POLL: Do you believe ACA mandates are Unconstitutional? Yes, No, or Both?

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by emilynghiem, Aug 11, 2017.

?

ACA Mandates - Unconstitutional? Yes, No, Both or Other?

Poll closed Nov 9, 2017.
  1. Yes - the violate established Constitutional principles and process

    50.0%
  2. Yes - they violate Constitutional BELIEFS of others, whether or not we agree

    25.0%
  3. No - the process through Congress and Courts made it Constitutional

    37.5%
  4. Yes and No - It depends on your political beliefs which cannot be dictated by govt

    12.5%
  5. Other - Please Elaborate, Educate, and Enlighten us with your Explanation!

    12.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    Sorry C_Clayton_Jones but the original ACA as written described it as a REQUIREMENT.

    You are like saying if people are fined for public intoxication,
    they can choose to be publicly intoxicated and just pay a fine.

    You MIGHT have been right had the insurance been a DEDUCTION.
    But the way it was written the REQUIREMENT was to buy insurance
    and the EXEMPTIONS were the exception to the rule.

    (And if you are so against govt regulating on the basis of religion, you
    might note that the religious exemptions discriminated by whether people
    were PAID MEMBERS of CERTAIN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
    APPROVED BY FEDERAL GOVT. That should have been a red flag
    for you, if you were consistent with your own principles. Thank you C_Clayton_Jones for your honest response demonstrating otherwise. At least you are transparent and willing to communicate and stand for what you believe, biased as it is.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2017
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    Dear C_Clayton_Jones:

    1. Not only was the ACA passed by Congress by voting on it AS A PUBLIC HEALTH BILL (or else it would fail had it been voted on a TAX bill); then later argued and reinterpreted as a TAX by the Supreme Court. so that the bill was not passed through both Congress and Courts as a tax, but was interpreted two different ways.

    2. But Justice Roberts actually rewrote the "requirement" in order to interpret it as a tax. The Court is NOT supposed to exercise "legislative" power by changing a law "in order to save it."

    This was unprecedented and is still challenged today, though the fix is "supposed" to be through the legislature, and that is now tied up in debate because this questionable bill was passed in the first place.

    3. Other issues still debated include the Constitutional principle that states have to ratify an Amendment specifically granting more such power to federal govt BEFORE the legislature can make such a law to begin with.

    I understand that by your "political beliefs" you do not hold these necessary. You "believe" it is Constitutional because it passed through Courts and Congress, despite these other arguments that the PROCESS WAS VIOLATED.

    Thus, my argument is that Constitutionalists who BELIEVE the process was violated and THUS the law does NOT REPRESENT the democratic consent of the governed people and states, then this was fraudulent to declare it Constitutional as law.

    (This is like someone enforcing a contract as legally binding, although it was misrepresented as meaning one thing, then changing it to mean another; and the party to the contract objects to the changes.)

    Again, I would compare this to how liberals rejected the WMD arguments as justifications for Congress voting for war; and once the Democrats decided they were 'defrauded' by false information, they wanted to void that vote. In that case, Bush retracted and said he had no proof of WMD; so the liberals used that to argue the vote to go to war should be voided.
     

Share This Page