Can a modern day "liberal" also be a "patriot"?

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Specify, you blithering bumpkin! Because this generalized accusation on flies with the likes of Limbaugh and the willful idiots that follow him.

Put up or shut up.
The tax code is being used as an enforcement mechanism, on non tax related issues. The tax code is being used to enforce the individual mandate.

You need to broaden your reading/listening news sources, bunky. The SCOTUS says it's all legal and above board. Here, FYI:

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It did it in a long and complex decision that rejected the Constitutional argument for upholding the law that had received the most attention — that the ACA’s individual mandate was supportable under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce –and relied instead on a much less familiar argument, that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/0...y-an-overview/

Now take the hat off of your ass and THINK!
 
You need to broaden your reading/listening news sources, bunky. The SCOTUS says it's all legal and above board. Here, FYI:

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It did it in a long and complex decision that rejected the Constitutional argument for upholding the law that had received the most attention — that the ACA’s individual mandate was supportable under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce –and relied instead on a much less familiar argument, that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/0...y-an-overview/

Now take the hat off of your ass and THINK!

The supreme court is gay.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You need to broaden your reading/listening news sources, bunky. The SCOTUS says it's all legal and above board. Here, FYI:

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It did it in a long and complex decision that rejected the Constitutional argument for upholding the law that had received the most attention — that the ACA’s individual mandate was supportable under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce –and relied instead on a much less familiar argument, that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/0...y-an-overview/

Now take the hat off of your ass and THINK!


The supreme court is gay.

Translation: AssHatZombie was just proven wrong, but he doesn't have the maturity or intellectual honesty to admit it.
 
Translation: AssHatZombie was just proven wrong, but he doesn't have the maturity or intellectual honesty to admit it.

The supreme court does not actually dictate reality. It's just one opinion. They are a corrupt organ of the fascist state.

If the supreme court told you cyanide was good for you would you go eat some?
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Translation: AssHatZombie was just proven wrong, but he doesn't have the maturity or intellectual honesty to admit it.


The supreme court does not actually dictate reality. It's just one opinion. They are a corrupt organ of the fascist state.

If the supreme court told you cyanide was good for you would you go eat some?

Man, you seriously need to take the crack out of the pipe! YOU made a statement claiming illegality. I provided PROOF POSITIVE that you were IGNORANT OF THE LAW, and subsequently FLAT OUT WRONG.

So now like every other intellectually dishonest/impotent little neocon/teabagger parrot, you blathering nonsense RATHER THAN GROW THE HELL UP AND JUST ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON A POINT.

Jeezus, no wonder the GOP gets you idiots to vote against your best interest time and again, and the rich folk get you to carry their water constantly....you willful ignorance and stubborn pride gives them just what they need. You're pathetic....and you've got NOTHING else of worth to add to this discussion. Adios!
 
You need to broaden your reading/listening news sources, bunky. The SCOTUS says it's all legal and above board. Here, FYI:

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It did it in a long and complex decision that rejected the Constitutional argument for upholding the law that had received the most attention — that the ACA’s individual mandate was supportable under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce –and relied instead on a much less familiar argument, that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/0...y-an-overview/

Now take the hat off of your ass and THINK!

Yours is a simple explanation for the simple-minded, not wrong, just incomplete.....so I'll help you out,

The Court considered the constitutionality of only two major provisions of the ACA, not the entire act...
the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion.
A majority of the Court upheld the individual mandate. And, while the Court found the Medicaid expansion unconstitutionally coercive of states, because states did not have adequate notice to voluntarily consent and the Secretary could
potentially withhold all of a state’s existing federal Medicaid funds for non-compliance, a majority of the Court found that this issue was appropriately remedied by circumscribing the Secretary’s enforcement authority, thus leaving the Medicaid expansion intact in the ACA...... http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8332.pdf

Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. The Court concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
A straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.
It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
=====================================
So you can't be forced to buy insurance, but you can be taxed for not having it.....


An unfriendly court could have easily gone against it instead of helping the federal lawyers by redefining the
questionable parts...
 
Yours is a simple explanation for the simple-minded, not wrong, just incomplete.....so I'll help you out,

The Court considered the constitutionality of only two major provisions of the ACA, not the entire act...
the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion.
A majority of the Court upheld the individual mandate. And, while the Court found the Medicaid expansion unconstitutionally coercive of states, because states did not have adequate notice to voluntarily consent and the Secretary could
potentially withhold all of a state’s existing federal Medicaid funds for non-compliance, a majority of the Court found that this issue was appropriately remedied by circumscribing the Secretary’s enforcement authority, thus leaving the Medicaid expansion intact in the ACA...... http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8332.pdf

Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. The Court concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
A straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.
It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
=====================================
So you can't be forced to buy insurance, but you can be taxed for not having it.....


An unfriendly court could have easily gone against it instead of helping the federal lawyers by redefining the
questionable parts...


All you've done is waste time and space stating the obvious regarding CHALLENGES to the ACA. But like it or not, the original accusation by your like minded compadre was WRONG!

But in the end, the Court concludes that the mandate is constitutional, and with it the entire remainder of the ACA … except, the Medicaid expansion, in part. Sara Rosenbaum deals with this issue in her post, but I will merely say the Court does not prohibit the Medicaid expansion from going forward; it simply makes it optional with the states. States can expand Medicaid or not, but will not lose funding for their current program if they do not. Of course, a state would have to have a pathologically strong attachment to political principle to walk away from hundreds of millions of federal dollars and leave thousands or hundreds of thousands of its citizens uninsured. If a state wants to do this, however, it can.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/...idual-mandates-constitutionality-an-overview/
 
Man, you seriously need to take the crack out of the pipe! YOU made a statement claiming illegality. I provided PROOF POSITIVE that you were IGNORANT OF THE LAW, and subsequently FLAT OUT WRONG.

So now like every other intellectually dishonest/impotent little neocon/teabagger parrot, you blathering nonsense RATHER THAN GROW THE HELL UP AND JUST ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON A POINT.

Jeezus, no wonder the GOP gets you idiots to vote against your best interest time and again, and the rich folk get you to carry their water constantly....you willful ignorance and stubborn pride gives them just what they need. You're pathetic....and you've got NOTHING else of worth to add to this discussion. Adios!

The supreme court is just one opinion on the law. They are not infallible, they could reverse themselves later.

There is right and wrong, and that exists outside of the lines of governmental authority.

Ill ask my question again, if the supreme court ruled cyanide was good for you, would you go eat some?
 
On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It did it in a long and complex decision that rejected the Constitutional argument for upholding the law that had received the most attention — that the ACA’s individual mandate was supportable under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce –and relied instead on a much less familiar argument, that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend.

Tax and spend to do what is the actual issue. In accordance with constitutional accuracy, the only things Congress has the power to do is,

“To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” (Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution)


So where in the Constitution did the corrupt gang of partisan ideologues on the court find the constitutional authority for Congress to meddle in the nation’s healthcare insurance?

The ACA is so blatantly unconstitutional it defies the rational imagination how anybody other than a fucking Kangaroo Court could find it Constitutional.
 
like in baseball.... from the stands, we see good pitches and bad pitches, but only one guy gets to decide whether those pitches are balls or strikes. And once he says a pitch is a strike, it is one. The fans might disagree, but what does that matter, really?
 
We have remedies available to us if we feel our Constitution is being hijacked....Short range and long range... We can start up petition drives to get our elected representatives to impeach sitting SCOTUS justices... We can vow to vote in the future for only congressional candidates who promise to do so... We can vow to vote for only presidential candidates who pledge to nominate only judges who will interpret the Constitution in ways we feel are appropriate... Or we can post an unending stream of posts on obscure internet message boards complaining about how our precious Constitution has been sullied. Practically speaking, I think that ALL of the above options are long shots at best.... but NONE moreso than the last.
 
Tax and spend to do what is the actual issue. In accordance with constitutional accuracy, the only things Congress has the power to do is,

“To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” (Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution)


So where in the Constitution did the corrupt gang of partisan ideologues on the court find the constitutional authority for Congress to meddle in the nation’s healthcare insurance?

The ACA is so blatantly unconstitutional it defies the rational imagination how anybody other than a fucking Kangaroo Court could find it Constitutional.

My, but you right wing clods really do get your myopic parrot on whenever there's a decision that goes against your teabagger/neocon doctrines.

The article gave reasons for dissent and reasons why those dissents were overridden. Since you obviously didn't read it, I'll provide an excerpt for context:


The taxing and spending power argument. In the biggest surprise of the day, however, the Chief Justice voted to uphold the mandate based on another Congressional power—the power to tax and spend. The argument that the mandate could be used to uphold the mandate had been raised repeatedly below, but had been rejected by every judge that considered it except for Judge Wynn concurring in the Fourth Circuit case. The government continued to press it, however, and in the end it carried the day.

The Chief Justice began his consideration of the tax issue by noting the general principle that a court should read an act of Congress to be constitutional if it can do so. The Chief Justice read the mandate to say, essentially, that individuals who fail to purchase health insurance must pay a tax. Going without insurance, just like many other actions or inactions, is a taxable event.

The “shared responsibility payment” that enforces the mandate, the Court observed, looks in many ways like at tax. It does not apply to individuals who do not file tax returns and is collected with those returns. It is assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes and is expected to raise $4 billion in revenue annually. It is called a penalty rather than a tax in the statute, but the Court has held before in earlier cases that exactions not labeled taxes can in fact be taxes. Labels are not the deciding factor, rather the substance and application of an exaction is determinative.

Of course, the exaction is meant to affect individual conduct. But that is true of many, perhaps most, taxes and tax preferences in the tax code. Moreover, although the exaction is called a penalty, it is not punitive. It does not make failure to purchase insurance illegal, it merely imposes a tax on the failure to do so. The Chief Justice rejected the dissenters’ argument that the statue must be stricken merely because of the label Congress placed on the exaction: the real issue is the function of the exaction, not the label placed upon it.

Limitations on “direct taxes.” Finally, the Chief Justice disposed of a lingering issue in the case based on a very obscure provision of the Constitution which imposes severe limitations on the collection of “direct taxes.” ACA opponents had argued that, although the Supreme Court has not held a tax to be a direct tax for generations, it had finally encountered one in the ACA case. A direct tax is a tax imposed on every person in the country, without regard to any other circumstance. This is not the way the mandate tax functions. It only applies to those who fail to purchase insurance.

Of course this raises again the challenges brought to the Commerce Clause justification for the mandate — do they apply to the mandate as a tax? First, although Congress cannot compel activity, it can tax inactivity, and often has. Taxes can be so severe as to become punitive and thus be prohibited, but this is not true of the mandate tax, which is relatively weak. Finally, it is one thing to force someone to do an activity, under threat of criminal sanctions for example, it is quite another to impose a tax. In conclusion—Congress cannot force people to buy health insurance; Congress can tax people who fail to do so.


Next time you want to blow smoke, try doing it based on something else besides YOUR personal interpretation of the Constitution and the law.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch
 
Last edited:
I think in the US of A, where our Founders, who no one can argue where not patriots, wrote the Constitution, that a definition of patriotism must therefore include reverence for the Constitution. This is reinforced daily where public servants swear to uphold the Constitution.

Therefore anyone who seeks to usurp it, through creative interpretation or other means, is unpatriotic. Especially someone who has taken that oath and reminds people of it at every chance.

Benedict Arnold was a founding father... would you call him a patriot?
 
Benedict Arnold was a founding father... would you call him a patriot?
He wasn't a signer to the Declaration. After the war began he was a mere captain, nothing more. And he was a traitor well before the Constitution was written.

Are all lawyers as uneducated as you about American history?
 
He wasn't a signer to the Declaration. After the war began he was a mere captain, nothing more. And he was a traitor well before the Constitution was written.

Are all lawyers as uneducated as you about American history?

Arnold would have fitted perfectly into the modern Republican Party, worshipping power and money, and grovelling.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Man, you seriously need to take the crack out of the pipe! YOU made a statement claiming illegality. I provided PROOF POSITIVE that you were IGNORANT OF THE LAW, and subsequently FLAT OUT WRONG.

So now like every other intellectually dishonest/impotent little neocon/teabagger parrot, you blathering nonsense RATHER THAN GROW THE HELL UP AND JUST ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON A POINT.

Jeezus, no wonder the GOP gets you idiots to vote against your best interest time and again, and the rich folk get you to carry their water constantly....you willful ignorance and stubborn pride gives them just what they need. You're pathetic....and you've got NOTHING else of worth to add to this discussion. Adios!



The supreme court is just one opinion on the law. They are not infallible, they could reverse themselves later.

The SCOTUS doesn't make laws (at least it didn't use to) and no one said they were infallible or they couldn't reverse themselves later. Hell, Congress can overturn decisions or even impeach SCOTUS judges! The POINT was that YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE ACA WAS LEGAL...APPROVED THROUGH CONGRESS AND THE SCOTUS...as I pointed out to your equally dim witted compadre http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-be-a-quot-patriot-quot&p=1450259#post1450259

There is right and wrong, and that exists outside of the lines of governmental authority.

Spare us all this moot point, toodles. You were WRONG in an assertion. Grow up!

Ill ask my question again, if the supreme court ruled cyanide was good for you, would you go eat some?

See above responses.
 
Back
Top