And I Thought I was the Biggest Narcissist Ever!

[OCA]

Roberts ruled the mandate as function of Congressional authority to tax.

Justice Roberts engaged in mental contortions to hold that the individual mandate exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause power,
but was constitutional under Congress’ taxing authority (joining with the four liberal Justices).
His was the swing vote.
While there were reports he originally intended to vote otherwise, and was swayed by the pressures, those reports never have been verified and probably never will be given the secrecy that attaches to Supreme Court deliberations

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/still-swallowing-chief-justice-roberts-bitter-obamacare-pill/

Federalism survives (10th Amendment) but towards what ends?

Sucks for you that it went constitutional, eh?

I get a kick out of people saying that the SCOTUS decision was anything but what it actually was, a ruling that the ACA is legal under the COTUS.

Besides, who ever said COTUS was a suicide pact?

 

[anatta]

Sucks for you that it went constitutional, eh?

I get a kick out of people saying that the SCOTUS decision was anything but what it actually was, a ruling that the ACA is legal under the COTUS.

Besides, who ever said COTUS was a suicide pact?

"sucks" is a silly sentiment. If you had anything to actualy say about the construing of the individual mandate = Congressional power of taxation - than I'd listen.

Do you understand the fact the being forced to engage in commerce ( buying HC) by a mandate, as a function of the Commerce Clause is sheer lunacy?
Why Roberts ruled against the mandate as that function - that IS unconstitutional.

I'm not againnst the ACA - i'll prolly enroll -i 'd just like some type of Constitutional underpinning - even as Federalism has devolved to "New Federalism".

Roberts doesn't explain how he made the leap (and leap he did), so it's not clear where the new limits of taxation are, or the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Ya dig??

 

[OCA]

"sucks" is a silly sentiment. If you had anything to actualy say about the construing of the individual mandate = Congressional power of taxation - than I'd listen.

Do you understand the fact the being forced to engage in commerce ( buying HC) by a mandate, as a function of the Commerce Clause is sheer lunacy?
Why Roberts ruled against the mandate as that function - that IS unconstitutional.

I'm not againnst the ACA - i'll prolly enroll -i 'd just like some type of Constitutional underpinning - even as Federalism has devolved to "New Federalism".

Roberts doesn't explain how he made the leap (and leap he did), so it's not clear where the new limits of taxation are, or the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Ya dig??

No, I don't dig.

The time in America for everything being passed by Congress, to have the need for 100%, how did you put it? "Constitutional underpinning" has long passed, this bill was needed as healthcare in America was a wreck. Now unless you would agree to what I stated many years ago that doctors and emergency rooms should be allowed to turn people away who do not show proof of insurance or the ability to pay(credit check) then we have nothing left to discuss. I'm not willing to pay any longer for the uninsured, are you? Sometimes people must be forced to do what is right.

States mandate car insurance, this is exactly the same thing from the Feds.

Sucks was a completely apropo term.

 

[anatta]

No, I don't dig.

The time in America for everything being passed by Congress, to have the need for 100%, how did you put it? "Constitutional underpinning" has long passed, this bill was needed as healthcare in America was a wreck. Now unless you would agree to what I stated many years ago that doctors and emergency rooms should be allowed to turn people away who do not show proof of insurance or the ability to pay(credit check) then we have nothing left to discuss. I'm not willing to pay any longer for the uninsured, are you? Sometimes people must be forced to do what is right.

States mandate car insurance, this is exactly the same thing from the Feds.

Sucks was a completely apropo term.

mandating car insurance is one thing -not everyone drives. It is a voluntary activity.
One can choose to avoid the car insurance.

The mandate was (is) involuntary - you live= you pay (engage in economic activity). The "crux of the bisquist" (as Frank Zappa once wrote.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018139068

The question is what are the limits of Congressional power to tax, if the mandate is now tax?

As the Beatles once wrote:

If you take a walk / I'll tax your feet (Taxman)

can your feet be taxed????

being silly to make the point that we have no limits on Congressional purview; least none that I can see. Can you?

I'll leave Gonzales v. Raich (limits of the Commerce Clause) on the front porch for your musing.

 

[tekkychick]

mandating car insurance is one thing -not everyone drives. It is a voluntary activity.

And everyone sooner or later gets sick and needs a doctor's care

 

[anatta]

And everyone sooner or later gets sick and needs a doctor's care

-the point though is what is the limitation of Congressional powers to tax?
The ACA mandate ( by the power of the Commerce Clause) was found un-Constitional, and Roberts somehow leaped to it's a function of an eumerated Congressional power to tax.

I've never really gotten a good answer to this.... i'm willing to listen and discuss it - and while I support the outcome of the ACA, how we got there

(by what Constitutional constructs, and what limits on it?) has to be addressed.

So what limits are there on Congressional power to tax, if simply being alive causes one to be taxed?

PS - do you know about non-citizens?? (asking) are they universally taxed also?

(tax here is used as Roberts saw fit/either a penalty or mandated coverage)

 

[tekkychick]

Quite frankly, I think they should have gone with the interstate commerce clause instead of the taxing thing.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I think Roberts took a calculated risk on which would unravel more quickly. Legislators will now pounce on the taxation precedent, and attempt to drag as many random things under the umbrella that the ruling creates. The same would have been true with the commerce clause, and that one is much easier to jump onboard.

 

[anatta]

what Roberts realized is that if you put the mandate into the realm of the Commerce Clause - you are relying on Congressional ability to REGULATE Interstate Commerce.

Which leaves a future challenge quite open to the idea that regulation is not the same as mandating - and Roberts is an 'institutionalist'
(for lack of a better term) who saw that leaving the ACA in that realm , leaves it wide open to being overturned on the grounds of "mandating economic activity".

So Roberts shifted to the ENUMERATED power to tax - making a SCOTUS challegne much more difficult - how do you overturn a Congressional authority to tax?

Almost impossible - so it eventually becomes stare decisis (settled law). and the counry is not put in turmoil - with a huge restructuring of HC once again.

This is the underpinning -making the mandate a tax.

What I am concerned about is the future, when biotronics becomes much more available -how is this paid for thru insurance?
I mean do we literally tax healthy organs to pay for diseased body parts operations?

Suppose one needs a new artificial hand - it's becoming slowly practicle - but expensive, and if there is a 'right' to have a new hand
(subject to other medical criteria) -somehow this has to be covered by insurance..

Anyways - that is the future (near future?) but Roberts was content to at least let the ACA settle in, and worry about the future consequenses later.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

what Roberts realized is that if you put the mandate into the realm of the Commerce Clause - you are relying on Congressional ability to REGULATE Interstate Commerce.

Which leaves a future challenge quite open to the idea that regulation is not the same as mandating - and Roberts is an 'institutionalist'
(for lack of a better term) who saw that leaving the ACA in that realm , leaves it wide open to being overturned on the grounds of "mandating economic activity".

So Roberts shifted to the ENUMERATED power to tax - making a SCOTUS challegne much more difficult - how do you overturn a Congressional authority to tax?

Almost impossible - so it eventually becomes stare decisis (settled law). and the counry is not put in turmoil - with a huge restructuring of HC once again.

This is the underpinning -making the mandate a tax.

What I am concerned about is the future, when biotronics becomes much more available -how is this paid for thru insurance?
I mean do we literally tax healthy organs to pay for diseased body parts operations?

Suppose one needs a new artificial hand - it's becoming slowly practicle - but expensive, and if there is a 'right' to have a new hand
(subject to other medical criteria) -somehow this has to be covered by insurance..

Anyways - that is the future (near future?) but Roberts was content to at least let the ACA settle in, and worry about the future consequenses later.

In the future there will be an even greater divide between the healthcare availabe to the rich and powerful and that which the rest of us have access to. Technofeudalism.

 

[OCA]

what Roberts realized is that if you put the mandate into the realm of the Commerce Clause - you are relying on Congressional ability to REGULATE Interstate Commerce.

Which leaves a future challenge quite open to the idea that regulation is not the same as mandating - and Roberts is an 'institutionalist'
(for lack of a better term) who saw that leaving the ACA in that realm , leaves it wide open to being overturned on the grounds of "mandating economic activity".

So Roberts shifted to the ENUMERATED power to tax - making a SCOTUS challegne much more difficult - how do you overturn a Congressional authority to tax?

Almost impossible - so it eventually becomes stare decisis (settled law). and the counry is not put in turmoil - with a huge restructuring of HC once again.

This is the underpinning -making the mandate a tax.

What I am concerned about is the future, when biotronics becomes much more available -how is this paid for thru insurance?
I mean do we literally tax healthy organs to pay for diseased body parts operations?

Suppose one needs a new artificial hand - it's becoming slowly practicle - but expensive, and if there is a 'right' to have a new hand
(subject to other medical criteria) -somehow this has to be covered by insurance..

Anyways - that is the future (near future?) but Roberts was content to at least let the ACA settle in, and worry about the future consequenses later.

I'll bet your favorite drink is the mudslide because you bullshit is like a mudslide coming downhill fast.

 

[anatta]

I'll bet your favorite drink is the mudslide because you bullshit is like a mudslide coming downhill fast.

granted there is speculation there about future body parts taxes, but the idea that taxing people for being alive was far-fetched before the Roberts ruling...

Brave New World ?

 

[Robo]

Sure, you might be right to some degree but until such time as the the procedures are changed..................The ACA is currently consitutional and as of Oct.1 will be the law of the land.

I disagree! Not “constitutional” just legalized criminal action by a corrupt and criminal government made up of arrogant self-promoting crooked bastards oblivious to their oath of office.

Besides maybe if you drop some more f-bombs and scream and kick a little more maybe that will change and you can deny 50 mil. uninsured the opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance. I don't see it happening but please continue to endeavor.

Tough shit if your sensitive widdle eyes and ears have been offended Goober, but we’ll surely see about the fucking affordability, quality and sustainability of a fucking law that nobody read before they passed it, nobody now understands it, Obama has exempted all of his buddies from it, and Congress refuses to force themselves and government workers to be involved in it. Guess who’s gonna get this fucking pig shoved up their asses.