Please read the opinion before comment!

SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

are the federal courts and the state courts the same? does the scotus have to give authority to state decisions?
 
Yurt said:
are the federal courts and the state courts the same? does the scotus have to give authority to state decisions?
Click to expand...

in specifically mentioned parts of the US constitution, yes.

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.

since the double jeopardy clause is already a right enumerated in the 5th Amendment, it shouldn't be ignored by 10th Amendment word games.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
in specifically mentioned parts of the US constitution, yes.

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.

since the double jeopardy clause is already a right enumerated in the 5th Amendment, it shouldn't be ignored by 10th Amendment word games.
Click to expand...

then you're giving the federal government absolute power over the states.
 
JugheadedMoron said:
Even bravo knows that the "tax" is upon those choosing not to buy insurance.
Click to expand...

You fucking retard... I have NEVER disputed that the mandate or penalty were found to be a TAX!

I have repeatedly stated, and you have repeatedly IGNORED... The ruling deems Congress does not have constitutional authority to regulate health care under the commerce clause. PERIOD... END OF FUCKING DISCUSSION! This means, every PENNY that is spent on this boondoggle.. HAS TO BE a TAX! It can't BE anything else, and remain CONSTITUTIONAL!
 
Dixie said:
You fucking retard... I have NEVER disputed that the mandate or penalty were found to be a TAX!

I have repeatedly stated, and you have repeatedly IGNORED... The ruling deems Congress does not have constitutional authority to regulate health care under the commerce clause. PERIOD... END OF FUCKING DISCUSSION! This means, every PENNY that is spent on this boondoggle.. HAS TO BE a TAX! It can't BE anything else, and remain CONSTITUTIONAL!
Click to expand...
That's simply not what they rulled. They ONLY ruled that the compulsory portion of the ACA was the penalty and that the penalty is permissible as a tax. You've not read the opinion have you?
 
JugheadFool said:
That's simply not what they rulled. They ONLY ruled that the compulsory portion of the ACA was the penalty and that the penalty is permissible as a tax. You've not read the opinion have you?
Click to expand...

No, I am sorry Jughead... apparently that is the ONLY part of the ruling you have read or comprehend, but that is certainly NOT the ONLY aspect they ruled on here. Now granted... that was a very important part, and conservatives vehemently oppose the ruling, that we can be compelled to purchase insurance if the Feds call it a tax. But that was NOT the only thing the ruling addressed. It stipulates SEVERAL key principles, and establishes a clear definitive understanding of what the commerce clause can and can't do, with regard to Federal powers. This eliminates the previous arguments over how this was going to be paid for, which included raiding the Medicare funds. That simply CAN'T be done now, not under the guise of the commerce clause, as you anticipated.
 
Dixie said:
No, I am sorry Jughead... apparently that is the ONLY part of the ruling you have read or comprehend, but that is certainly NOT the ONLY aspect they ruled on here. Now granted... that was a very important part, and conservatives vehemently oppose the ruling, that we can be compelled to purchase insurance if the Feds call it a tax. But that was NOT the only thing the ruling addressed. It stipulates SEVERAL key principles, and establishes a clear definitive understanding of what the commerce clause can and can't do, with regard to Federal powers. This eliminates the previous arguments over how this was going to be paid for, which included raiding the Medicare funds. That simply CAN'T be done now, not under the guise of the commerce clause, as you anticipated.
Click to expand...

Please cite to where the ruling calls anything but the penalty a tax....
 
c'est la vie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doctors said exactly the same thing when the NHS was being set up, of course they think it is disastrous they are scared that their earnings will be affected.
 
Last edited:
I guess nobody wants to really discuss the horrendously damaging real world consequences that this royally fucked opinion is going to result in?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I guess nobody wants to really discuss the horrendously damaging real world consequences that this royally fucked opinion is going to result in?
Click to expand...

Im willing to discuss it, but first both sides of the discussion need to know and agree on what "it" is.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I guess nobody wants to really discuss the horrendously damaging real world consequences that this royally fucked opinion is going to result in?
Click to expand...

I'd have to see them first.

I recall not so long ago that some people (not saying it was you) claimed there would be horrendous consequences to repealing DADT, yet it went out with a whimper. So far, no big deal.
 
Jarod said:
Im willing to discuss it, but first both sides of the discussion need to know and agree on what "it" is.
Click to expand...
let me just throw this out there then.

the end result is going to be total dependence upon the federal government for medical care since there are only two possible results. those with wealth and those without.

now, is this what was intended?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
let me just throw this out there then.

the end result is going to be total dependence upon the federal government for medical care since there are only two possible results. those with wealth and those without.

now, is this what was intended?
Click to expand...

I disagree that your prediction is the final result. Why do you bevlie that, how would the ACA lead to total dependence upon the Fed for Medical care?
 
Jarod said:
I disagree that your prediction is the final result. Why do you bevlie that, how would the ACA lead to total dependence upon the Fed for Medical care?
Click to expand...
i'm guessing that there is a minimum amount of coverage a person/family must maintain, and those people/families that make at or just above the minimum defined income level are going to fall below that level in being forced to buy coverage or paying the penalty/tax for not purchasing said coverage. So, in the end run of things, alot of 'middle class' people that are at the lower income level of that class will be forced to make a decision about what to buy and not buy, much like alot of lower income individuals have to do now with regards to food and medication. As that income disparity increases, you will find more and more people/families either choosing poverty so they can be subsidized or wealthier individuals fleeing the nation in order to avoid having their taxes further increased to pay for those unable to pay the coverage or penatly, thus resulting in further dependance upon the federal government for medical care.....among many other things.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i'm guessing that there is a minimum amount of coverage a person/family must maintain, and those people/families that make at or just above the minimum defined income level are going to fall below that level in being forced to buy coverage or paying the penalty/tax for not purchasing said coverage. So, in the end run of things, alot of 'middle class' people that are at the lower income level of that class will be forced to make a decision about what to buy and not buy, much like alot of lower income individuals have to do now with regards to food and medication. As that income disparity increases, you will find more and more people/families either choosing poverty so they can be subsidized or wealthier individuals fleeing the nation in order to avoid having their taxes further increased to pay for those unable to pay the coverage or penatly, thus resulting in further dependance upon the federal government for medical care.....among many other things.
Click to expand...

That is a possability, but I perfer that to what I belive is the same thing currently which is the same type of dependence on corporations. At least we can vote on who runs the Government.
 
Jarod said:
That is a possability, but I perfer that to what I belive is the same thing currently which is the same type of dependence on corporations. At least we can vote on who runs the Government.
Click to expand...

so it is exactly as I said. the purpose of laws like this is to force dependence upon the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top