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.
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.
[W]e have nevernevertreated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a 'penalty.' Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a 'penalty.
NO. Just say which of your taxes go up. And then prove it.
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?
__________________
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....
SCOTUS has opined that ACA is constitutional. No act or executive order can make it unconstitutional. The wrong-headed belief of a small minority cannot make it unconstitutional. A ratified amendment by 2/3ds of each chamber and 3/4 of the states can make it unconstitutional. That won't happen.
What we the mainstream can do is: work to elect Romney and move forward.
SCOTUS has opined that ACA is constitutional. No act or executive order can make it unconstitutional. The wrong-headed belief of a small minority cannot make it unconstitutional. A ratified amendment by 2/3ds of each chamber and 3/4 of the states can make it unconstitutional. That won't happen.
What we the mainstream can do is: work to elect Romney and move forward.
Funny.
SCOTUS has also opined that immigration laws are constitutional, yet you didn't object to the executive order from Sebelius that effectively made it unconstitutional to deport children.
SCOTUS has opined that ACA is constitutional. No act or executive order can make it unconstitutional. The wrong-headed belief of a small minority cannot make it unconstitutional. A ratified amendment by 2/3ds of each chamber and 3/4 of the states can make it unconstitutional. That won't happen.
What we the mainstream can do is: work to elect Romney and move forward.
Funny.
SCOTUS has also opined that immigration laws are constitutional, yet you didn't object to the executive order from Sebelius that effectively made it unconstitutional to deport children.
The question is does the Executive have the right to issue such orders. Washington did it in1789.
So you must show that such executive orders are unconstitutional, which you have not done.
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.
We know that, idiot. The problem is that, in order to apply the power of taxation to the mandate, he had to rewrite the law itself to make it work, that was made clear in the dissent read by Kennedy from the bench.
[W]e have nevernevertreated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a 'penalty.' Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a 'penalty.
Does that mean the Supreme Court can rewrite laws whenever they want?
1) The Court wrote: "The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a 'tax' for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a 'penalty,' not a 'tax.' That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit."
2) pages 18 -19 of the pdf file (page 12 -13 of decision): Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat it as such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functions like 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. Congress may not, for example, expand its power under the Taxing Clause, or escape the Double Jeopardy Clause's constraint on criminal sanctions, by labeling a severe financial punishment a 'tax.' [see Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.; Department of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch]
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 best evidence 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-Injunction act 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. section 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 are thus treated as taxes under Title 26, shall also be 'deemed' to apply to the individual mandate.
Amicus attempts to show that Congress did render the Anti-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 mandate "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," section 6671(a). According to amicus, by directing that the penalty be "assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes," section 5000A(g)(1) made the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to this penalty.
The Government disagrees. It argues that section 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....
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.
the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) firmly established the power of the Supreme Court to strike down federal statutes it found unconstitutional, making the Supreme Court the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation.
How can a Supreme Court decision not be constitutional?
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.
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.
Yo Vern, Did England have a Supreme Court? Did James Madison and the other colonists complain that the same was populated by government supremacists rubber stampers? So why would they create the same Star Chamber here in the US?!?!?!?!?!?
.
.
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
SCOTUS has opened the door for the fucking government to mandate everything we do as long as they call the penalty for noncompliance a tax.
Only a fucking moron would be happy about that.
SCOTUS has opened the door for the fucking government to mandate everything we do as long as they call the penalty for noncompliance a tax.
Only a fucking moron would be happy about that.
The populace is narcotized. It's like stealing candy from a baby.
.
