Please read the opinion before comment!

Jarod said:
Many of you are speaking out of your asses parroting things you heard from pundits with agendas.

You look like fools ...

Start at page 7 read through page 50 for the meat of it.... It's an interesting history lesson!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Click to expand...

I do not question the Constitutionality of the law, per se. I'm currently on page 15; thus far, Roberts has built a persuasive argument. I particularly like this excerpt:

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

So, the bottom line is that I understand why Roberts voted the way he did. What I question is whether the ACA will actually decrease the cost of health insurance. I also question how well it will function in the real world (of the 5 - 6 doctors I know, all of them have referred to the law as "disastrous"). Time will tell. One thing is for certain: the best place for this debate is, and always has been, the Congress, and though I may personally dislike the results, I think the Supreme Court did everyone a favor by affirming that.
 
I don't need to read the opinion to render this opinion.....

The law was voted on and passed by the US Congress as is normal procedure in all legislation......BUT

the law that was voted on made no mention of a TAX on those that don't buy insurance.....is it a penalty or a fee or what?

therefore, the legislators voted on something different than what the SC ruled on and defined.....the vote was passed without a TAX and now its defined their was
a tax in the legislation after the fact....thats fraud.....

That alone should have been grounds to throw out the law and have it rewritten to reflect the truth of its content and re-voted on.....
 
Even bravo knows that the "tax" is upon those choosing not to buy insurance.
 
Jarod said:
Even bravo knows that the "tax" is upon those choosing not to buy insurance.
Click to expand...

and therein lies the problem with this law. ALWAYS in the past, taxes have been imposed upon a person for their participation in some sort of commerce. NOW, taxes are being imposed upon people for NON PARTICIPATION. All this decision did was place the power to extract money from the populace, in any amount and for any purpose at any time of congress' choosing. private property and the fruits of our own personal labors belong to us no more.
 
Jarod said:
Even bravo knows that the "tax" is upon those choosing not to buy insurance.
Click to expand...

And you ignore the important point.....when voted on and passed by Congress, the legislation did not contain nor mention any TAX levied on anyone.....

That IS NOT the law that was voted on.....

Thats like voting on abolishing the death penalty and then after its passed, finding out that it only applies to the death by ripping ones lungs out....
 
A rose by any other name is still a rose, or a turd by any other name is still a turd, depending on your perspective.

The provisions of the law have not changed, the "penalty" / "tax" is still the same thing the representatives voted for.

My only point is that Postmodern and Dixie are wrong. You are at least being honest about what the bill says. Your argument, while I disagree with it, is at least honest about what the S. Ct. said.
 
Jarod said:
A rose by any other name is still a rose, or a turd by any other name is still a turd, depending on your perspective.

The provisions of the law have not changed, the "penalty" / "tax" is still the same thing the representatives voted for.

My only point is that Postmodern and Dixie are wrong. You are at least being honest about what the bill says. Your argument, while I disagree with it, is at least honest about what the S. Ct. said.
Click to expand...

Sorry counselor....words have meanings......in law and especially in laws and legislation....

Taxes, penalty, fees, dues, costs, price, fines, etc. all mean different things....and to pass a law saying one thing and then, after the fact, change the words or wording, which does in itself change the law, its something else.....its IS NOT THE SAME LAW THAT WAS VOTED FOR and AGAINST the first time.
You know that as well as I ....... how the fuck can you claim to be a lawyer and ignore that obvious wrong.....

If you client got a plea bargain for 30 days in county and after the paper work is done it turns out to be 30 months in state, would you just freakin over look that...????
 
bravo said:
Sorry counselor....words have meanings......in law and especially in laws and legislation....
Click to expand...
if only that were true, because if it were actually true then we wouldn't have to worry about being tried twice for the same criminal act if the first outcome wasn't favorable to the government.
 
bravo said:
Sorry counselor....words have meanings......in law and especially in laws and legislation....

Taxes, penalty, fees, dues, costs, price, fines, etc. all mean different things....and to pass a law saying one thing and then, after the fact, change the words or wording, which does in itself change the law, its something else.....its IS NOT THE SAME LAW THAT WAS VOTED FOR and AGAINST the first time.
You know that as well as I ....... how the fuck can you claim to be a lawyer and ignore that obvious wrong.....

If you client got a plea bargain for 30 days in county and after the paper work is done it turns out to be 30 months in state, would you just freakin over look that...????
Click to expand...

As long as the result was what we agreed to, I would not care about the wording.
 
Jarod said:
I dont remember every claiming one existed.
Click to expand...

thanks for proving my point.

Yurt said:
how do you figure? this decision gives congress carte blanche under the tax and spend power enumerated in the constitution. contrast that to the CC where the court has previously limited congressional power under the CC. can you name one case where the court has limited congressional power under the T and S clause?
Click to expand...
 
Yurt said:
what?
Click to expand...

maybe you forgot our discussion about 'double jeopardy' a while back, where if the state doesn't get a guilty verdict on someone then the feds can have a whack, or because a judge didn't fill out paperwork on a not guilty verdict correctly or in a timely manner, then the state can try the person again.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
maybe you forgot our discussion about 'double jeopardy' a while back, where if the state doesn't get a guilty verdict on someone then the feds can have a whack, or because a judge didn't fill out paperwork on a not guilty verdict correctly or in a timely manner, then the state can try the person again.
Click to expand...

iirc...i agreed with you about the judge who didn't fill out the paperwork correctly. but there is no DJ between the states and the federal government. to believe there is, is to do away with the 10th AM and all state rights.
 
Yurt said:
iirc...i agreed with you about the judge who didn't fill out the paperwork correctly. but there is no DJ between the states and the federal government. to believe there is, is to do away with the 10th AM and all state rights.
Click to expand...
and yet, the double jeopardy clause exists because of the framers experience with the english courts. that if one court didn't give the king what he wanted, he simply had the case retried in another court. That is why DJ was written and isn't to be considered part of the 10th Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top