ObamaCare- Mandate is Constitutional as a Tax, etc.

[Skull Pilot]

TAx increase for all except the leeches. Yay team.

Which of your taxes go up under the bill?

What ObamaCare Means for Your Taxes - SmartMoney.com

 

[peach174]

How can a Supreme Court decision not be constitutional?

If it doesn't follow the constitution.

That's nonsensical. The Supreme Court decides constitutionality.

No they didn't, they rewrote the bill instead of ruling on the Constitution.
If they had not changed the commerce clause, it would have been ruled as unconditional.

 

[Inthemiddle]

SCOTUS decisions are not inerrant, if they were Dred Scott would still be the law of the land. They are not even the final arbiter, if they were we would not have an income tax. They are, however, by default, constitutional.

Dred Scot and income tax were added to the constitution after the fact. That doesn't make the Supreme Court wrong, it just means that their decisions aren't necessarily eternal. When I said they were the final arbiter I meant that there is no higher authority to decide a question of federal law. Not to say that the law can't be changed afterward.

 

[Stephanie]

I've decided I'm going to quit both my jobs and become a mooch..or a leech as the liberals are now calling people

but I will thank you all

 

[NYcarbineer]

If it doesn't follow the constitution.

That's nonsensical. The Supreme Court decides constitutionality.

No they didn't, they rewrote the bill instead of ruling on the Constitution.
If they had not changed the commerce clause, it would have been ruled as unconditional.

They did not apply the commerce clause. They applied the power of taxation to the mandate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

TAx increase for all except the leeches. Yay team.

Which of your taxes go up under the bill?

What ObamaCare Means for Your Taxes - SmartMoney.com

NO. Just say which of your taxes go up. And then prove it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If it doesn't follow the constitution.

That's nonsensical. The Supreme Court decides constitutionality.

No they didn't, they rewrote the bill instead of ruling on the Constitution.
If they had not changed the commerce clause, it would have been ruled as unconditional.

So you agree with Obama, that the mandate is not a tax...

 

[Foxfyre]

If it doesn't follow the constitution.

The Supreme Court is granted the power by the constitution to be the final arbiter of questions federal law. This makes Supreme Court decisions constitutionally inerrant.

Quote it.

You are in fact incorrect.

That is not what the Constitution says.

It is a power claimed by the SCOTUS and arguably implied by the Constitution. But the Constitution absolutely doesn't say that.

And it wouldn't be true anyway.

Jut as each branch has checks on it, so too the Judicial Branch can be overridden via appropriate legislation or by the Amendment of the Constitution itself.

Further, if SCOTUS oversteps its authority and makes rulings that are outside the juridiction of the constitution or is incompetent by failing to apply constitutional interpretations to the laws it reviews or otherwise lawless in its actions, the Constitution clearly provides means to remove errant Justices from their positions. SCOTUS is not an ultimate power without any restraints.

 

[regent]

The framers may have thought they were giving the Supreme Court that power as Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers, but they did not. The Court took that power onto themselves in 1803, and the end result is that the conservative Court of that time, simply interpreted the Constitution that it had the power, and we now accept it. Sort of like those that believed FDR could not run for a third term becaue it was unConstitutonal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Which of your taxes go up under the bill?

What ObamaCare Means for Your Taxes - SmartMoney.com

NO. Just say which of your taxes go up. And then prove it.

All the taxes that are in that article are ones I will see increase.

I make more than 250 k a year.

 

[Katzndogz]

If everything the Supreme Court did was valid and Constitutional it would never overrule itself. But, the Court does that all the time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and there it is.


early notes say the Mandate is Constitutional as a Tax........ if I recall Obama said it wasn't a tax......

well, its all over but the crying.

The system is the system, life goes on.

Reminder to self, pick up the Rosetta Stone module for French

note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
__________________

 

[Katzndogz]

obama is still saying the obamatax isn't a tax so who is it that's not agreeing with the Supreme Court?

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

and there it is.


early notes say the Mandate is Constitutional as a Tax........ if I recall Obama said it wasn't a tax......

well, its all over but the crying.

The system is the system, life goes on.

Reminder to self, pick up the Rosetta Stone module for French

This is all so annoying. The bit about the tax I mean. Firstly, Obama said it wasn't a tax because....IT WASN'T A TAX. (He wasn't lying, jeez) When Obama proposed the individual mandate under the commerce clause Americans who could afford health inurance, but chose not to buy it would have been charged a penatly. (Its worth mentioning that this is expected to affect around 1% of the general population) But as we all know this case had to go to the Supreme Court where it was decided that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to charge this penatly under the commerce clause. However, it was decided that Congress did indeed have the power to charge a sort of 'penatly' not as a fee under the commerce clause, but as a small tax under the taxing clause. And the rest is history.

If the GOP didn't think they had something to gain out of calling the ACA 'SOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL, COMMUNIST MONSTROSITY', then chances are this would have never gone to the supreme court. And a TINY portion of Americans would have only been charged a small penalty but, the GOP got its way, and what was once a small fee must now be a tax....

 

[Moonglow]

And don't forget. This takes 500 bilion dollars out of medicare for the elderly. The people who need the most health care are going to get less. And, this health care has a 15 member death panel.

does this mean you won't be here long?

 

[LilOlLady]

The History of the Individual Mandate
By Ramesh Ponnuru
March 27, 2012.
The History of the Individual Mandate - By Ramesh Ponnuru - The Corner - National Review Online

The prolem is not a tax, a mandate or Obamacare, it's all about Obama. Obama got done that which the Good Ol Boys failed to get in 100 years.
Everytihing Obama has done has been opposed by the Right to make sure he fails. A priority from the beginning.
He he not failing because he is not stupid like the Good Ol Boys stereotype Black men to be no matter who they are. The like Cosby because the basked young black men.
Hard to out smart Chicago Smarts.LMAO

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Supreme Court is granted the power by the constitution to be the final arbiter of questions federal law. This makes Supreme Court decisions constitutionally inerrant.

Quote it.

You are in fact incorrect.

That is not what the Constitution says.

It is a power claimed by the SCOTUS and arguably implied by the Constitution. But the Constitution absolutely doesn't say that.

And it wouldn't be true anyway.

Jut as each branch has checks on it, so too the Judicial Branch can be overridden via appropriate legislation or by the Amendment of the Constitution itself.

Further, if SCOTUS oversteps its authority and makes rulings that are outside the juridiction of the constitution or is incompetent by failing to apply constitutional interpretations to the laws it reviews or otherwise lawless in its actions, the Constitution clearly provides means to remove errant Justices from their positions. SCOTUS is not an ultimate power without any restraints.

SCOTUS has some constitutional restraints, yes.

 

[LilOlLady]

And don't forget. This takes 500 bilion dollars out of medicare for the elderly. The people who need the most health care are going to get less. And, this health care has a 15 member death panel.

does this mean you won't be here long?

Willow tree don't have a clue. Ask her how do they take 500 billion out of Medicare? Her rhetoric is getting her facts from FAUXNEWS and other Obama haters. How can they know what is in the bill, what is does when none have ever read it?

 

[Foxfyre]

The History of the Individual Mandate
By Ramesh Ponnuru
March 27, 2012.
The History of the Individual Mandate - By Ramesh Ponnuru - The Corner - National Review Online

The prolem is not a tax, a mandate or Obamacare, it's all about Obama. Obama got done that which the Good Ol Boys failed to get in 100 years.
Everytihing Obama has done has been opposed by the Right to make sure he fails. A priority from the beginning.
He he not failing because he is not stupid like the Good Ol Boys stereotype Black men to be no matter who they are. The like Cosby because the basked young black men.
Hard to out smart Chicago Smarts.LMAO

The article you linked also is very clear on how conservatives came to see and admit the individual mandate was wrong headed and anti-liberty long before any of them knew there WAS a Barack Obama out there somewhere. Conservatives are quite capable of getting a concept wrong, but they also are far more likely to stop digging a wrong hole, fill it in, and do something different. Not so with many of our leftist friends who doggedly defend a policy proposed by their annointed messiah and refuse to even look at whether it might be wrong headed.

Nor do they see the inconsistencies.

A messiah, a self-proclaimed Constitutional lawyer, sold us on Obamacare by emphatically insisting and proclaiming that this was NOT A TAX. Then he sent his lawyers to SCOTUS to defend the legislation on the basis that Congress has the right to tax and spend as much as it wants. That would bother me if it was my hero doing something like that. I would feel betrayed, lied to, scammed, and cheated.

Nor do they consider that the Annointed One is adamently opposed to us checking the immigration status of people in this country or applying the law to most who are here illegally. But the same Annointed One supports legislation that will add 16,000 new IRS agents who will do nothing but check the status of the insurance that each one of does or does not have and impose prescribed penalties to those found lacking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SCOTUS decisions are not inerrant, if they were Dred Scott would still be the law of the land. They are not even the final arbiter, if they were we would not have an income tax. They are, however, by default, constitutional.

Dred Scot and income tax were added to the constitution after the fact. That doesn't make the Supreme Court wrong, it just means that their decisions aren't necessarily eternal. When I said they were the final arbiter I meant that there is no higher authority to decide a question of federal law. Not to say that the law can't be changed afterward.

Inerrant means incapable of being wrong. If you admit that SCOTUS can be wrong, which you just did, you cannot claim they are inerrant. I didn't challenge your conclusion, just the logic you used to get there. Ultimately, I agree with you here, I just like to be accurate.