You are dead wrong.
Change what interpretation? nah that's not what happened..
They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense. They could have called the mandate a marriage license. The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name. To many people look at names and associate meaning. Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.
The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.
Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules. Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill. The republicans caved.
And you were lied to. Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did. If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not. Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.
Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented. The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional. The issue was one minor point in the ACA. For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.
Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment. This has already been ruled by the courts. The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays. I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have. I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.
Access to health care is a part of the right to life. The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation. Note I said access not free health care. No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating. That is not a right. That is a pipe dream.
[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
1. Yes Marriage is protected under the First Amendment as part of religious freedom, I agree. So that is why I do not endorse Govt regulating Marriage in ways that other people do not believe in either. You have the right to your beliefs about Marriage, and likewise with other people who do not come to the same conclusions about Marriage.
If people cannot agree about Marriage, just like Religion, keep Govt out of it
and don't make a law at all that imposes some kind of bias unfair to any person's beliefs.
2. As for the ACA
It does not work to nitpick where the violation or problem occurs with the bill or process
You and I both know that is not going to solve the problem. Why? Because the whole thing violates people's beliefs. I also do not believe in govt mandating that I buy private insurance. I believe in a number of better ways to provide more health care for more people without violating any beliefs, and just using free choice.
But my choice is not allowed under this law and would be fined by tax penalty.
So no I do not agree that such taxation is constitutional as it violates my beliefs and I do not consent. the mandate penalizes people who would choose spiritual healing, or build teaching hospitals and other means, that are discriminated against as not an equal choice.
The whole FLAW could be prevented by writing and passing the law by consensus and not imposing it this way, where it divided along political beliefs.
So I'm sorry I cannot explain it better to you why the whole thing is flawed.
all the nitpicky points you and I could argue about are symptoms of the problem.
If it wasn't passed by consent of the people affected, and it violates beliefs about law and choice and due process, it is not fully Constitutional.
RKMB you cannot make anyone who doesn't believe it is constitutional
change their minds because it violates their beliefs, on principle regardless of the points.
The political belief that govt does not have jurisdiction to mandate such a system of health care, regardless of taxation or not, without consent of the people, using a Constitutional Amendment and/or other means of representation as needed; and the belief that the vote in Congress demonstrates a PARTISAN bias in political beliefs, is enough to argue that the ACA is unconstitutional and violates the Code of Ethics for govt service.
Anyone like you is free to follow it, but not impose on others whose beliefs are violated.
I support consent of the governed as part of my Constitutional beliefs protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
So no I do not approve of anyone violating the consent of others by imposing this law or its fines. People must consent to a law as a contract, especially if it contains business requirements such as buying something or paying a fine or tax to government.
that is my belief, and it is protected by Constitutional law as EQUAL to yours.
You cannot impose your belief on me nor mine on yours. so you are free to follow ACA but I will not consent to it being imposed on those who do not believe the same as you.
Thank you! You are very kind, patient and thoughtful and I appreciate your points.
but the principles still apply and no opponent I know is going to be convinced otherwise.
Oh and I see you still don't understand the use of the term bully off your playground use of the term.
