This is a discussion on SCOTUS upholds Obamacare! within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by 0866mdr But I'm saying it should be free. No one has to pay for it. So simple. ...
Nothing is free. Somewhere along the way someone has to pay for it.Originally Posted by 0866mdr
"You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan
I Love this country and the FLAG and I just took both of them down ! The meaning of MY Flag dosn't deserve the enbarrasment and or slap in the face this radical commie marxist and the stupreme court has done ! For me to take them down was really hard and I'm not giving up NEVER , OH the fight just took an extreme step !
There's a lot of that going around this site lately from a lot of people.
To not stand against injustice is to stand for it.
Don't confuse my personality and my attitude.
My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are.
Late to the party here (again) but... why all the outrage at the SOTUS? Form the way some of the comments are running in here you would think SCOTUS wrote the ACA. All they did was judge the Constitutionality of the basis of the ACA. Actually by judging the ACA exceeded the legal limitations of the commerce act and put it into a tax classification, I think, IMHO, John Q Public may start looking at it differently. It also put Obama's "No new taxes on the middle class" hogwash in the new light it deserves.
Troll or child with no understanding of economics (Mommy has always given it what it wants, so everything is "free").Originally Posted by 0866mdr
But I'm saying it should be free. No one has to pay for it. So simple.
To not stand against injustice is to stand for it.
Don't confuse my personality and my attitude.
My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are.
Got Beretta's?
If Obama Care is a Tax, then the bill must have originated in the House of Representatives per the constitution.
The Actual Obama Care that Nancy Pelosi Passed originated in the Senate.
Did Roberts actually nullify the whole bill?
Read article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution.
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
Nancy Peolsi could not get her bill passed, but, because the bill was not a tax, she had the House vote on the Senate's Bill.
Sounds to me like this aint over yet.
Simple is the correct description of anyone who thinks anything in life is "free".
Someone somewhere pays out of their own pocket for the things many folks think are "free". Even the toilet paper in toilets isn't "free" because someone had to go to the store and pay money to buy it.
That's good, because I didn't make a semantics argument. I corrected a wrong assertion by you and provided a citation (video) to back up my position. Calling that "semantics" is just deflection from addressing the issue. Fail.
I really don't care what "you think." When I first replied to you, I was going on the assumption that you do, in fact, think. After this reply of yours though, I'm assuming nothing anymore.
As to the ACA coming from a "conservative, right-wing ideology," now I have evidence that you don't think, or can't, whichever the case may be.
Was it you who said this idiocy was passed in a bipartisan way, and that a majority of Americans wanted it? I can't remember. Whether it was you or not though, can you name one conservative (other than your leftist self) who would agree with you that it fits within a "conservative, right-wing ideology?" I mean a conservative whose name most of us would recognize as such. Good luck with that.
As to the Justice who just illegally imposed a tax on the citizens of the United States, you just need to take a look at my signature to see what I think of him. He needs and deserves to be tried for treason and made to pay the ultimate penalty if convicted as far as I'm concerned.
Aside from that, I find the above quote of yours to be very sad. You think so little of your own ability to understand what you read that someone else's station in life can automatically invalidate your own rational scrutiny of words. Like for instance, I read the following words and know without a doubt that I understand them, and also know without a doubt that Chief Justice Roberts (and virtually all other Justices who have sat at or beside the Throne he currently occupies) does not comprehend what he reads anywhere near as well as I do:
As soon as you find where in the Constitution the Supreme Court is granted taxing authority, or Congress is granted authority to control the lives of American citizens so completely that even their health care decisions are swallowed up by the federal government, then maybe I'll give your sarcastic, dismissive implication that Roberts and the rest of the Court is somehow smarter than me, or more qualified to rule over me than I am to rule my own life, another look. Until then though, I'm just going to pity the lack of self esteem that makes you so willing to cede your autonomy and sovereignty to a bunch of strangers in black robes lording over you. They're no smarter or more qualified to run my life than I am, that's for damn sure, and I will never willingly cede my freedoms to tyrants, whether they be college grads with law degrees, or common street thugs.The 10th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Here's a pearl of wisdom just for you, Mark:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
Actually, as regards the basis upon which they justified the constitutionality of the bill, they did write it. A "tax" was not only not part of the language of the bill as a funding mechanism, it was specifically rejected by Obama and the Dems who passed it in the Congress. Not only that, but Robert Long, who argued the case for the government at SCOTUS, specifically argued against the notion that it was a tax. Who, in all of this two-year struggle to clarify the constitutionality of the ACA, ever said it was a tax? One person: Chief Justice John Roberts, that's who. So SCOTUS did write in the only premise that could make this monstrosity stand as being "constitutional."
They did no such thing. The Commerce Clause was left 100% untouched by this ruling. Only one Justice said it would not have withstood the constitutional challenge if *The Court* were deciding it based on the Commerce Clause (cited below), and that Justice was, again, John Roberts. Below is the excerpt of his singular opinion on the applicability of the Commerce Clause. It is not joined by even one other Justice, much less four, which is what it would take for *The Court* to have "judged" that "...the ACA exceeded the legal limitations of the commerce act [sic]."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf
2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual
mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the
Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.
(a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate
Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate
commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated.
This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive
as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce power have
been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g.,
United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate,
however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels
individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the
ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.....As to the bolded part, you're absolutely right, the Court put it into the tax classification, not the Congress, the President or the language of the bill itself. That is precisely what makes this ruling so overreaching. It's an activist ruling of the first order, no matter what it does to wake John Q. Public up to the fact that government, overall, is out of control. Even if JQP manages to raise enough Hell about this new tax, for which the Supreme Court has zero authority to either make up out of thin air or impose, to get it repealed, this precedent will be left for this and all future courts to expand upon. A wholly new, and therefore unconstitutional, taxing authority has been created by this travesty. That's why "...all the outrage at the..." SCOTUS.
Blues
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
Banned
U are just making stuff up.Simple is the correct description of anyone who thinks anything in life is "free".
Someone somewhere pays out of their own pocket for the things many folks think are "free". Even the toilet paper in toilets isn't "free" because someone had to go to the store and pay money to buy it.
You must have missed a few posts beginning about #100 where it was mentioned that it in fact originated in the House as a Tax Bill before Congress performed a slight of hand and converted it into the Health Care bill it became. Here is a link to Post 100 for you. SCOTUS upholds Obamacare!
I had originally mistakenly concluded that because the penalty would be assessed by and paid through the IRS based upon AGI, that such fact was why the SCOTUS referred to it as a tax, but then finding that H.R. 3590 was in fact originally a Service Members Homeowners Tax Act, showed me that I had even failed to fully research my own decisions.
EDIT: Based upon the fact of it being a Tax bill initially and the fact that the penalty will be assessed through the IRS. I can not fault the SCOTUS in the case and think it is unfair of anyone to do so.
"Unfair" to whom? Roberts only negated the non-tax-bill nature of the bill it "became" after the sleight of hand you admit Congress committed on it. However, Roberts did not negate the 1st Amendment (yet, but it's probably not far behind), and anything any government official does is "fair" game for criticism under its protections.
Your analysis is at least inconsistent, if not altogether obdurate. You say the bill was a tax bill "initially." Well, it was also a bill that had nothing whatsoever to do with health care "initially." You seem to be arguing that it retains its tax-bill status because of its "initial" language, even though its subsequent language edited out every reference to taxation as a means of funding either that specific law or government in general, and yet argue further that it's perfectly fine to go with the mandates of the new language while retaining the purpose of the now-non-existent initial language. Huh?
The tax language was removed from the bill. When it got to SCOTUS, it was neither written, asserted, nor argued as being a tax bill, and in fact, would've been thrown out long before it ever reached SCOTUS if it had been argued as such, on the basis of the Anti-Injunction Act. Only SCOTUS said it was a tax bill at the time of the ruling. Neither Congress, Obama, his lawyers arguing the case, nor the bill itself concurred with that assertion, and in fact, Obama and the leftists of Congress are still arguing that it isn't a tax bill! Until you can reconcile within the Constitution their authority to add language into a bill that it comes to them completely devoid of, thus appropriating for themselves a taxing authority that is not provided for in that once-austere document, it is nothing short of umm...unfair, unpatriotic, and unintelligent of you to support this ruling.
Blues
Posting Permissions
295Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote