governments power to tax, nothing was said about its constitutionality because that wasn't part of the challenge, they only hear the specific parts that are being challenged in that particular case. You might want to actually read the decision, you'll get a really good lesson in circular reasoning. The acrobatics and the hoops Roberts performed were amazing would have been neat if it weren't such a bunch of BS.

 

[FA_Q2]

You know whats amusing everything Obama is being accused of by the right all the things the left calls wacko, crazy, extremist, paranoid use whatever word you like is the exact same type of stuff the left was accusing Bush of. How many other's remember the claims of Bush is a dictator he's tearing up the Constitution overreaching trying to expand the powers of the executive branch?

I remember.

They were right then as well. Neither is even remotely close to a dictator BUT they both tried to (and succeeded) sequester more power to the branch they controlled. The American people have allowed it as well as they will continue to allow it. Look at one of the first responses:

This. Wrongpublicans will continue to terrorize the nation with threats of "hitting the debt ceiling" and "plummeting off a fiscal cliff" just as they have since they stole a majority in the House.

President Obama, a dictator? Please. We sure could use one, though, to deal with all these Tea-hadis running around Washington, shutting down the gyvyrnmynt.

Too many people WANT the president to have more power. It’s like the acceptance of Mussolini, “at least the trains run on time.” The current electorate wants to hear that things are being taken care of, that they don’t have to worry about anything and that the government will ensure everything is all right. Rights be damned, they only get in the way.

The executive continues to move more power to itself and the massive bureaucracy that it heads. This is natural but was supposed to be something that the constitution defended against. Sadly, it is proving that it is not up to the task.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence

They did conspire against it. It's called charge stacking. Ever since Prohibition was repealed (by force of Jury) and the WW2 veterans from Battle of Athens were guaranteed to be acquitted, the Jury system has been under attack.

First of all, jury nullification doesn't change laws. Prohibition was repealed by the ratification of the 21st, not "by force of Jury".

Second, exactly how is the Jury system "under attack"?

Duh, what do you think led to its repeal?

A well-funded national campaign financed by numerous special interest groups, such as the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts, The Crusaders, the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, and countless others.

Not "force of Jury".

 

[MaxGrit]

No one takes jury nullification seriously enough to conspire against it.

"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence

They did conspire against it. It's called charge stacking. Ever since Prohibition was repealed (by force of Jury) and the WW2 veterans from Battle of Athens were guaranteed to be acquitted, the Jury system has been under attack.

First of all, jury nullification doesn't change laws. Prohibition was repealed by the ratification of the 21st, not "by force of Jury".

Second, exactly how is the Jury system "under attack"?

Repeated jury nullification over many cases was fundamental to prohibition repeal

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence

They did conspire against it. It's called charge stacking. Ever since Prohibition was repealed (by force of Jury) and the WW2 veterans from Battle of Athens were guaranteed to be acquitted, the Jury system has been under attack.

First of all, jury nullification doesn't change laws. Prohibition was repealed by the ratification of the 21st, not "by force of Jury".

Second, exactly how is the Jury system "under attack"?

Repeated jury nullification over many cases was fundamental to prohibition repeal

Jury nullification was a symptom of the change in public opinion, not the cause of it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I can guarantee that the NSA will be another CC

And how exactly can you guarantee that? Mass surveillance isn't new, it's been going on for decades, and no one has ever had a problem with it until Internet libertarians found out about it.

You’re kidding right? The left had a HUGE problem with it. Well, they did back when Bush was the CIC.

Now the right does.

The problem is that there are too many partisan lemmings that knew this was wrong ten years ago but ignore reality when their guy is in power (and vice versa).

Some of us on the left still have a HUGE problem with it.