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.
It is clear? I think lawyers on both sides of the argument will concede that it is, in fact, not clear at all. While liberal blogs and SCOTUS commentators run to Lopez among many other basic commerce clause cases to justify forcing someone in to commerce, Lopez speaks of nothing with respect to the current argument. Lopez was a cheap and desperate attempt by the government to use the commerce clause to regulate individual carrying of guns. Sense the guns were not interstate commerce, nor did they effect interstate commerce, nor did they relate to interstate commerce as the government argued, the Government lost. Lopez has absolutely nothing to do with whether the government can force you in to commerce and the only limitation it placed on the commerce clause was that it had to be commerce. Which is not really a limitation at all unless you’re a liberal and want to deem everything commerce, even though everything obviously isn't commerce, so you can regulate it through a back door congressional power that does not exist.
Calling non commerce what it is, "not commerce," is hardly a limitation. It just means that the commerce clause only relates to commerce which is not only a "no f-ing duh” statement but it also shows to the lengths that liberals will go through to evoke irrelevant clauses to make their case.
Does Congress have the power to pass laws that protect one person from another person? Loss of life or abuse or fraud, specifically.
Absolutely, however, not via life, abuse, or fraud, but only through the specifically enumerated powers stated. The government is not allowed to combat loss of life, abuse, or fraud, through abuse and fraud. Invoking nonexistent authority is abuse and fraud.
Does Congress have the power to pass laws that protect one person from another person? Loss of life or abuse or fraud, specifically.
Absolutely, however, not via life, abuse, or fraud, but only through the specifically enumerated powers stated. The government is not allowed to combat loss of life, abuse, or fraud, through abuse and fraud. Invoking nonexistent authority is abuse and fraud.
Then, if an industry, comprised of corporate "persons" is taking away life, abusing or frauding natural "persons", isn't it within the governments power ( and possibly even their function ) to step in?
And if so, to what extent should they step in if "within Constitutional bounds" will not or cannot protect the natural "persons"?
PS I know you're wicked smart and see where I am heading with this.
The law is not general in nature like Social Security but specific. Therefore, it does not apply and the government concedes this point. There are more cases in the 80’s that limit the general welfare clause. They are complicated and I do not wish to explain it for that reason. All you need to know now is that the Obama Administration is not arguing it for that very purpose. It does not apply. And trust me, if they thought it would add merit to their argument they would have used it. But they aren’t. They wouldn’t throw away a tool that could perhaps secure themselves victory. They are, however, arguing the taxing power.
How would this be any different from the changes Reagan made to Social Security and Medicare, forcing self-employed to pay those taxes? To the contrary, the hard argument to make would be to claim something is a fine or penalty, when you are actually receiving something back, i.e. heath insurance.
But the case can still be made using the more subjective "general welfare" clause, and basing it on other law requiring all ERs to give treatment, and the costs being passed on to the rest of us. The fact that those who do carry insurance must pay a penalty for those who don't is a pretty compelling case.
But since this court is so ideological and reactionary, I think the administration was wise to argue it on taxation and interstate commerce.
Absolutely, however, not via life, abuse, or fraud, but only through the specifically enumerated powers stated. The government is not allowed to combat loss of life, abuse, or fraud, through abuse and fraud. Invoking nonexistent authority is abuse and fraud.
Then, if an industry, comprised of corporate "persons" is taking away life, abusing or frauding natural "persons", isn't it within the governments power ( and possibly even their function ) to step in?
And if so, to what extent should they step in if "within Constitutional bounds" will not or cannot protect the natural "persons"?
PS I know you're wicked smart and see where I am heading with this.
Well how so? What do you have on your mind? There is plenty the government can do both legislatively and in the realm of enforcement.
Then, if an industry, comprised of corporate "persons" is taking away life, abusing or frauding natural "persons", isn't it within the governments power ( and possibly even their function ) to step in?
And if so, to what extent should they step in if "within Constitutional bounds" will not or cannot protect the natural "persons"?
PS I know you're wicked smart and see where I am heading with this.
Well how so? What do you have on your mind? There is plenty the government can do both legislatively and in the realm of enforcement.
I'm asking if you believe that Congress has the power to act beyond their Constitutional enumerated powers to protect the rights of citizens?
The government is not arguing it as a tax. That would have thrown this case out until the tax takes effect.
SCOTUS skeptical of idea that mandate is a tax | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner
"This is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, they won't -- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the mandate.
Another liberal on the court, Justice Stephen Breyer, said of Congress's description of the fine for non-compliance with the mandate, "They called it a penalty and not a tax for a reason."
................
"But Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical that the two elements (the mandate and the penalty) could be separated, who said, "Why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless?" he asked."
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/26/court-skeptical-of-tax-argument-on-mandate/
Justice Sam Alito asked Verrilli whether he could point to another case in which courts identified something as not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act while still ruling it was a constitutional exercise of taxing power. Verrilli could not name any.
The government is not arguing it as a tax. That would have thrown this case out until the tax takes effect.
Thats why they are arguing the Anti-Injunction Act today. The Anti-Injunction Act says, in a sense, that no one can bring suit before the tax is collected. However, as seen in the audio recently posted in the op, I dont think the justices are falling for it. It's not a tax nor is it advertised or written as such.
SCOTUS skeptical of idea that mandate is a tax | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner
"This is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, they won't -- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the mandate.
Another liberal on the court, Justice Stephen Breyer, said of Congress's description of the fine for non-compliance with the mandate, "They called it a penalty and not a tax for a reason."
................
"But Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical that the two elements (the mandate and the penalty) could be separated, who said, "Why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless?" he asked."
LOL, listen to the audio at 36:30. The government is arguing that the mandate is not a tax for the purpose of the Anti Injunction Act and is a tax for the purposes of the mandate.
The government is not arguing it as a tax. That would have thrown this case out until the tax takes effect.
Thats why they are arguing the Anti-Injunction Act today. The Anti-Injunction Act says, in a sense, that no one can bring suit before the tax is collected. However, as seen in the audio recently posted in the op, I dont think the justices are falling for it. It's not a tax nor is it advertised or written as such.
SCOTUS skeptical of idea that mandate is a tax | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner
"This is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, they won't -- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the mandate.
Another liberal on the court, Justice Stephen Breyer, said of Congress's description of the fine for non-compliance with the mandate, "They called it a penalty and not a tax for a reason."
................
"But Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical that the two elements (the mandate and the penalty) could be separated, who said, "Why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless?" he asked."
I see a problem with not terming it tax though:
1. How can the IRS collect a nontax fee?
So, if it stands as a law, they still can't collect the tax. Funny
One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.
Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
what a stupid idea this was now
Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube
One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.
Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
what a stupid idea this was now
Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube
Sounds like you are accusing our Supreme Court of being unprofessional and allowing their personal feelings about our President affect their decision-making on Constitutional issues.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they call it a tax so they could pass it??
Seems to me I remember Barry on TV telling everyone it wasn't a tax. He then did a 180 and said it was a tax because thats the only way they could pass it. As a tax. Under GW commerce clause.
