Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

[bigrebnc1775]

no it isn't because it can't be paid for

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

That is exactly why it is a " BIll of Attainder" and is prohibited by Article 1 sec. 9.

Interesting and well played
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

Definition: Bill of Attainder.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

that's kind of funny... because all the individual mandate does is require that people purchase insurance so as to spread risk and lower costs.

last i checked, that isn't a "tax" or a means of "raising revenue".

not that ultimately the court will do what it's supposed to given the ethically challenged thomas and scalia, but we can hope.

Oh, that idiot isn't going to listen to anything true or honest. He simply WANTS the bill to be "bad" so he attributes to it the dirtiest things he can imagine.

no fair you have me on ignore and can't read my comment. So I hope someone will quoted this post for me if you do I will rep you. No matter who you are.

Now tumbleweed

Oh, that idiot isn't going to listen to anything true or honest

You're an idiot
I listen to truth an honesty but I haven't seen any from you.

He simply WANTS the bill to be "bad" so he attributes to it the dirtiest things he can imagine

It's not a bill you stupid fuck it was made a law when obama signed it, get your shit right if you're going to call me an idiot, you fucking moron.
I don't have to want it to be bad for it to be bad, it's a bad law because it cannot be sustained and will infringe upon the rights of individuals who do not want nor need to buy a product.

It's not a good law just because you hope it is.

Hey tumbleweed sounds like you're coming off that fence and taking a stand but taking a stand means you need to watch where you take that stand, because you might be standing in a load of shit.

 

[Navy1960]

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

That is exactly why it is a " BIll of Attainder" and is prohibited by Article 1 sec. 9.

Interesting and well played
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

Definition: Bill of Attainder.

If you look at most of the cases on this, it has gone from one side to the other, but in general, it would seen pretty clear, at least in my humble opinion that there is no more clear example of a "Bill of Attainder" than using a tax to punish people who do not purchase a good or service, especially if they do not have recourse in the courts.

 

[Inthemiddle]

In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder. It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.

I don't think your bill of attainder theory would succeed. First of all, the HC bill doesn't tax people. It levies fines for failure to comply with the law. This is no different than a fine for a speeding ticket. And it certainly is no more an exercise of power than using cameras to fine people for running red lights as a "civil" violation, to which the person is not entitled no process of law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder. It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.

I don't think your bill of attainder theory would succeed. First of all, the HC bill doesn't tax people. It levies fines for failure to comply with the law. This is no different than a fine for a speeding ticket. And it certainly is no more an exercise of power than using cameras to fine people for running red lights as a "civil" violation, to which the person is not entitled no process of law.

This law is wrong. This is an unjust law that will cause people to kill their elected officials, and the law that comes knocking on the door when you do not submit. Some times a bullet is the only way to end unjust laws.

Now for the idiots that will take what I said out of context, I am not calling for anyone to shoot anyone, take up arms shot the president or what ever wets your dream. I am stating a fact when voting does not help bullets will. When you create laws to enslave people they will resist when they have had enough.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kagan is going to recuse herself, right?

 

[Navy1960]

In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder. It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.

I don't think your bill of attainder theory would succeed. First of all, the HC bill doesn't tax people. It levies fines for failure to comply with the law. This is no different than a fine for a speeding ticket. And it certainly is no more an exercise of power than using cameras to fine people for running red lights as a "civil" violation, to which the person is not entitled no process of law.

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial. punishments can include (fines). A fine would be even an even more egregious method of forcing someone to comply with the law, but call it what you will, fine or tax it is a declaration of guilt for non-complience, I might add also that you have due process involving traffic violations including camera's and can at anytime, go before the courts to dispute it. If you do not believe this is so, then I invite you to go to any traffic court in any state to see it on a daily basis. In fact here in Arizona, they recently shut down all the camera's one of the reasons for doing so is that the courts were overloaded with too many people disputing the cameras. As for donations, you are speaking of actions in which citizens take or do not take upon their own free will. so for example, I choose or DO not choose to purchase an SUV so am subjected to the taxes accordingly on it, if I do so, the same is applicable on donations as it applies to whatever benefits you get from it. The reverse is true for the HC Law, in that one has no choice but to have healthcare and in not doing so they are subject to a fine.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Kagan is going to recuse herself, right?

I think she will be forced to do so.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?

She can't be forced to do so, and she probably won't. I'm reading now that there's a move to try and pressure Thomas to recuse himself, as his wife was involved in some of the lobbying related to the law. I doubt he does either.

In this case, my thought is if Kagan recuses, Thomas should too, and if she doesn't, he shouldn't. It sounds like they're starting from opposite points, so they'll effectively cancel each other out.

 

[paulitician]

End the Mandate now. But i wont be surprised if they rule it Constitutional. Looks like another rig-job is coming. It is very sad but i do think it's coming. No American Citizen should be forced to buy Health Insurance by way of threats of fine or imprisonment. It's just plain Un-American.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.

This. The options on the table in 2008 were to fiddle around the edges, go with the mandate, or go single payer. If the mandate fails, you'll see some of the fiddling around the edges in the short term, but in the long term you'll almost certainly see the single payer.

 

[Flopper]

Poll: Majority Now Support The Individual Mandate

Eric Kleefeld-November 14, 2011

A new CNN poll on the issue of health care reform finds that support for the law’s central and most controversial element, the individual health insurance mandate, has climbed into majority territory.

Poll: Majority Now Support The Individual Mandate | TPMDC

CNN Poll: Support rises for health insurance mandate – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I'm certainly not surprised. People are starting to see that not providing health insurance for yourself and your family is irresponsible and should not be allowed.

 

[Inthemiddle]

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial. punishments can include (fines). A fine would be even an even more egregious method of forcing someone to comply with the law

But where is the lack of judicial due process in the HC bill?

but call it what you will, fine or tax it is a declaration of guilt for non-complience

You can't call it the same thing. If you do, then the entire tax code is a bill of attainder for the reasons I mentioned above. I seriously doubt the SCOTUS would be willing to entertain that argument.

I might add also that you have due process involving traffic violations including camera's and can at anytime, go before the courts to dispute it. If you do not believe this is so, then I invite you to go to any traffic court in any state to see it on a daily basis.

I know for a fact it isn't so when it comes to red light cameras in at least many places, and I would wager the vast majority thereof. The citations that are issued for what these cameras pick up are generally legislated as non-criminal civil violations against the municipality. As such, the burden of proof is much lower, and the citation usually is legislatively declared non-rebuttable prima facie evidence. There is no remedy for a person under such conditions. You can only pay the fine, or get your car impounded when you fail to pay the fine. I don't agree with it in the slightest bit. It's just what happens.

As for donations, you are speaking of actions in which citizens take or do not take upon their own free will. so for example, I choose or DO not choose to purchase an SUV so am subjected to the taxes accordingly on it, if I do so, the same is applicable on donations as it applies to whatever benefits you get from it. The reverse is true for the HC Law, in that one has no choice but to have healthcare and in not doing so they are subject to a fine.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. The tax code creates all kinds of way to reduce one's tax burden through various methods, such as donating to a church, or even at one point there was a tax break for purchasing an SUV. Your theory would deem these measures as a bill of attainder because they punish a class of citizens, without trial, for not spending their money in certain ways.

 

[paulitician]

The Big Government folks love the idea of forcing American Citizens to buy Health Insurance but they are very short-sighted and misguided people. Fining and imprisoning Citizens for not having Insurance is just wrong. I don't understand how so many Americans can be duped into supporting such oppression. They don't even understand they're only supporting something that goes against their own best interests. It's so sad.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'm certainly not surprised. People are starting to see that not providing health insurance for yourself and your family is irresponsible and should not be allowed.

Its more along the lines of the fact that guys like me, that did provide for the health insurance for their family, end up paying for the ones that don't in higher hospital costs which leads to higher premiums.

I honestly don't have a solution to the problem, but the folks that argue "I don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare" need to wake up and smell the coffee, because right now, you are.

 

[Navy1960]

Kagan is going to recuse herself, right?

I think she will be forced to do so.

Justices of the United States Supreme Court have not adopted and are not subject to a comprehensive code of judicial ethics. Nor are denials of motions to recuse by individual justices required to be in writing or subject to review. Recent media reports have focused public attention on this situation. The purpose of this letter is to issue a nonpartisan call for the implementation of mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.
http://www.afj.org/judicial_ethics_sign_on_letter.pdf

I would not look for her to recuse herself in this matter or Justice Thomas, on a side note I was doing some reading on the subject and found that for the most part when she was on the bench Justice O'Conner would recuse herself from cases involving the telecommunications industry because she had stock there, if one were to look it's not uncommon for a Justice to recuse themselves, and yet there are instances where a justice would stay on the court involving cases like Justice Black....

In the mid-1940s, Justice Black became involved in a bitter dispute with Justice Robert H. Jackson as a result of Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local 6167, United Mine Workers (1945). In this case the Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the UMW; Black voted with the majority, while Jackson dissented. However, the coal company requested the Court rehear the case on the grounds that Justice Black should have recused himself, as the mine workers were represented by Black's law partner of 20 years earlier.

So as you can see, this is nothing new, So I would not look for the Justice's to recuse themselves anytime soon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder. It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.

I don't think your bill of attainder theory would succeed. First of all, the HC bill doesn't tax people. It levies fines for failure to comply with the law. This is no different than a fine for a speeding ticket. And it certainly is no more an exercise of power than using cameras to fine people for running red lights as a "civil" violation, to which the person is not entitled no process of law.

This law is wrong. This is an unjust law that will cause people to kill their elected officials, and the law that comes knocking on the door when you do not submit. Some times a bullet is the only way to end unjust laws.

Now for the idiots that will take what I said out of context, I am not calling for anyone to shoot anyone, take up arms shot the president or what ever wets your dream. I am stating a fact when voting does not help bullets will. When you create laws to enslave people they will resist when they have had enough.

Some asshats don't get it

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -129 reputation points from Conservative.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
for inciting violence, you lying little narcissistic pustule.

Regards,
Conservative

Note: This is an automated message.

Some asshats carry conservative as a moniker and they think that makes them a conservative. Some asshats are so obvious what they really are it's funny how fluxed outraged they are. As I said some idiot would take what I said and say I was calling for it. here's the idiot.

 

[Flopper]

There is one significant hurdle here.

The Supreme Court must first rule whether or not the plaintiffs have standing to sue. Here's the problem no one has actually been forced to purchase insurance yet and no one has been fined for not purchasing insurance yet.

In other words no one's ox has as of yet been gored. So it very well could be ruled that this case has been brought too soon and the SC cannot rule on what might happen as it is prohibited from advisory rulings.

If it is decided that there is no standing then the case goes no further.

This is why one of the federal judges ruled that the case could not be decided till 2015 after the mandate has been in effect for a year. However by 2015, the healthcare exchanges will be in operation and there will no turning back.

 

[Navy1960]

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial. punishments can include (fines). A fine would be even an even more egregious method of forcing someone to comply with the law

But where is the lack of judicial due process in the HC bill?

but call it what you will, fine or tax it is a declaration of guilt for non-complience

You can't call it the same thing. If you do, then the entire tax code is a bill of attainder for the reasons I mentioned above. I seriously doubt the SCOTUS would be willing to entertain that argument.

I might add also that you have due process involving traffic violations including camera's and can at anytime, go before the courts to dispute it. If you do not believe this is so, then I invite you to go to any traffic court in any state to see it on a daily basis.

I know for a fact it isn't so when it comes to red light cameras in at least many places, and I would wager the vast majority thereof. The citations that are issued for what these cameras pick up are generally legislated as non-criminal civil violations against the municipality. As such, the burden of proof is much lower, and the citation usually is legislatively declared non-rebuttable prima facie evidence. There is no remedy for a person under such conditions. You can only pay the fine, or get your car impounded when you fail to pay the fine. I don't agree with it in the slightest bit. It's just what happens.

As for donations, you are speaking of actions in which citizens take or do not take upon their own free will. so for example, I choose or DO not choose to purchase an SUV so am subjected to the taxes accordingly on it, if I do so, the same is applicable on donations as it applies to whatever benefits you get from it. The reverse is true for the HC Law, in that one has no choice but to have healthcare and in not doing so they are subject to a fine.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. The tax code creates all kinds of way to reduce one's tax burden through various methods, such as donating to a church, or even at one point there was a tax break for purchasing an SUV. Your theory would deem these measures as a bill of attainder because they punish a class of citizens, without trial, for not spending their money in certain ways.

H.C. Bill
The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

still further;

Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage in 2016 are subject to a penalty equal to the greater of: (1) 2.5 percent of household income in excess of the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year over the threshold amount of income required for income tax return filing for that taxpayer under section 6012(a)(1);67 or (2) $695 per uninsured adult in the household. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee for an adult. The total household penalty may not exceed 300 percent of the per adult penalty ($2,085). The total annual household payment may not exceed the national average annual premium for bronze level health plan offered through the Exchange that year for the household size…

That is a declaration of guilt, and as it is not subject to civil or criminal Code you have no recourse in the courts. There is your lack of due process. As for the tax code your answer is simple, the difference is one chooses to engage in commerce, a job, activities that then are subjected to those taxes. In so doing if those taxes meet constiutional criteria then they are subject to them, however if that person chooses no to engage in those activities then they are NOT subject to them. With the HC Bill they have NO choice but to participate and if they do not, then they are subject to a fine and or tax call it what you will. As for the ticket, I invite you to read the following,

In an appeal decided April 5, 2011, Judge Peter J. Cahill of the Gila County Superior Court, found that a photo radar ticket issued by Star Valley to Michele Power was faulty. Based on the lack of foundation in certifying the ticket, the judge overturned the trial court judge’s fine and sent the case back to the Star Valley Court with orders to dismiss the ticket. Michele Power handled her case in court and on appeal based on the fact that the ticket was issued without anyone identifying the driver before issuing the ticket.

You HAVE due process in matters regarding tickets and any state that seeks to take it away I submit that state would soon find it's cameras turned off and issuing refunds much like Arizona has had to do.

On the donations side again I will point to you on matters of engaging in those activities by choice!!

 

[Unkotare]

[

that's kind of funny... because all the individual mandate does is require that people purchase insurance .

Oh, that's all? The government will now make buying something a requirement for citizenship? The Commerce Clause was never intended to be stretched that far.