Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And the clown in the video voicing similar rhetoric like you was NAILED being wrong with FACTS. All he could do was parrot is disproved rhetoric.
Here's the part from the SCOTUS decision that puts the kibosh on the crux of your rant here:
Because the constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
But that’s not constitutional text, it’s simply the blabberings of the partisan ideologue gang of nine.
SO NOW YOU ARE STATING THAT THE SCOTUS IS WHAT, UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR EXCEEDS IT'S AUTHORITY? So you have NEVER agreed with any SCOTUS decision? Man, STFU with this foolishness of yours, because I'm about to put you to shame.
Any sane and honest reading of the Constitution recognizes without hesitation the Congresses power “to tax,” however only ideological criminals would transfer that power to tax for actions
NOT AUTHORIZED by the Constitution as a power of the federal government. The Constitution explicitly states all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are
RESERVED TO THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE thereby denying it as a power to the feds.
I prove my case as follows with actual constitutional text which is absent in your argument.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” (Article 8, United States Constitution)
“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.” (10th Amendment, United States Constitution)
Yes, and with your lame, myopic opinion aside,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...lth-care-law/2012/06/28/gJQAarRm8V_story.html
Roberts summed up the split-the-difference decision: “The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” he wrote. “The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”
Joined by the conservatives, he also rejected the argument that requiring health-care coverage was different, because everyone at some point will require medical care.
“The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions,” he wrote.
But Roberts said it is the court’s duty to look for ways in which acts of Congress can be upheld, and he found it in Congress’s taxing power, a point pressed during oral arguments by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
Roberts acknowledged that the law refers to the “shared responsibility payment” due on a person’s 2014 tax returns if he or she does not obtain health insurance as a penalty, not a tax. But he noted that it was calculated as a portion of a person’s income and due to the Internal Revenue Service.
And Congress frequently imposes taxes, such as cigarette taxes, to encourage people to quit smoking.
You don't like the decision, then get your political rep to lobby to have it changed. That's the system.
My political reps are all Neo-Commie Democrats or Neo-Fascist Republicans with absolutely no interest in affairs of the Constitution. They’re simply ideological low-life’s who’s only interest is their corrupted ideological authoritarianism and their next election whereby they can bribe their way to reelection where they can continue to fuck over the nation and its people.
Spoken like a true libertarian lunkhead....you don't dare take a stance, yet you criticize everyone else. So Rand and Ron Paul are/were what to you? Phonies? Spare us all your bullshit, because you offer NOTHING in place of the ACA, much less what preceded it.
On a side note, you do realize that your rant essentially makes you a hypocrite if you EVER argued in favor of a law that went to the SCOTUS and was ruled valid? I mean, as a right wing crank, you are in favor of all the rulings that came in favor of the Shrub's tenure? How do you feel about the recent rulings regarding campaign contributions?
So in your lame-brained distorted world favoring constitutional correctness and exposing and despising constitutional violence is
HYPOCRITICAL? You leave no doubt that you’re that confused and ignorant.
From time to time the court gets one or two right. While it may have everything to do with their ideology that would be only because even the right and left have some elements of their ideologies that meet constitutional decorum. For me personally the court’s decisions are only constitutional when they actually meet the strict construction of the Constitution because my ideology is
”CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICANISM” which makes me actually one of few
TRUE classic liberal/classic conservatives.
I did not and do not support G. W. Bush’s socialist programs, i. e. “Prescription Drugs for Seniors,” “No Child Left Behind,” or “Faith Based Initiative.” I oppose G. W. Bush’s undeclared, unconstitutional wars. I oppose G. W. Bush’s “Patriot Act.” I opposed G.W. Bush’s signing into law the “McCain Feingold Election Reform Act.” I opposed most everything G.W. Bush did and also oppose Barrack Obama’s putting of the G. W. Bush agenda on steroids and everything else he’s done outside of constitutional decorum.
The recent court rulings relative to campaign contributions is consistent with constitutional decorum because political donations are
“FREE SPEECH” and the 1st Amendment forbids the Congress to abridge the “Freedom Of Speech.” And since you support the court’s ruling that Obama-Care is constitutional, but surely you oppose the free speech ruling and everything the “Shrub” got through the court, I reckon then in your confused ignorant world that makes you a fucking
”HYPOCRITE,” Huh?
