# Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law



## WillowTree (Nov 14, 2011)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.

The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.

The justices in a brief order agreed to hear the appeals. At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.







Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law - chicagotribune.com


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 14, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.
> 
> The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.
> 
> ...


which case did they take?


----------



## Big Black Dog (Nov 14, 2011)

Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.


----------



## Wiseacre (Nov 14, 2011)

Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think.   5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.   

That isn't really how it should be for something like this.   The dems will never agree to this, but they oughta scrap the whole damn thing and do it right this time with enougn bipartisan support to avoid a SCOTUS decision.   I suppose that's asking for too much, we don't have enough pols who are willing to make a tough call that's in the best interests of the country rather than what's best for themselves or their party.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.
> ...



From the article:  





> The dispute reached the Supreme Court after conflicting rulings by U.S. appeals courts.
> 
> Appeals courts in Cincinnati and Washington, D.C., upheld the individual mandate. An appeals court in Atlanta struck it down, but refused to invalidate the rest of the law. An appeals court in Virginia ruled the mandate could not be decided until 2015, when the penalties for not having insurance are imposed.
> 
> The Supreme Court cases are National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 14, 2011)

we all knew this would happen.

Let's just pray there are no surprise vacancies to the court before then and that the court upholds the Constitution.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Nov 14, 2011)

This is good news! Of course it's unconstitutional to FORCE American's to purchase a product shoveled by the government. My 4 year old could figure that out.


----------



## G.T. (Nov 14, 2011)

This would hurt Newt and Heritage Foundation as well, if anyone bothered ever looking into what *they've* ever proposed for Healthcare.


----------



## G.T. (Nov 14, 2011)

&#8220;ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That&#8217;s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I&#8217;m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn&#8217;t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK."


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

Forget Newt.

First things first.

First, the SCOTUS has to clearly affirm that the authority of the Federal Government is limited.  LIMITED.

I hope the fact that the SCOTUS has agreed to take the dispute translates into the proposition that Obamacare is now effectively put into Hospice care and a DNR is in effect.  Waiting for it to go flat line.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 14, 2011)

Its all on Kennedy.

You have 4 sane, pro-America justices in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts and 4 lying radicals who want to disarm us and turn us into a Socialist Utopia like North Korea or Cuba; Kennedy is always a coin flip.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 14, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> 5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.


5-4 is just fine with the Libs on Roe vs. Wade. I'll be perfectly satisfied with a 5-4 decision against Obamacare.


----------



## G.T. (Nov 14, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Its all on Kennedy.
> 
> You have 4 sane, pro-America justices in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts and 4 lying radicals who want to disarm us and turn us into a Socialist Utopia like North Korea or Cuba; Kennedy is always a coin flip.



Yes, we know. Everyone that doesn't agree with you on issues is an insane person who wants to destroy America.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 14, 2011)

Liability said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


hmmmm... gonna have to do a little research, i've seen a list of the questions they took for cert and I think seeing which cases they came from would be sort of telling.  For instance, I know they took the severability question, which I believe would indicate they plan on drawing a line on a courts ability to sever... since they currently don't have a functional one.  Would seem to be a point for the non-severability argument... otherwise, why hear it.  

They also took one on whether only the states would be precluded from suing via the the anti-injunction act, i believe thats from the sebelius case (6th circuit?).  Standing issue i believe that the 6th used to punt.

 Also on the mandate itself, which they couldn't avoid if they wanted to 

and on the medicaid expansion which I find interesting as it's question is about federal "persuasion" to force sates to follow federal mandates on pain of poverty.

I'm thinking this looks good on its face.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 14, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> hmmmm... gonna have to do a little research, i've seen a list of the questions they took for cert and I think seeing which cases they came from would be sort of telling.  For instance, I know they took the severability question, which I believe would indicate they plan on drawing a line on a courts ability to sever... since they currently don't have a functional one.  Would seem to be a point for the non-severability argument... otherwise, why hear it.
> 
> They also took one on whether only the states would be precluded from suing via the the anti-injunction act, i believe thats from the sebelius case (6th circuit?).  Standing issue i believe that the 6th used to punt.
> 
> ...



You're right, it does look good on its face. But anything can happen between now and then. They shouldnt be hearing any questions, the people shouldnt have allowed this to pass.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 14, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Its all on Kennedy.
> 
> You have 4 sane, pro-America justices in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts and 4 lying radicals who want to disarm us and turn us into a Socialist Utopia like North Korea or Cuba; Kennedy is always a coin flip.



Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation. And this would be a second radical step for the court, who's already done some remarkable activist decisions in terms of overturning laws from the state and federal government.

One way or the other..it's going to set the stage for universal health care. And if the courts overturn obamacare..that's going to be sooner rather then later.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 14, 2011)

How is a court being activist by upholding the Constitution?

Its when they ignore it and the law and make their own rules that we have activism.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 14, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> How is a court being activist by upholding the Constitution?
> 
> Its when they ignore it and the law and make their own rules that we have activism.



Precisely...

It's amazing, the kind of twists these wingers try and do


----------



## Dr.House (Nov 14, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Its all on Kennedy.
> ...



Link?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 14, 2011)

And Scalia shouldn't have to. It shouldnt have been passed to begin with


----------



## MiddleClass (Nov 14, 2011)

The U.S Supreme Court will finally put to rest the radical Republican Jihad on Health Care Reform, unless they go by the way of last year's partisan ruling on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 14, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> The U.S Supreme Court will finally put to rest the radical Republican Jihad on Health Care Reform, unless they go by the way of last year's partisan ruling on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.



Upholding the First Amendment and free speech is partisan now?

What a sad day for our nation.


----------



## MiddleClass (Nov 14, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > How is a court being activist by upholding the Constitution?
> ...



Rightwingnuts believe anything that contradicts their fundamental beliefs is Unconstitutional


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 14, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Considering that our fundamental beliefs include the Constitution of the United States, then, we would be correct.

By definition if something opposes the Constitution it's unconstitional.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 14, 2011)

I don't think it makes much difference whether the mandate is struck down or not. The mandate is weak because the penalty is quite low.  I would guess that if the mandate was struck down, the open enrollment period would be extended and a late fee imposed by the insurance companies.  Any shortfall, would have to be made up through higher premiums for preexisting conditions.

If the the mandate is struck down, the political fallout would be much greater than the impact on the law.


----------



## Conservative (Nov 14, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> The U.S Supreme Court will finally put to rest the radical Republican Jihad on Health Care Reform, unless they go by the way of last year's partisan ruling on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.



In other words, if they agree with you, they are right... and if they don't they are wrong.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think.   5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.
> 
> That isn't really how it should be for something like this.   The dems will never agree to this, but they oughta scrap the whole damn thing and do it right this time with enougn bipartisan support to avoid a SCOTUS decision.   I suppose that's asking for too much, we don't have enough pols who are willing to make a tough call that's in the best interests of the country rather than what's best for themselves or their party.



Yes...5-4. 

But, unfortunately,* I believe that it will be 5-4 to uphold*.

I believe this based on an originalist view that the Supreme Court is not alone in deciding the constitutionality of a law. Rather, the assumption is that all three branches have a role in said decision.

The Congress is assumed to have viewed any law that they vote in to pass constitutional muster. The same for the President in signing it.
The Court, the third.

So, unless the law is clearly unconstitutional, the law should be upheld.

And....I expect Justices Scalia and Thomas to differ on this, as they did in Gonzales v Raich.


1. Note Justice Thomas&#8217; Madisonian interpretation in his dissent in Gonzales v Raich: &#8220;The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a warrant to Congress to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power. Nor is it, however, a command to Congress to enact only laws that are absolutely indispensable to the exercise of an enumerated power.  To act under the Necessary and Proper Clause, then, Congress must select a means that is "appropriate" and "plainly adapted" to executing an enumerated power; the means *cannot be otherwise "prohibited" by the Constitution; and the means cannot be inconsistent with "the letter and spirit of the [C]onstitution." *FindLaw | Cases and Codes

2.	*Justice Scalia&#8217;s interpretation *of the Necessary and Proper Clause 
is &#8216;Rooseveltian&#8221; in that it* gives extreme deference to the decisions of Congress *right down to the necessity to control intrastate, non-economic activities that have been the traditional purview of the police power of states. Similar to the New Deal Court, Justice Scalia allows Congress to decide the question of means-ends fit. Also consistent with a New Deal attitude, he denies that interference with police power of states is an improper construction of implied federal power.

Now, I  understand that this is not the Commerce Clause...but it shows the thinking of the two toward Congress' actions.


No....it means that the *Republicans must control both the Senate and the White House *in 2012 to overthrow this blight.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 14, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > 5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.
> ...



I'd love to see 7-2 or better. It would ensure a GOP POTUS.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 14, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.



Oh yes!! There's no way we would ever want to force people to take responsibility and buy their own health coverage.


----------



## old navy (Nov 14, 2011)

5-4??

Should not Kagan recuse herself?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.
> ...



Force.

The usual required element in liberal what-passes-for-thinking.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



Well, atleast they are being more honest about wanting to take our liberty away.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Its all on Kennedy.
> ...



"Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation."

You have no idea how it galls me to agree with wolf-cubby.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



See Gonzales v Raich.

Thomas is the true (truest?)  conservative.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 14, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



How Antonin Scalia May Save The Individual Mandate



> Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients.
> 
> They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority to regulate commerce.
> 
> Even noneconomic local activity can come under federal regulation if it is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce, Scalia wrote.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I was curious, so I did a quick search.

Here's one example.  I don't know if it's the one Sallow had in mind:

A Scalia Tea Leaf on the Healthcare Law? - Business Insider

Interesting.



> A fine distinction that only constitutional law nerds think about . . . .


  -- From the above linked article.  We WANT our Federal Judiciary on matters of Constitutional validity to engage in such "nerd" like thinking, I suppose.  *But* I sure as hell don't want them to lose sight of the entire forest on account of a few pesky trees.


----------



## grunt11b (Nov 14, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.



 Obamas reelection hinges on it, which is why it was allowed to go forward. You ever hear of the overton window? This healthcare law played a big part in the overton window. They had no intentions of it ever passing muster in the supreme court, but while everyone was up in arms over it the left quietly moved forward with there agenda. They are probably hoping that if this does not pass the supreme court people will all of a sudden not think things are so bad and reelect them. Don't be fooled, hold these people accountable.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



Uh-huh. Because there is no way you new conservatives would EVER force a woman to carry a fetus to full term, force someone to die with no dignity or force families to put off allowing their unrecoverable loved ones to die (Terri Schiavo).

So don't hand me your bullshit on anybody forcing anything.


----------



## grunt11b (Nov 14, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think.   5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.
> 
> That isn't really how it should be for something like this.   The dems will never agree to this, but they oughta scrap the whole damn thing and do it right this time with enougn bipartisan support to avoid a SCOTUS decision.   I suppose that's asking for too much, we don't have enough pols who are willing to make a tough call that's in the best interests of the country rather than what's best for themselves or their party.



 Don't forget that Kagen has to recuse herself from voting on this, because she was a part of the drafting of this law. So it will be a lock to be voted out.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 14, 2011)

Honestly, the mandate should be struck down.  Most of the rest of the legislation would fall under regulatory and interstate commerce powers and stand.

I do agree with PC and Sallow though, it'll be a 5-4 to uphold.  It shouldn't be, but I'm thinking it will.  That isn't necessarily bad for the GOP though.  A 5-4 Uphold ruling would motivate the base big time as the Mandate is pretty unpopular on both sides of the aisle. I could see a 5-4 ruling to support the Mandate being a pretty effective October surprise if they hold the decision.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



"Force a woman" to carry her fetus to full term as opposed to blithely "allowing" her to kill an innocent?

Force a person to die with no dignity?  As opposed to what?  What is the death with dignity thing you are commenting on?  Assisted suicide, perhaps?

And as for the Terri Schiavo case, lots of conservatives disagreed with lots of other conservatives.  The point was that it was NOT all that clear that Terri WAS actually beyond all hope.  I kind of imagine she was.  But there was other evidence and it's kind of "ok" not to presume that we know more about the marvels of the human brain than we actually DO know.

The POINT of the liberal position (on this health care issue) is that the GOVERNMENT purports now to have the Constitutional authority to TELL us what we MUST buy -- as long as it's _for our own good._  And yes.  It IS a matter of compulsion.  And yes, it is a very dubious authority that the libs lay claim to.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think.   5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.
> ...



What if Justice Kagan declines to recuse herself?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



You certainly have a point about conservative beliefs on such issues.

But if you read my post with more care, you'll note that I didn't address conservatives.
The point was your casual interest in forcing folks to do your bidding.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Honestly, the mandate should be struck down.  Most of the rest of the legislation would fall under regulatory and interstate commerce powers and stand.
> 
> I do agree with PC and Sallow though, it'll be a 5-4 to uphold.  It shouldn't be, but I'm thinking it will.  That isn't necessarily bad for the GOP though.  A 5-4 Uphold ruling would motivate the base big time as the Mandate is pretty unpopular on both sides of the aisle. I could see a 5-4 ruling to support the Mandate being a pretty effective October surprise if they hold the decision.



You have a darned good point...rep on the way.

I saw it as an advantage for Obama if the court obviates the law....lots of folks who will vote because they hate the law might just stay home.


----------



## Conservative (Nov 14, 2011)

Liability said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



I am unaware of a law or process that could force a SC justice to recuse themselves.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

Liability said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



"The point was that it was NOT all that clear that Terri WAS actually beyond all hope."

1. "A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.
Rom Houben, trapped in his paralysed body after a car crash, described his real-life nightmare as he screamed to doctors that he could hear them - but could make no sound.
'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state.
'I dreamed myself away,' he added, tapping his tale out with the aid of a computer." 

Read more: Rom Houben: Patient trapped in a 23-year 'coma' was conscious all along | Mail Online

2. An Arkansas man who went into a coma after a serious car crash during his late teens has awoken nearly two decades later as a middle-aged man with an adult daughter.

Terry Wallis was 19 and newly married with a baby daughter when his truck plunged through a guard rail, falling 25 feet.

He was left paralysed and in a coma by the crash in the summer of 1984. One of his companions was killed outright.

He remained outwardly *unresponsive for years, *and news reports yesterday described his recovery as all the more remarkable because Mr Wallis was never given specialist care.

His father, a farmer, was reportedly too poor to afford a neurological examination and state medical insurance was reluctant to pay for a man not expected to return to the work force.

But, according to the popular legend now taking root which promises to turn Mr Wallis into a hero for the pro-life movement, the family never gave up hope. Brain Injury | Buzzle.com


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

Conservative said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



The decision is usually made by the judge using his or her sound discretion.


----------



## jillian (Nov 14, 2011)

Conservative said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



Unfortunately, SCt justices aren't bound by the same rules of ethical conduct that constrain all other judges.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 14, 2011)

Conservative said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



There isn't one.  It's come up as an issue before in the last year.  I'm trying to remember why, but I thought there were some complaints about Thomas or Alito declining to recuse themselves from a case somehow tied to their spouse.  I really wish I could recall this.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

How damn "thorny" is the Obamacare law in terms of Constitutional analysis?

Consider this:



> Health Law Survives Test in Court of Appeals
> By JOHN SCHWARTZ
> Published: November 8, 2011
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/health/policy/appeals-court-upholds-health-care-law.html

The above hyperlink takes you to the full article which is useful since the article contains additional hyperlinks to the lengthy decision and the lengthy dissent.

Thorny stuff, indeed.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, the mandate should be struck down.  Most of the rest of the legislation would fall under regulatory and interstate commerce powers and stand.
> ...



You might have a point here. Many were hoping for universal health care..not this. But that position might soften once it's rolled out completely. I mean, I don't like it, but the fact that  you can't get kicked for a pre-existing condition makes the indivdual mandate worth the bother.


----------



## jillian (Nov 14, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> Don't forget that Kagen has to recuse herself from voting on this, because she was a part of the drafting of this law. So it will be a lock to be voted out.



just to correct grunt (who seems never to be correct about anything) its my understanding that kagan did not "draft" the health care legislation. she worked for the DOJ at the time and it would have been her job to legally defend the law.

As for whether she should recuse... well, her relationship to the health care law, which has been upheld by most circuit courts of appeal which have heard it, is far more distant than thomas' connection was to the outcome of citizens' united, and scalia's was to bush v gore.

so given no one on the right whined about those failures to recuse, i'd say that the drone with regard to kagan is just that... 

sound and fury signifying nothing.

and no one can "vote her out"... .or as i said, thomas and scalia would have been 'voted out' of the cases i referenced.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 14, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I think it was Thomas..

In any case..Scalia basically trampled on the whole notion of recusals. Although Roberts has shown alot of class in this regard.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 14, 2011)

Helvering V. Davis.

1. The Court abstains from dismissing, sua sponte, as not properly within equity jurisdiction, a bill by a shareholder to restrain his corporation from making the tax payments and the deductions from wages required by Title VIII of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, the bill alleging that the exactions are void and that compliance will subject the corporation and its shareholders to irreparable damage. P. 639.

The corporation acquiesced. The Collector and Commissioner of Internal Revenue intervened in the court below, defended on the merits, brought the case to this Court by certiorari, and here expressly waived a defense under R.S. ' 3224 and any objection upon the ground of adequate legal remedy, and urged that the validity of the taxes be determined.

2. The scheme of "Federal Old-Age Benefits" set up by Title II of the Social Security Act does not contravene the limitations of the Tenth Amendment. P. 640.

3. Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." P. 640.

*4. In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary. P. 640.*

*5. The concept of "general welfare" is not static, but adapts itself to the crises and necessities of the times. P. 641.*

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

Ariticle One sec. 9



The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
 The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

*No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.*

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

*Cummings v. Missouri, *

*"A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."* 

It seem's fairly clear that the  section that requires a person to purchase  healthcare is a  "bill of attainder" and as such should be struck down.  While I do not question the motives for  wanting Americans to have low cost healthcare as well as make it available to all Americans,  it does seem that punishing Americans is not only  the unconstitutional way to go about it, it is also the  wrong way.  I am still of the opinion that things such as  "pre-existing condition bills"can and still do have wide support among both parties as well as many other aspects of the the healthcare bill. However, the bill itself remains  widely unpopular  as well as  an illustration of what congress should not do and  the results of what happens when congress refuses to work together on matters that effect the entire nation.  This habit has not changed much in congress , only the team jersey has. So it remains to be seen if the SCOTUS will overturn the entire bill, but  as  the court is divided as well it should prove very interesting considering this is the court that has  decided  corporations are now citizens, so if one is hoping for a  constitutional decision on the healthcare matter, this court has a habit of  going in very different directions that people think they will.


----------



## California Girl (Nov 14, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



And Left Wing Whackjobs forget we have a Constitution.

See how this works? 

Idiot.


----------



## jillian (Nov 14, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> Helvering V. Davis.
> 
> 1. The Court abstains from dismissing, sua sponte, as not properly within equity jurisdiction, a bill by a shareholder to restrain his corporation from making the tax payments and the deductions from wages required by Title VIII of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, the bill alleging that the exactions are void and that compliance will subject the corporation and its shareholders to irreparable damage. P. 639.
> 
> ...



bingo! well, except for the part on payment for health coverage. they've already determined that you can be compelled to pay as they did with social security.


----------



## jillian (Nov 14, 2011)

The thing that's interesting, that is pointed out in liability's link, is that opposing the health care bill is actually difficult for conservative jurists because there are two schools of "conservative" thought. one, which is the more traditional, is limited judicial review in deference to congressional action unless it is patently unconstitutional. the other is a vigorous judicial review in order to zealously defend "individual liberties".

but a conservative court overturning this law would be endangering 60 years of legislation. it is unlikely.

i wouldn't be shocked if they actually refused to upend it based on 'political question' doctrine, which would make it nonjusticeable and get them off the hook.


----------



## jillian (Nov 14, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> How is a court being activist by upholding the Constitution?
> 
> Its when they ignore it and the law and make their own rules that we have activism.



and if you actually understood what that is, it would be wonderful.


----------



## jillian (Nov 14, 2011)

California Girl said:


> MiddleClass said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



no. not really. it's more apparent that rightwingnuts lie about what it requires and what it permits because they have little understanding of the caselaw. so viewing the document in a vacuum leads them to say perverse and ignorant things.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Soooo.....you and Liability are in the column that you want government intervention to come in between what is supposed to be a familiy's decision?

And if it were your mother, father, grandparent lying there on life support (God forbid) and his or her doctor(s) assure you that there was no hope of recovery you would want to have to petition the government to make that decision for you????


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.



Why is that the "right" thing?  Simply because you don't like the law?  Neither do I.  But it's just wasting more time chasing this through the courts.  We need to focus on getting the legislature to repeal it.


----------



## Ropey (Nov 14, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> Helvering V. Davis.
> 
> 1. The Court abstains from dismissing, sua sponte, as not properly within equity jurisdiction, a bill by a shareholder to restrain his corporation from making the tax payments and the deductions from wages required by Title VIII of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, the bill alleging that the exactions are void and that compliance will subject the corporation and its shareholders to irreparable damage. P. 639.
> 
> ...



(Underlined Portion)

^And since this portion of the bill contains the necessary finances, much of the rest of the bill wallows.


----------



## Conservative (Nov 14, 2011)

jillian said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > MiddleClass said:
> ...



I've had conversations in here with any number of 'lefties' who do not understand, misquote, or otherwise mangle the Constitution.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 14, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> And if it were your mother, father, grandparent lying there on life support (God forbid) and his or her doctor(s) assure you that there was no hope of recovery you would want to have to petition the government to make that decision for you????



Not to derail, but that was always my issue in the Schiavo case.  I didn't like the decision to pull the plug, but if it were me, in that bed, I'd want my wife to be able to make that decision without Big Government stepping in.  I trusted her enough to promise to love honor and cherish her for the rest of my life.  I trust her enough to make that call.  

I never understood why traditionally small government types cheered the loudest when the government started stomping on what was essentially a family's decision.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.
> ...



Then Bachman is the one you will want to vote for. It's her signature goal in life. Just think.. A White Republican Woman in the white house.. a first.. something we call all be proud of.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. "A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.
> Rom Houben, trapped in his paralysed body after a car crash, described his real-life nightmare as he screamed to doctors that he could hear them - but could make no sound.
> 'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state.
> 'I dreamed myself away,' he added, tapping his tale out with the aid of a computer."
> ...



What you present here are exceptional cases.  Such exceptional examples cannot be afforded anymore weight than how negligible their likelihood is.  They certainly don't justify an overly intrusive government legislating the matter for the family.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 14, 2011)

jillian said:


> The thing that's interesting, that is pointed out in liability's link, is that opposing the health care bill is actually difficult for conservative jurists because there are two schools of "conservative" thought. one, which is the more traditional, is limited judicial review in deference to congressional action unless it is patently unconstitutional. the other is a vigorous judicial review in order to zealously defend "individual liberties".
> 
> but a conservative court overturning this law would be endangering 60 years of legislation. it is unlikely.
> 
> i wouldn't be shocked if they actually refused to upend it based on 'political question' doctrine, which would make it nonjusticeable and get them off the hook.



That's one of the reason's why I mentioned the Citizens  United case was because sometimes the court  decides cases not  on constitutional merit  but rather  on  political merit. As I mentioned in the previous post though, it seems fairly clear that Article I sec 9 spells out that by imposing a tax on a person who does not purchase  healthcare is a  Bill of Attainder and is therefor unconstitutional.  However, does this make  portions of the  the whole  unconstitutional? no it doesn't in my humble opinion, such as  the requirements for companies engaged  in interstate commerce to accept those with "pre-existing" conditions.  On a side note  the other issue you have is  should  Justice Thomas recuse himself from this case  based on the actions of his wife in lobbying against this issue, which is a clear conflict of  interest?  My contention is and always has been the healthcare bill in adding the requirement for  everyone to purchase healthcare and  imposing a penalty for those who didn't  ran into a conflict with the constitution and further with the sheer number of  good ideas out there to address the problem it was not needed in the first place.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> How is a court being activist by upholding the Constitution?
> 
> Its when they ignore it and the law and make their own rules that we have activism.



And, of course, you're the authority on constitutional interpretation, as opposed to they, yes?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> By definition if something opposes the Constitution it's unconstitional.



Everyone believes in the bible.  Some people just give more weight to different Gospels.


----------



## Conservative (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > By definition if something opposes the Constitution it's unconstitional.
> ...



Believes it exists? Yes. 

Believes in what is in it? No.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > By definition if something opposes the Constitution it's unconstitional.
> ...



Yep.  There's a reason that we have 6787987234 different denominations in Christianity (slight exaggeration).  Everyone can be handed the exact same document, and everyone will interpret what it clearly means in a different way.  Your only hope would be to write it up as a fairly strict axiomatic system in formal logic, and even then you'd have issues when you ran into a problem the axiomatic system didn't have the language to deal with.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 14, 2011)

Ropey said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Helvering V. Davis.
> ...



Ropey, one of the reason's why I put the Social Security case up there was because  it's my humble opinion that this case is also going  to revisit the boundries of the  "general welfare" clause.  Generally, in the last  many years the courts have  tried to shy away from rulings that changed  the nature of  that definition and  have actually expanded  on the  role  of  " general welfare" as it applies to the  power of the Federal Govt. and rather the the  Madison view of limited  Govt.  This should be a landmark case in my humble opinion and  should have  impact for  many years to come well beyond  our years.  As for the rest of the bill, because it is a  mix of several power's , some of which are a bit of a stretch in my opinion and others  it can be argued are well within the scope of the Federal Govts. ability to regualte commerce, I'm sort of the feeling that the entire bill will not be struck down, but perhaps parts they agree with and parts they do not, then again I hate to predict on the actions of this court because they have  ruled  in so many directions.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. "A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.
> ...



"...exceptional cases. Such exceptional examples cannot be afforded anymore weight than how negligible their likelihood is."


Was that your view in death penalty cases where the penalty was about to be carried out?
Or did you hold out that the perp might be innocent?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Was that your view in death penalty cases where the penalty was about to be carried out?
> Or did you hold out that the perp might be innocent?



Generally, my view on the death penalty is somewhat different than most people.  I've always felt that the death penalty should be an option open only in cases that meet significantly higher standards of evidence (perhaps one piece of that puzzle would be to adopt new, more lenient rules for reexamining and introducing new evidence for things like witnesses recanting, etc).  Other than that suggestion I can't really offer a specific approach to accomplish that goal.  Maybe it's nothing more than a wishful ideal.  But considering that we've had plenty of people be executed who were later able to be exonerated, there's obviously a problem.  Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many, and to me is indicative of a government that holds too much power over the people without sufficiently matching accountability.  That's not to say the death penalty itself is an inappropriate power for the government to possess (it may be, I've never been able to come to a firm conclusion yes or no on that particular answer).


----------



## jillian (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > By definition if something opposes the Constitution it's unconstitional.
> ...



whose bible?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 14, 2011)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Its all on Kennedy.
> ...


The Obama admin together with the formerly democrat controlled Congress has done everything in it's power to remake the US into a socialist utopia.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

jillian said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Their own, of course.  They will, naturally, insist that everyone else's is some kind of damnable blasphemy.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 14, 2011)

Let's be sensible. The ACA law will not be repealed. 
It is my opinion The Court will overturn parts of the Law that will render it useless.
Congress probably will not repeal the law in it's entirety.
Parts of it may be defunded. Repealed? No. 
Repealing a law actually requires the drafting of a new bill which counteracts or outlaws an existing law. That bill once passed,must go to the President for his signature to become law. Obviously Obama would Veto any such bill.
SCOTUS, at least the conservative justices will not strike down the entire law . Conservative justices do not want to 'legislate from the bench'.
The most probable outcome is the SCOTUS will defer to the lower courts or legislatures in individual states.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Was that your view in death penalty cases where the penalty was about to be carried out?
> ...



" Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many,..."


I certainly don't mind you dodging the original question...many do.
But the line that I object to is the one above when used as an excuse not to apply the mandate of government.

1. Studies have shown "...each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year....The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


2. And, of course, with far less significance at stake, such as saving gasoline, 2000 innocent are sacrificed.
"Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did a study on the effects of CAFE. They found that over the three decades CAFE has been in effect, downsizing of cars and trucks for fuel economy has cost us about 2,000 lives per year."
PJ Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards

So, forgive me if I laugh out loud at "Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many,..."


Man up.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 14, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Its all on Kennedy.
> ...


I don't care where you got your information from. 
Universal Healthcare in this country is not going to happen. Period.
It's not possible for the federal government to insure 320 million people. Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.
That will no doubt not stand up to Constitutional muster.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> I certainly don't mind you dodging the original question...many do.



I'm not trying to dodge the question at all.  But I don't really understand what you're trying to get at or ask exactly, or how the death penalty exactly applies to my previous comment.  So I gave you a general summary of where I stand on the death penalty.



> But the line that I object to is the one above when used as an excuse not to apply the mandated of government.



I don't understand this either.  What mandate of government are you talking about? 



> 1. Studies have shown "...each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year....The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place."
> Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> ...



Now, none of that justifies the government executing innocent people.



> So, forgive me if I laugh out loud at "Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many,..."



Laugh?  You consider it funny that the government has the power to execute innocent people, but not the accountability and safeguards in place to prevent it from making the mistake of executing innocent people?



> Man up.



And alas, you finish it off with an ad hominem, which suggests to me that you never had anything to begin with and were never looking for anything more than an excuse to throw a hissy fit.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.



I don't think that would be necessary.  Coverage from the government does not preempt one from having additional, private coverage.  It just reduces the demand for private coverage.



> That will no doubt not stand up to Constitutional muster.



I disagree with that too.  Even if private insurance were outlawed completely, it would be valid under the commerce clause IMO, just like the sale of illicit drugs is a valid prohibition under the constitution.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> That isn't really how it should be for something like this. The dems will never agree to this, but they oughta scrap the whole damn thing and do it right this time with enougn bipartisan support to avoid a SCOTUS decision....



The amount of support a law has is a completely separate issue from whether or not it's constitutional.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

dblack said:


> The amount of support a law has is a completely separate issue from whether or not it's constitutional.



True.  But it might suffice to prevent such a law from end up being challenged in court.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> ... it'll be a 5-4 to uphold.  It shouldn't be, but I'm thinking it will.  That isn't necessarily bad for the GOP though.  A 5-4 Uphold ruling would motivate the base big time as the Mandate is pretty unpopular on both sides of the aisle. I could see a 5-4 ruling to support the Mandate being a pretty effective October surprise if they hold the decision.



The question is, is it good (or bad) for the nation. I could care less about the political fortunes of the Republican party.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 14, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yeah..it will.

And yes it is.

If it's possible for this country to destroy the world 25 times over..surely it can save it just about the same amount.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The amount of support a law has is a completely separate issue from whether or not it's constitutional.
> ...



Maybe. But all it takes is one viable challenge, regardless of a law's popularity. And I still have some hope that the court understand this, that they understand that constitutional limits are there specifically to protect those not in the majority.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2011)

If you believe the federal government has the blanket power to make you buy health insurance, then you must also believe the federal government has the power to make you buy a gun.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2011)

Sallow said:


> You might have a point here. Many were hoping for universal health care..not this. But that position might soften once it's rolled out completely. I mean, *I don't like it, but the fact that  you can't get kicked for a pre-existing condition makes the indivdual mandate worth the bother.*



What about that fact that you can't escape? That you're mandated to suck on whatever the corporate insurance companies and their state sponsors choose to 'offer' you, no matter how overpriced or worthless it turns out to be?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > 5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.
> ...


But will then tell you that 5-4 in Bush v Gore is hogwash.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Sooooo ....  That's nothing like anything I said.

Sooooo ....  is that a deliberate mis-statement you just made or just a reflection of your reading comprehension problem?

Let's turn it around, just a small bit:

If you got injured and were like Mr. Houben, looking for all the world like you were in a vegetative state, would you want the government to shrug its massive shoulders and say "ah fuck it,  preservation of life aint none of our bidness" and allow the family to off you?  Actually, that might be your preference.  But as for me, and maybe Mr. Houben, I sure wouldn't mind having the government step in to verify (to the extent science has that ability at present) that I really was "gone" as opposed to having been mis-diagnosed.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> then you must also believe the federal government has the power to make you buy a gun.



It does.  And it's done it before.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly don't mind you dodging the original question...many do.
> ...



"I don't understand this either. What mandate of government are you talking about?"
To protect its people. And that implies innocent people. 

"You consider it funny that the government has the power to execute innocent people, but not the accountability and safeguards in place to prevent it from making the mistake of executing innocent people?"
Are you pretending, here?
I've provided evidence that thousands are condemned to death in the name of better gas mileage, and you, with a shrug of your shoulders, feign outrage that the judicial system may not be 100% perfect.

Rather than an electric chair to take care of the condemned, I propose an electric sofa so we can take care of six at a time.

"government has the power to execute innocent people"
No, guilty people within the parameters of human expertise, you pantywaist.


"And alas, you finish it off with an ad hominem,..."
Everybody needs a hobby.

OK, you can go back to the meeting of the Low-T Society.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 14, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> If you believe the federal government has the blanket power to make you buy health insurance, then you must also believe the federal government has the power to make you buy a gun.



At one point it did. The second amendment was an "evolution" of that..


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You got it right. Scalia is no guarantee to vote against the mandate.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/how-antonin-scalia-may-save-the-individual-mandate/


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 14, 2011)

Having the mandate thrown out might not be the worse thing to happen to the ACA...especially if it leads to us getting a public option.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

The former New York lieutenant governor predicted a split court, with a 5-4 majority in favor of striking down the law&#8217;s requirement for nearly everyone to take out health insurance.

The decision probably will rest on whether the court accepts a ruling from the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that around half the nation does not use any healthcare.

&#8220;The Obama administration lawyers have said mandatory insurance is necessary for free riders &#8212; the people who go to the hospital and do not pay for it,&#8221; McCaughey in an exclusive interview with Newsmax. &#8220;They argued again and again that the need for healthcare is universal and inevitable, that everyone is involved in healthcare commerce and this law regulates how they pay for it.


http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/...e/2011/11/14/id/417976?s=al&promo_code=D821-1


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 14, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmm... gonna have to do a little research, i've seen a list of the questions they took for cert and I think seeing which cases they came from would be sort of telling.  For instance, I know they took the severability question, which I believe would indicate they plan on drawing a line on a courts ability to sever... since they currently don't have a functional one.  Would seem to be a point for the non-severability argument... otherwise, why hear it.
> ...


interesting read here.

The Court&#8217;s agenda on health care : SCOTUSblog

as an aside it mentions all nine justices will sit for the case.  Apparently kagan believes the lefts hissy fit will cover her lack of integrity.  Which of course is all it was ever intended to do.

based on the questions they took, I predict they will punt, with the caveat that it will be clear in the dicta that when the ball gets thrown back at them in 2014 they will overturn if the law is not ammended.

On severability... will they draw the line bolder and accept that when the congress removes a severability clause from a bill that at least is evedence of thier intent that the law should not be severable? or will they do a power grab and declare whatever actions the congress may or may not have taken are moot and that it is they who determine severability?  I'm thinking the former, but I don't put much past the black robed tyrant branch, expanding their own jurisdiction and ignoring the limits on it imposed by the congress seems to be a sport for them.

On whether the anti injunction act applies to states... could be purely a power grab for the courts as finding it does would preclude states from suing the federal government for redress of greivances on any issue involving any federal tax question (maybe even just tangentially).  It would also be the vehicle that allows them to punt until 2014 in the hope that thier clear message that they will overturn the law the next time it comes to them prompts revision.

On the mandate... they will say its unconstituional, why else even bother with the severability argument.

On the medicaid expansion, I see absolutely no reason for them to give cert to that question except to slap down the federal argument and agree with the states about federal coersion.  If they intended to not do so, why even take the question?  The 111th circuit already sided with the feds on that one and they could have just ignored it and let it stand without adressing it.

But I predict they will do all that in dicta, and dismiss the case based on the "standing" issue for the states and the "injunction act" which demands that you have to actually pay the tax before you can sue. (punt)


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 14, 2011)

A Supreme Court ruling against the abomination  that is obamcare, combined with unemployment still over 8% and foreign policy failures all over the place should about put the fork in obama and send him on his way back to Chicago.


----------



## Conservative (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > then you must also believe the federal government has the power to make you buy a gun.
> ...



The federal government has required all citizens to purchase firearms? link?


----------



## Conservative (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?



no one can force her if she doesn't.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.
> ...


Ok, you disagree. 
Tell us how universal health could function with an "opt out" provision.
Think about it. Obviously the money to run UH would have to be raised through additional taxation. If people were forced to pay up to operate the system why would they opt to seek care outside the system. They would have to pay twice. By design the system would be captive. However, as with all nations that have socialized medicine, it is indeed a captive system. Most of those countries outlaw private care.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?


Not according to SCOTUSBLOG


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 14, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.
> That will no doubt not stand up to Constitutional muster.



Is Medicare constitutional?


----------



## MeBelle (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?



Maybe?

10/19/11
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, ironically provided evidence last week that seals the case that Justice Elena Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from cases challenging Obamacare.

The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455. It mandates that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned" or "(w)here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings ..."

Court Ruling Proves: Kagan Must Recuse | CNSnews.com


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 14, 2011)

MeBelle60 said:


> The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455.



Interesting.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: [...]
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;​
I hope there's no one like that on the Court!


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 14, 2011)

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.  They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."  James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788

I think it interesting that this case has so much in common with many other  SCOTUS cases  from both sides  and  these kinds of cases have been decided on both sides.  Although in my humble opinion if nothing qualifies as a Bill of Attainder  the  Federal healthcare mandate in the bill does.


----------



## rdean (Nov 14, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.
> 
> The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.
> 
> ...



Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance

Appearing on NBCs Meet the Press, Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.

Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:

I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.


Oops.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 14, 2011)

> If Kagan participates, the Kennedy Court will vote to uphold; if not, not.



The politics of the issue are of course telling: conservatives want the ACA struck down having nothing to do with the law or facts of the case, but rather because they would cherish a major defeat for Obama. The fact that millions of Americans would again be without insurance  given the fact Congress would be unable or unwilling to pass healthcare reform again  is of no consequence to the right.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 14, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> 5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.




Roe V Wade Was a 5 to 4 split as well. I sure hope Libs are not going to have the Balls to complain about it being such a close split, they had no problem with it for Roe v Wade.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.
> 
> The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.
> 
> ...



People should be against this un authorized use of legislation of congress. If they can force people to buy healthcare coverage they can force people to buy anything like guns.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 14, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > If Kagan participates, the Kennedy Court will vote to uphold; if not, not.
> 
> 
> 
> The politics of the issue are of course telling: conservatives want the ACA struck down having nothing to do with the law or facts of the case, but rather because they would cherish a major defeat for Obama. The fact that millions of Americans would again be without insurance  given the fact Congress would be unable or unwilling to pass healthcare reform again  is of no consequence to the right.



The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

MeBelle60 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?
> ...


Thanks for posting that. My post was a bit rhetorical I must admit...I have read a few stories over the past few months that discussed the issue.

Such as this one from the *WSJ* as it was being discussed before her confirmation to the SCOTUS.



> Elena Kagan breezed through her recent confirmation hearings, but there's some crucial unfinished business the Senate should insist on before voting on her nomination to the Supreme Court. To wit, she ought to recuse herself from participating as a Justice in the looming legal challenges to ObamaCare.
> 
> In response to Senate queries, Ms. Kagan has said she'll recuse herself from participating in 11 cases on which she represented the government in her current job as Solicitor General. The challenge to ObamaCare isn't one of them, though the cases brought by Florida and 20 other states were filed in March, well before President Obama announced her nomination on May 10.
> 
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 14, 2011)

Looks like 5-4 once again


Will the court go by case law or their individual political leanings?  Should be interesting


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

rdean said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.
> ...


You should like him deany why don't you give him all your support.


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > If Kagan participates, the Kennedy Court will vote to uphold; if not, not.
> ...


 
Which is effectively taking the wheels off the wagon.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 14, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.



No, it's there because of adverse selection.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like 5-4 once again
> 
> 
> Will the court go by case law or their individual political leanings?  Should be interesting



What case law?


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



While not  experssing an opinion on the politcial leanings T of one justice or another , would this not also apply to Justice Thomas as well? If it does and they both recuse themselves then you are right back to the same  place you were at before. 

Justices of the United States Supreme Court have not adopted and are not subject to a comprehensive code of judicial ethics. Nor are denials of motions to recuse by individual justices required to be in writing or subject to review. Recent media reports have focused public attention on this situation. The purpose of this letter is to issue a nonpartisan call for the implementation of mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges explains the importance of judicial ethics:
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.
*This Code of Conduct is applicable to all federal judges except Supreme Court justices.*
http://www.afj.org/judicial_ethics_sign_on_letter.pdf


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > If Kagan participates, the Kennedy Court will vote to uphold; if not, not.
> ...



Wasn't there something about the way it was worded that if that certain part is found to be unconstitutional the whole law will be found unconstitutional?


----------



## Flopper (Nov 14, 2011)

Sallow said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Don't Believe so, But most people agree with out the Mandate the Law is pretty much Unworkable.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 14, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


The law is certainly workable without the mandate.  Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee.  Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase.  The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.


----------



## MeBelle (Nov 14, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455.
> ...



I'm not sure what qualifies as a 'financial interest' or how it would be determined if "...substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding..."

If Mrs Thomas quits her lobbying position, then it would be OK with everyone if Thomas does not recuse himself?

I do find some irony that Mrs Thomas is earning money lobbying AGAINST ACA.
If the SCOTUS sides against ACA then Mrs Thomas is out of a job??

Any commentary on the subject at hand, KAGEN?  TY


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...


 No. He is not directly involved. Kagan was.


----------



## MeBelle (Nov 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.



The US needs HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform.


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

MeBelle60 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.
> ...


We don't need Government running the industry into the ground which it is already doing as millions of people are being forced off of employer backed programs.

The whole thing will end up like Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 14, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


Correct. IN order for this to work, it MUST have a captive citizenry


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


NO tax increases. Government has enough. They can learn to spend less.
Done.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.

Federal appeals court strikes down insurance requirement in Obama's health care overhaul | NJ.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



no it isn't because it can't be paid for


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces _Commerce...or go to jail for not participating_


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



so obama lied?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ]President Obama s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than 250 000 a Year - YouTube[/ame]
shocking


----------



## rdean (Nov 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.
> ...



They are forced to pay taxes and get car insurance.

Oops.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The TOTUS may have lied.  The President was just reading along.

It is apparent that the President *couldn't* have been lying.  It's a lock that he has no fucking clue, one way or the other, whether it is or isn't a tax.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

rdean said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


one comment before you hear what obama said  do people who don't have a car have to pay auto insurance? 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ]President Obama s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than 250 000 a Year - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Compelling question...isn't it?

The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...

_Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare._

Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare 

Interesting read when you have the time.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



I think THAT brief merely addresses the question of whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States SHOULD take the case.   And now that the SCOTUS has done so, that brief is of very limited utility.

I believe that Landmark may have something more definitive to say about HOW that case should be decided by the SCOTUS if it is permitted to file an amicus brief on the merits.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



I will say it again if the government can force people to buy something once whats to stop the government from forcing you to buying other things.. Like a house. You can't live here you have to buy that house and live there., or you have to buy one of those new battery golf carts they are trying to pawn off as cars.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



oh what? people don't like that idea that the government might be able to force people to buy something else? Welcome to the world of total control of your life by the government.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


First of all, it's just a fine.  No one is going to jail.  The fine is $95 or a maximum of 1% of income.  So for a  $100K income the fine is $1K.  Any insurance you buy is going to cost considerably more.  However, over a period of time the fine increases to $695 or 2.5% of income.  The fine does not provide enough of a penalty to force anyone to buy insurance if they really don't want it.  However, with or without the fine, there will be very few people who can afford insurance that will not purchase it.  Low income earners will be exempted.  In fact very low income earners will be covered under Medicaid.  The real issue is can the government force you to take responsibility for your healthcare needs by buying insurance.


Will fine be enough to make people buy health insurance


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> First of all, it's just a fine.  No one is going to jail.  The fine is $95 or a maximum of 1% of income.



Utter, unmitigated bullshit. What happens if you don't pay the fine?? Do you think that no one has gone to jail for not buying auto-liability insurance. Think again. Fines are coercion. No way around it.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> The decision probably will rest on whether the court accepts a ruling from the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that around half the nation does not use any healthcare.



I actually expect the court to rule that there is no standing to bring suit until the bill goes into full effect.


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


And where does Government come off to foce people to buy something they don't want or necessarily need?

Under what auspices?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 14, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Tell us how universal health could function with an "opt out" provision.



That's the thing.  There doesn't need to be an "opt out" option, nor is it necessary to outlaw private coverage.  It's just that the private coverage becomes unnecessary.  



> Think about it. Obviously the money to run UH would have to be raised through additional taxation. If people were forced to pay up to operate the system why would they opt to seek care outside the system.



Which is exactly my point.  The market for private coverage would dissolve from a lack of demand, without it being outlawed.


----------



## rdean (Nov 14, 2011)

I work at a company with revenues of over two billion a year.  Last week, we were called into the Town Hall to hear about the price increase from Obamacare.  It was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.  But spread out over the entire company.
When they were finished, many people went back to work.  But not the people who wanted to get their kid put on their insurance.  Because of Obama, they are able to do that up until the age of 26.  Which pretty much covers college.  People won't be willing to give that up.

Now I keep hearing about how awful it is from they right, but no one will say why.  Oh, because of Obama.  That's right.  And it has nothing to do with race.  They just hate him because, uh, why do they hate him again?


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Bullshit.

The mandate is designed EXACTLY to raise revenue.  Everyone has to be in  it and made to pay for it.  And the President SAID as much:


> Public Statements By President Obama
> Confirms The Importance Of The Individual
> Mandate.
> President Obama believed the ACA would not be
> ...


_ -- quoted in the Landmark Legal Foundation Amicus Brief, http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Supreme Court FL Obamacare Amicus.pdf

That's the dilly-o.

You can disagree with that contention, but your words really don't trump the words of the President himself in calling for the passage of the ACA and the mandate as a crucial part of it._


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 It's what t he Progressives started us toward in 1913...we are at the pinnacle for decision. Will the SCOTUS decide for the 10th Amendment, or allow the FED to land the final death knell?


----------



## jillian (Nov 14, 2011)

Liability said:


> That's the dilly-o.
> 
> You can disagree with that contention, but your words really don't trump the words of the President himself in calling for the passage of the ACA and the mandate as a crucial part of it.



how is the mandate different from having to contribute to social security?


----------



## J.E.D (Nov 14, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think.   5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.
> ...



No she doesn't and no she wasn't. Thomas, on the other hand, is another story.


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

JosefK said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...


And what story is that? Kagan was directly involved. She got promoted for it. Thomas was/is NOT.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


That provision is insignificant.
The major issue is the reimbursements to medical professionals which Obama described as "efficiency"....
When government forces efficiency upon the people, it always hurts. Bad.
Efficiency is a euphemism for "we will take your money and give you nothing in return".
Low Income earners will be exempt..Low income for purposes of this law is up to $62,000 per year for a family of 4. $66,000 is in the top 25% of all wage earners.
That means about 30% of the wage earners will be funding Obamacare. And THAT is the most objectionable part of this. And THAT is why this law is a job killer.
We will see people stop working just so they can qualify for no cost government administered health insurance. There will be 3 time the number people riding in the boat as those rowing the boat. The system is doomed to collapse upon itself just like the Western Euro socialized medicine systems. 
The actual threshold is 400% of the 'poverty level' which is about $88,000. The subsidy is available on a sliding scale. At the $62k level, the subsidy is 100%.
This boils down to the number one priority of the PPACA law which is to create dependency upon government. People will vote their wallets 100% of the time. They will reward the party that gives them the most goodies.
Therefore, because it is the democrats which gave 75% of the country free health insurance, of course those people who reward those people with their votes.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 14, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


I thought it was AKOTUS...Ass kicker of the united states. Ask BP.


----------



## Liability (Nov 14, 2011)

jillian said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > That's the dilly-o.
> ...



Social Security may be viewed as insurance.  Alternatively it may be viewed as a form of savings.   Either way, it is a tax and it is acknowledged AS such.

The "analogy" to mandatory insurance as a pre-requisite to owning a vehicle and obtaining a registration from the state or as a pre-requisite to having a driver's license has ALWAYS been a false analogy.  Driving is a privilege, as you know.  It is not a "right."  The States HAVE a right to condition the granting of that privilege upon certain conditions.

The ACA's individual "mandate" is allegedly NOT a "tax."  It can't be a tax, in fact, for a variety of legal reasons.  President Obama himself has insisted that it isn't a "tax."* And it also *isn't* conditioning some privilege on certain requirements.   It is a compelled duty imposed on all citizens (actually all people in the USA) premised upon some fanciful notion of the Commerce Clause.

It transforms the entire notion of a limited government of enumerated powers on the BASIS of the commerce clause (together with the necessary and proper clause) into an unlimited government with no bounds upon its powers.

_________________
*  Here is an excerpt of one article explaining pretty concisely why it cannot legally BE a "tax."



> * * * *
> 
> The 16th Amendment grants Congress the power to collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived. The Supreme Court has defined derived income to mean undeniable accessions to wealth. Here, the mere refusal to purchase a product is not any kind of income or accession of wealth.
> 
> ...


 -- Why ObamaCare Mandate Penalty Cant Be a Tax*|*Independence Institute


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 14, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us how universal health could function with an "opt out" provision.
> ...


Your point is precisely part of the plan. That is to destroy the private health insurance industry. 
What right does the federal government have to do that?
Since when should private health insurance be deemed 'unnecessary'?
If the federal government can pass laws which eliminate private health insurance effectively nationalizing the business, what then is to stop them from doing the same thing to other businesses or industries?
This is as un-American as it gets. 
The PPACA must be neutralized or ripped apart making it moot.


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 Or is it a matter of forced commerce whether the citizen has a_ pecuniary interest_ or not...


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

Liability said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


 
As the example you give regarding driving...seeing as driving on Government roads is a privilege, they may set the rules as to their use as to who may or may not use them and under what circumstances.

Healthcare is and always be a _personal resonsibility of the individual_. The Government has no business telling anyone they have to have it to fit thier mold.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 14, 2011)

The T said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


Don't need health insurance?  Unless you are exceedingly wealthy it is something that any responsible person should have.  If you're going to drive an auto, you should be required to carry auto insurance.  If your going to live in this country, you should be required to carry health insurance.  Others should not have to pay because of your lack of responsibility.


----------



## The T (Nov 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


 
Government controls the roads per Article 1, Section 8.

Where is healthcare covered in the Constitution?


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Don't need health insurance?  Unless you are exceedingly wealthy it is something that any responsible person should have.  If you're going to drive an auto, you should be required to carry auto insurance.  If your going to live in this country, you should be required to carry health insurance.  Others should not have to pay because of your lack of responsibility.



That's insane. Basically, you're saying that we should all be enslaved to health insurance corporations from cradle to grave. No thanks.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 15, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Low income for purposes of this law is up to $62,000 per year for a family of 4. $66,000 is in the top 25% of all wage earners.
> That means about 30% of the wage earners will be funding Obamacare.


  That's not correct.  Without Obamacare 12% of the population is already covered through Medicaid.  Everyone with an income up to $66,000 does not get free insurance.  Only those that buy insurance through the exchanges can apply for a tax credit.  The exchanges are only available to small businesses and individuals who meet the income qualifications.  Employees covered by group insurance not purchased through the exchanges will pay 100% of their premium as will individuals who don't purchase through the exchanges.  I  haven't calculated the percentage, but certainly a lot more 30% will be paying for Obamacare.  You are also neglecting additional revenue raised through excise taxes and Medicare savings.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 15, 2011)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Don't need health insurance?  Unless you are exceedingly wealthy it is something that any responsible person should have.  If you're going to drive an auto, you should be required to carry auto insurance.  If your going to live in this country, you should be required to carry health insurance.  Others should not have to pay because of your lack of responsibility.
> ...


The only reason insurance companies are in loop is they spend 150 million lobbying Congress to block the single payer system which would have provide much lower cost coverage.


----------



## Lakhota (Nov 15, 2011)

> *Poll: Majority Now Support The Individual Mandate*
> 
> Eric Kleefeld-November 14, 2011
> 
> A new CNN poll on the issue of health care reform finds that support for the law&#8217;s central and most controversial element, the individual health insurance mandate, has climbed into majority territory.



Poll: Majority Now Support The Individual Mandate | TPMDC

CNN Poll: Support rises for health insurance mandate &#8211; CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm looking forward to the poll of Supreme Court justices who recognize that this mess is unconstitutional.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 15, 2011)

There is one significant hurdle here.

The Supreme Court must first rule whether or not the plaintiffs have standing to sue.  Here's the problem no one has actually been forced to purchase insurance yet and no one has been fined for not purchasing insurance yet.

In other words no one's ox has as of yet been gored.  So it very well could be ruled that this case has been brought too soon and the SC cannot rule on what might happen as it is prohibited from advisory rulings.

If it is decided that there is no standing then the case goes no further.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





> First of all, it's just a fine. No one is going to jail.



I'm not paying it so what are you going to do with people like me?


----------



## candycorn (Nov 15, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> I'm looking forward to the poll of Supreme Court justices who recognize that this mess is unconstitutional.



I'm glad they are ruling so we can stop discussing it.  I'm sure the decision, if the law is not overturned, will result in the cons going bat-shit-crazier here which will be added fun of course.  Good to watch their free electrons spin out of control.


----------



## jillian (Nov 15, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



that's kind of funny... because all the individual mandate does is require that people purchase insurance so as to spread risk and lower costs.

last i checked, that isn't a "tax" or a means of "raising revenue".

not that ultimately the court will do what it's supposed to given the ethically challenged thomas and scalia, but we can hope.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...




How does the government get money it needs? Jillian you're playing with words. Fines are for punishment for breaking a law, taxes are for citizens. So are you breaking the law or are you a citizen?


----------



## Liability (Nov 15, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> There is one significant hurdle here.
> 
> The Supreme Court must first rule whether or not the plaintiffs have standing to sue.  Here's the problem no one has actually been forced to purchase insurance yet and no one has been fined for not purchasing insurance yet.
> 
> ...



A dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals  in D.C. noted the lack of ripeness of the issue.

Because the taxing component of the law doesn't go into effect until a couple of years down the road (I believe its 2015), the dissent says the court lacks jurisdiction at this time to entertain the dispute.

I think that's wrong, since lots of the law is already going into effect and some of the taxes are being put into place already.   But legally, to the extent his premises are correct, his conclusion has a certain legal validity to it.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 15, 2011)

MeBelle60 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.
> ...



Actually, what the US needs is no health insurance for basic medical care. What the US needs is a Universal Health Care system like all the countries we are competing with globally.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 15, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Your point is precisely part of the plan. That is to destroy the private health insurance industry.



Don't be so dishonest.  Such an argument is like saying that government funding for safe sex educational initiatives is "part of the plan" to destroy the private AIDS drug therapy industry.



> Since when should private health insurance be deemed 'unnecessary'?



Your complaint here is that people SHOULD suffer from inaccessibility to health care.  That's a pretty lame argument to make in opposition to some kind of universal coverage.



> If the federal government can pass laws which eliminate private health insurance effectively nationalizing the business, what then is to stop them from doing the same thing to other businesses or industries?



I see.  You aren't even willing to frame the issue within honest terms.   No sense in debating hypotheticals with someone who won't even give a realistic treatment in the first place.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Oh, that idiot isn't going to listen to anything true or honest.  He simply WANTS the bill to be "bad" so he attributes to it the dirtiest things he can imagine.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 15, 2011)

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



That is exactly why it is a " BIll of Attainder" and is prohibited  by Article 1 sec. 9.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 15, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I've been trying to stir up discussion on it, and alot of people have been ignoring it because, I think, many of them simply can't wrap their minds around it (either that, or they can't come to terms with any idea that isn't pandering to an extremist lot).....but I've recommended that health insurance be banned outright.  My idea is that the rapid rise of health care costs is due to both the frequent use of health care and the availability of insurance funding to pay for it.  If health insurance were eliminated completely, and all services were paid out of pocket, the health care industry would be forced by market mechanics to provide services at affordable rates.  Service providers would no longer push patients to buy tests and procedures that aren't necessary as "defensive" measures, they wouldn't be able to upsell patients as much because the patient will be more cost conscious, etc.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




Interesting and well played
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature."  U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted.  A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.  Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment."  William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.  They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."  James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

Definition: Bill of Attainder.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


no fair you have me on ignore and can't read my comment. So I hope someone will quoted this post for me if you do I will rep you. No matter who you are.

Now tumbleweed 



> Oh, that idiot isn't going to listen to anything true or honest


You're an idiot 
I listen to truth an honesty but I haven't seen any from you.



> He simply WANTS the bill to be "bad" so he attributes to it the dirtiest things he can imagine



It's not a bill you stupid fuck it was made a law when obama signed it, get your shit right if you're going to call me an idiot, you fucking moron.
I don't have to want it to be bad for it to be bad, it's a bad law because it cannot be sustained and will infringe upon the rights of individuals who do not want nor need to buy a product. 

It's not a good law just because you hope it is.

Hey tumbleweed sounds like you're coming off that fence and taking a stand but taking a stand means you need to watch where you take that stand, because you might be standing in a load of shit.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 15, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



If you look at most of the cases on this, it has gone  from one side to the other, but in general, it would seen pretty clear, at least in my humble opinion that there is no more clear example of a  "Bill of Attainder" than using a tax to punish people who do not purchase a good or service, especially  if they do not have recourse in the courts.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 15, 2011)

In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder.  It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.  

I don't think your bill of attainder theory would succeed.  First of all, the HC bill doesn't tax people.  It levies fines for failure to comply with the law.  This is no different than a fine for a speeding ticket.  And it certainly is no more an exercise of power than using cameras to fine people for running red lights as a "civil" violation, to which the person is not entitled no process of law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder.  It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.
> 
> I don't think your bill of attainder theory would succeed.  First of all, the HC bill doesn't tax people.  It levies fines for failure to comply with the law.  This is no different than a fine for a speeding ticket.  And it certainly is no more an exercise of power than using cameras to fine people for running red lights as a "civil" violation, to which the person is not entitled no process of law.



This law is wrong. This is an unjust law that will cause people to kill their elected officials, and the law that comes knocking on the door when you do not submit. Some times a bullet is the only way to end unjust laws.

Now for the idiots that will take what I said out of context, I am not calling for anyone to shoot anyone, take up arms shot the president or what ever wets your dream. I am stating a fact when voting does not help bullets will. When you create laws to enslave people they will resist when they have had enough.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 15, 2011)

Kagan is going to recuse herself, right?


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 15, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder.  It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.
> 
> I don't think your bill of attainder theory would succeed.  First of all, the HC bill doesn't tax people.  It levies fines for failure to comply with the law.  This is no different than a fine for a speeding ticket.  And it certainly is no more an exercise of power than using cameras to fine people for running red lights as a "civil" violation, to which the person is not entitled no process of law.



*A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial.* punishments can include (fines).  A fine would be even an even more  egregious method of  forcing someone to comply with the law, but call it what you will, fine or tax it is a declaration of guilt  for non-complience, I might add also that you have due process  involving traffic violations including camera's  and can at anytime, go before the courts to dispute it.   If you do not  believe this is so, then I invite you to go to any traffic court in any state to see it on a daily basis.  In fact here in Arizona, they recently  shut down all the  camera's one of the reasons for doing so is that the courts were overloaded with too many people  disputing the cameras.  As for  donations, you are speaking of  actions in which citizens take or do not take upon their own free will. so for example, I choose or DO not choose to purchase an SUV so am subjected to the taxes accordingly  on it, if I do so, the same is applicable on donations as it applies to whatever benefits you get from it. The reverse is true for the HC Law, in that one has no choice  but to have healthcare and in not doing so they are subject to a fine.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Kagan is going to recuse herself, right?



I think she will be forced to do so.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 15, 2011)

The T said:


> Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?



She can't be forced to do so, and she probably won't.  I'm reading now that there's a move to try and pressure Thomas to recuse himself, as his wife was involved in some of the lobbying related to the law.  I doubt he does either.

In this case, my thought is if Kagan recuses, Thomas should too, and if she doesn't, he shouldn't.  It sounds like they're starting from opposite points, so they'll effectively cancel each other out.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 15, 2011)

End the Mandate now. But i wont be surprised if they rule it Constitutional. Looks like another rig-job is coming. It is very sad but i do think it's coming. No American Citizen should be forced to buy Health Insurance by way of threats of fine or imprisonment. It's just plain Un-American.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.



This.  The options on the table in 2008 were to fiddle around the edges, go with the mandate, or go single payer.  If the mandate fails, you'll see some of the fiddling around the edges in the short term, but in the long term you'll almost certainly see the single payer.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 15, 2011)

Lakhota said:


> > *Poll: Majority Now Support The Individual Mandate*
> >
> > Eric Kleefeld-November 14, 2011
> >
> ...


I'm certainly not surprised.  People are starting to see that not providing health insurance for yourself and your family is irresponsible and should not be allowed.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 15, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> *A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial.* punishments can include (fines).  A fine would be even an even more  egregious method of  forcing someone to comply with the law



But where is the lack of judicial due process in the HC bill?



> but call it what you will, fine or tax it is a declaration of guilt  for non-complience



You can't call it the same thing.  If you do, then the entire tax code is a bill of attainder for the reasons I mentioned above.  I seriously doubt the SCOTUS would be willing to entertain that argument.



> I might add also that you have due process  involving traffic violations including camera's  and can at anytime, go before the courts to dispute it.   If you do not  believe this is so, then I invite you to go to any traffic court in any state to see it on a daily basis.



I know for a fact it isn't so when it comes to red light cameras in at least many places, and I would wager the vast majority thereof.  The citations that are issued for what these cameras pick up are generally legislated as non-criminal civil violations against the municipality.  As such, the burden of proof is much lower, and the citation usually is legislatively declared non-rebuttable prima facie evidence.  There is no remedy for a person under such conditions.  You can only pay the fine, or get your car impounded when you fail to pay the fine.  I don't agree with it in the slightest bit.  It's just what happens.



> As for  donations, you are speaking of  actions in which citizens take or do not take upon their own free will. so for example, I choose or DO not choose to purchase an SUV so am subjected to the taxes accordingly  on it, if I do so, the same is applicable on donations as it applies to whatever benefits you get from it. The reverse is true for the HC Law, in that one has no choice  but to have healthcare and in not doing so they are subject to a fine.



I think you misunderstand what I was saying.  The tax code creates all kinds of way to reduce one's tax burden through various methods, such as donating to a church, or even at one point there was a tax break for purchasing an SUV.  Your theory would deem these measures as a bill of attainder because they punish a class of citizens, without trial, for not spending their money in certain ways.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 15, 2011)

The Big Government folks love the idea of forcing American Citizens to buy Health Insurance but they are very short-sighted and misguided people. Fining and imprisoning Citizens for not having Insurance is just wrong. I don't understand how so many Americans can be duped into supporting such oppression. They don't even understand they're only supporting something that goes against their own best interests. It's so sad.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> I'm certainly not surprised.  People are starting to see that not providing health insurance for yourself and your family is irresponsible and should not be allowed.



Its more along the lines of the fact that guys like me, that did provide for the health insurance for their family, end up paying for the ones that don't in higher hospital costs which leads to higher premiums.

I honestly don't have a solution to the problem, but the folks that argue "I don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare" need to wake up and smell the coffee, because right now, you are.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 15, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Kagan is going to recuse herself, right?
> ...



*Justices of the United States Supreme Court have not adopted and are not subject to a comprehensive code of judicial ethics. Nor are denials of motions to recuse by individual justices required to be in writing or subject to review. Recent media reports have focused public attention on this situation. The purpose of this letter is to issue a nonpartisan call for the implementation of mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.*
http://www.afj.org/judicial_ethics_sign_on_letter.pdf

I would not look for her to recuse herself in this matter or Justice Thomas, on a side note  I was doing some reading on the subject and found that for the most  part  when she was on the  bench Justice  O'Conner  would recuse herself from cases  involving the telecommunications industry because she had stock there, if one were to look it's not uncommon for a Justice  to recuse themselves, and yet there are instances where a justice would stay on the court involving cases like Justice Black....

In the mid-1940s, Justice Black became involved in a bitter dispute with Justice Robert H. Jackson as a result of Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local 6167, United Mine Workers (1945). In this case the Court ruled 54 in favor of the UMW; Black voted with the majority, while Jackson dissented. However, the coal company requested the Court rehear the case on the grounds that Justice Black should have recused himself, as the mine workers were represented by Black's law partner of 20 years earlier.

So as you can see, this is nothing new, So I would not look for the Justice's to recuse themselves anytime soon.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder.  It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.
> ...



Some asshats don't get it



> New reputation!
> Hi, you have received -129 reputation points from Conservative.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> ...



Some asshats carry conservative as a moniker and they think that makes them a conservative. Some asshats are so obvious what they really are it's funny how fluxed outraged they are. As I said some idiot would take what I said and say I was calling for it. here's the idiot.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 15, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> There is one significant hurdle here.
> 
> The Supreme Court must first rule whether or not the plaintiffs have standing to sue.  Here's the problem no one has actually been forced to purchase insurance yet and no one has been fined for not purchasing insurance yet.
> 
> ...


This is why one of the federal judges ruled that the case could not be decided till 2015 after the mandate has been in effect for a year.  However by 2015, the healthcare exchanges will be in operation and there will no turning back.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 15, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > *A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial.* punishments can include (fines).  A fine would be even an even more  egregious method of  forcing someone to comply with the law
> ...



H.C. Bill
*The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.*

 still further;

*Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage in 2016 are subject to a penalty equal to the greater of: (1) 2.5 percent of household income in excess of the taxpayers household income for the taxable year over the threshold amount of income required for income tax return filing for that taxpayer under section 6012(a)(1);67 or (2) $695 per uninsured adult in the household. *The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee for an adult. The total household penalty may not exceed 300 percent of the per adult penalty ($2,085). The total annual household payment may not exceed the national average annual premium for bronze level health plan offered through the Exchange that year for the household size

That is a declaration of guilt, and  as it is not subject to civil or criminal Code you have no recourse in the courts.  There is your lack of  due process.  As for the tax code your answer is simple, the difference is one *chooses *to  engage in commerce, a job, activities that then are subjected to those taxes.  In so doing if those  taxes meet constiutional criteria then they are subject to them, however if that person chooses no to engage in those activities then they are NOT subject to them. With the HC Bill they have NO choice but to participate and if they do not, then they are subject to a fine and or tax call it what you will.  As for the ticket, I invite you to read the following,

*In an appeal decided April 5, 2011, Judge Peter J. Cahill of the Gila County Superior Court, found that a photo radar ticket issued by Star Valley to Michele Power was faulty. Based on the lack of foundation in certifying the ticket, the judge overturned the trial court judges fine and sent the case back to the Star Valley Court with orders to dismiss the ticket. Michele Power handled her case in court and on appeal based on the fact that the ticket was issued without anyone identifying the driver before issuing the ticket.*

You HAVE due process  in matters regarding  tickets and any state that seeks to take it away I submit that state would soon find it's cameras turned off and issuing refunds much like Arizona has had to do. 

On the donations side again I will point to you on matters of engaging in those activities by choice!!


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> [
> 
> that's kind of funny... because all the individual mandate does is require that people purchase insurance .





Oh, that's all? The government will now make buying something a requirement for citizenship? The Commerce Clause was never intended to be stretched that far.


----------



## paulitician (Nov 15, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Unfortunately these are the kinds of people we're dealing with. They'll cheerlead for anything the Government does just as long as it's their guys doing it. Fining and imprisoning American Citizens for not having Health Insurance really is sadly Un-American. The Mandate should be ruled Unconstitutional.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > There is one significant hurdle here.
> ...



Not necessarily.  The mandate could be declared unconstitutional even if the exchanges are set up.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 15, 2011)

Liability said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> The mandate is designed EXACTLY to raise revenue.  Everyone has to be in  it and made to pay for it.



I guess it could be argued that the mandate is designed to raise revenues FOR PRIVATE BUSINESSES.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 15, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Now for the idiots that will take what I said out of context, I am not calling for anyone to shoot anyone, take up arms shot the president or what ever wets your dream. I am stating a fact when voting does not help bullets will. When you create laws to enslave people they will resist when they have had enough.



One, we're not there yet.  We're not even in the same international calling code as that yet.

Two: I'd be careful.  No, you're not inciting or advocating violence.  You're spelling out what you think the consequences will be, much like my my post here that netted me some neg rep.  However, the line gets blurry the stronger the language gets.  There's always idiots that will take a warning that an action will bring violence as a call for violence.  The real danger for you personally is if one of those that misinterprets what you posted turns out to be a Secret Service agent.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> This is why one of the federal judges ruled that the case could not be decided till 2015 after the mandate has been in effect for a year.  However by 2015, the healthcare exchanges will be in operation and there will no turning back.



Even at that point, you can turn it around.  We were able in integrate public schools and bust up existing monopolies, so I'm pretty sure we can dissolve the exchanges if the ruling comes back they're unconstitutional.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 15, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> You HAVE due process  in matters regarding  tickets and any state that seeks to take it away I submit that state would soon find it's cameras turned off and issuing refunds much like Arizona has had to do.



No, in most cases you don't.  Again, because they are treated as CIVIL violations, there's no criminal process.  There is no ticket to "dismiss" because there is no trial of any kind.  It's a civil violation, often with no remedy available.  



> On the donations side again I will point to you on matters of engaging in those activities by choice!!



Buying health insurance will still be no less by choice than buying an SUV.  Please don't misunderstand me, I think the health care bill is entirely inappropriate.  But I simply do not see a bill of attainder argument succeeding, nor do I see any success in any other claim to declare it unconstitutional.  This is a battle that will have to be fought in the legislature, to repeal the measure, or replace it with a much better alternative.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 15, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...


I doubt anyone is ever going to pay this fine.  I suspect that an executive order will be issued that suspends the collection for one reason or another.  I also expect that health insurance will become a condition of employment at many companies if not all.  For the employer, a larger number of employees in the group will result in better and more stable rates.  The fact that government requires people to have health insurance will encourage employers to follow suit.

Maybe I'm being overly optimist, but I believe there will come a time when every person will be able have the health care they need.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> I doubt anyone is ever going to pay this fine.  I suspect that an executive order will be issued that suspends the collection for one reason or another.  I also expect that health insurance will become a condition of employment at many companies if not all.  For the employer, a larger number of employees in the group will result in better and more stable rates.  The fact that government requires people to have health insurance will encourage employers to follow suit.
> 
> Maybe I'm being overly optimist, but I believe there will come a time when every person will be able have the health care they need.



The scenario you've just described sure doesn't get us closer to that goal.  If anything it'll move us farther away.  If companies start making heath care coverage a prerequisite for employment, not only would that eliminate employer health care benefits (if you already have it, why would you buy more?) but it'll create INSTITUTIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT.

If you can't afford health care, but can't get a job because you don't have health care, things are going to get VERY UGLY in this country.  It will have the effect of legislating a caste system that will result in increased poverty and homelessness greatly.  And eventually enough people will get tired enough that the current Occupy movement will pale in comparison.  Except that those people will truly have nothing to lose.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 15, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > This is why one of the federal judges ruled that the case could not be decided till 2015 after the mandate has been in effect for a year.  However by 2015, the healthcare exchanges will be in operation and there will no turning back.
> ...


When I say no turning back, I mean it will be politically impractical.  The insurance companies would  fight it.  The tens of millions that are able to get coverage will certainly fight it.  Most people would not want to go back to the old days when insurance companies could deny and cancel coverage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2011)

This conservative court has supported some big government legislation, and Robets, Scalia, and maybe one or two others may go with the four libs.  Alito will get the minority opinion.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 15, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > You HAVE due process  in matters regarding  tickets and any state that seeks to take it away I submit that state would soon find it's cameras turned off and issuing refunds much like Arizona has had to do.
> ...




Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 708 (1884). "Due process of law is [process which], following the forms of law, is appropriate to the case and just to the parties affected. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by law; it must be adapted to the end to be attained; and whenever necessary to the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought. Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age or custom or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law." Id. at 708; Accord, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 537 (1884).


VII Amendment sic.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, *the right of trial by jury shall be preserved*, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

While the rules are somewhat different, your right to due process is not non existant. As for the SUV vs. the H.C. Bill of course there is a big difference,  in that if the same  standards were applied to SUV's let's say  then you would have one heck of a LOT more SUV's on the road than you would now because people would not have  the choice to buy or not to buy them.  As for the bill itself, I tend to be of the opinion that the court will keep most of the H.C. bill intact however this particular section of the bill if any part should be struck down will be it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Probably so.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> not that ultimately the court will do what it's supposed to given the ethically challenged thomas and scalia, but we can hope.


Says she who openly lies about her law degree and practice of law pursuant to same.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> If you look at most of the cases on this, it has gone  from one side to the other, but in general, it would seen pretty clear, at least in my humble opinion that there is no more clear example of a  "Bill of Attainder" than using a tax to punish people who do not purchase a good or service, especially  if they do not have recourse in the courts.


Exactly.
On what basis are people who decide to not buy/get insurance being punished?
Did they commit a crime?  Where's the trial?
Is it a civil penalty?  What cost have they incurred to the government?


----------



## Chris (Nov 15, 2011)

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act. 

Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?

And in the meantime both of them enjoy government sponsored healthcare for free.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 15, 2011)

Chris said:


> Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.
> 
> Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?
> 
> And in the meantime both of them enjoy government sponsored healthcare for free.



His wife made the money not him so why should he recuse himself?


----------



## Londoner (Nov 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Most people would not want to go back to the old days when insurance companies could deny and cancel coverage.
> ...


----------



## Chris (Nov 15, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.
> ...



Because it's a conflict of interest.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2011)

Chris said:


> Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.
> Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?


Since his -wife- made the money, there's no conflict of interest.
:shrug:


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2011)

Londoner said:


> The Supreme Court will now be striking down laws in defense of monopolies.


The supreme court will strike down this law because it violates the Constitution..


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Low income for purposes of this law is up to $62,000 per year for a family of 4. $66,000 is in the top 25% of all wage earners.
> ...



Yeah sure. That's the popular version forwarded by those in support of PPACA.
Within 5 years of full enactment of Obamacare, there WILL BE NO private group insurance nor will there be any firms self insuring their employees. 
What Medicare savings? The same amount if not more people will become eligible for Medicare coverage. Obama care strips $500 billion out of Medicare. That is made up by vastly reduced reimbursements to medical providers.
Already, medical groups are telling their medicare patients that after 2014 they will have to find another provider because Medicare will not pay enough to cover the COST of the care.

So please, stop it.
I must ask....Why are you in support of Obamacare? Your words ONLY. Do not link to a blog. Do not try to explain anything. Don't offer statistics about the number of uninsured that will be covered. Just answer the question in your own words.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2011)

Chris said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


That is your perception. 
Now, Justice Kagan has an even bigger problem. She was appointed because she is an ardent supporter of Obamacare. Does this not disqualify her from ruling on the case? 
Consider your answer carefully.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 15, 2011)

If you go deep enough, you'll find conflicts of interest in every case.  Nobody should recuse themselves; just judge the case as you would any other.  

Must we always assume that the deck is stacked the other way?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2011)

Scalia has a conflict of interest because of his wife's income.

Any who denies that basic fact of life is morally malignant.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 15, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.
> ...



Actually, it still is.  The reasons for recusing extend to spouses.  So he does have a conflict of interest, just as Kagan does.

Unfortunately though, you can't force a SCOTUS Justice to recuse.  My opinion remains that Thomas should stay in place as long as Kagan does.  If she drops out, he should too.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Now for the idiots that will take what I said out of context, I am not calling for anyone to shoot anyone, take up arms shot the president or what ever wets your dream. I am stating a fact when voting does not help bullets will. When you create laws to enslave people they will resist when they have had enough.
> ...


One it appears that you did not read my last part 


> When you create laws to enslave people they will resist when they have had enough





> There's always idiots that will take a warning that an action will bring violence as a call for violence.  The real danger for you personally is if one of those that misinterprets what you posted turns out to be a Secret Service agent



I really don't care. I speak the truth people when forced to do something they do not want to do will fight. If the government can't accept that fact maybe they should stop what they are doing. People will become violent when they feel they have nothing to lose and are being forced into servitude by the government. If people can't accept that fact then they need to revisit a history book. But I do thank you for your concern.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 15, 2011)

Chris said:


> Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.
> 
> Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?
> 
> And in the meantime both of them enjoy government sponsored healthcare for free.


After years of marriage I can tell you with absolutely no doubt that any money the wife earns is NOT your money.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 15, 2011)

Chris said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


If his wife were sitting on the court... yeah it might be.  However it is clear that Kagan, Sotomeyer, Bryer, and Ginsburg's open contempt of the constitution is deffinatively a conflict of interest.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2011)

Ben, you don't understand the canon of ethics.  Heck, you can barely think, so I can forgive your idiocy.  Yes, it is a conflict of interest for him, unlike your silliness about political philosophy.

You truly do not comprehend how silly you look to the rest of us.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ben, you don't understand the canon of ethics.  Heck, you can barely think, so I can forgive your idiocy.  Yes, it is a conflict of interest for him, unlike your silliness about political philosophy.
> 
> You truly do not comprehend how silly you look to the rest of us.



You can only speak for yourself do not speak for me or others. I believe you have already been told not too do this anymore.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You dont get it...

A conservative justice whose wife worked to oppose the bill has a conflict of interest...
...whereas a  liberal who openly suports the premise and the specifics of bill does not.

Now, if things were different....

A liberal justice whose wife worked to support the bill has no conflict of interest...
...whereas a conservative who openly opposes the premise and the specifics of bill, does.

In the end, liberals never admit any fault in themselves but always see fault in conservatives, even when there is none.

:shrug:


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 15, 2011)

If Ben and Shooter and bigreb are carrying the flag for the GOP, then the party is in big, big trouble if it is listening to those wacks.  Guys, just give your $$$ to the GOP but shut up, please, because you cost the party votes every time you yap.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 15, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Have you read anything about the healthcare law other than right wing opinions?  This law will increase insurance company subscribers by of tens of millions.  It's the biggest windfall ever for health insurance companies.  Unfortunately, they will not be out of business in 5 years.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Your point is precisely part of the plan. That is to destroy the private health insurance industry.
> ...


"is like saying"....No what I posted is Precisely what I meant. In the literal.
If your imagination allows you to make such a stretch, not my problem.\
You said people suffer from inaccessibility to health insurance. I never implied nor stated that. In fact, it's false.
Health insurance is available to everyone. Like any other commodity, it has to be purchased. Those that cannot afford coverage have a number of options available in the form of social programs. We do not need another expensive and impossible to administer entitlement plan.
Those are honest terms. You said so yourself "The market for private coverage would dissolve from a lack of demand, without it being outlawed"....Even you believe the goal of Obamacare is to eliminate private health insurance. Essentially, nationalizing the industry.
What it's called is immaterial. The end result is all that matters.
You're looking at the world with a narrow view. You see a goal ahead of you. Socialized medicine. Obamacare is the first step in that direction.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube[/ame].
Don't lecture me about reality.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > That's the dilly-o.
> ...


It is unfunded. That means everybody has to pay more. And pay for a system they do no want.
Government is creating another entitlement which must be manged by another bureaucracy.
We're not going to end up just paying for insurance. We'll be paying for thousands if not tens of thousands of new government employees. Paying for THEIR wages, THEIR benefits and THEIR pensions.
All this and we get rationed care.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


It is a tax. As is Social Security.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ben, you don't understand the canon of ethics.  Heck, you can barely think, so I can forgive your idiocy.  Yes, it is a conflict of interest for him, unlike your silliness about political philosophy.
> 
> You truly do not comprehend how silly you look to the rest of us.


Too bad for you and your leftist ilk that I don't only understand them, I know where to find them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4413252-post60.html

And like the idiot I responded to there, please, stop pretending you even know what ethics are.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 15, 2011)

Inthemiddle said:


> In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder.  It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.
> 
> I don't think your bill of attainder theory would succeed.  First of all, the HC bill doesn't tax people.  It levies fines for failure to comply with the law.  This is no different than a fine for a speeding ticket.  And it certainly is no more an exercise of power than using cameras to fine people for running red lights as a "civil" violation, to which the person is not entitled no process of law.



The ACA law IS a tax. Anytime government takes money from the people to fund government it is a TAX.
Umm, A speeding citation IS a criminal sanction. If the suspect does not pay the fine associated with the citation, the state first can suspend the license. It can go further by issuing a warrant for arrest. The state then has the right to arrest the person and compel him to satisfy the fine plus suffer addtional sanctions for illegally operating a motor vehicle.
If the citation were civil, all that could happen would be a civil judgement.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 15, 2011)

Liability said:


> The mandate is designed EXACTLY to raise revenue.



The individual mandate is projected to bring in about $3-4 billion in revenues per year, a comparatively miniscule amount. Its purpose is not to raise revenues.



thereisnospoon said:


> Yeah sure. That's the popular version forwarded by those in support of PPACA.
> Within 5 years of full enactment of Obamacare, there WILL BE NO private group insurance nor will there be any firms self insuring their employees.



Ah yes, just as we've seen the eradication of private insurance in Massachusetts. Oh wait. Not only is 61% of that state's population enrolled in private insurance (compared to 54% for the U.S. as a whole) with 59% of their population in private employer-sponsored coverage (vs. 49% for the U.S. as a whole), their private health insurance plans are ranked among the top plans in the entire United States--in terms of consumer satisfaction and performance--in Consumer Reports ' 2011 national rankings of health insurers.

Come back to the real world. It's not so bad.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> If Ben and Shooter and bigreb are carrying the flag for the GOP, then the party is in big, big trouble if it is listening to those wacks.  Guys, just give your $$$ to the GOP but shut up, please, because you cost the party votes every time you yap.



The GOP as with the DNC both fit on the same side, the party leaders are elite Statist they both want the same thing. Sorry I won't carry the corrupted flag of either party.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 15, 2011)

> Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare



This brief reads like an op-ed piece from a Heritage Foundation blog author.  



> The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.



Correct. 


> But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating.



Incorrect. 

The ACA has no provisions for criminal prosecution whatsoever: 



> [T]hen, the Act does not treat the mandate like a tax, as it prohibits the IRS
> from using its most salient enforcement tools in collecting the penalty. The IRS may not
> place a lien on the property of an individual who does not comply with the mandate and
> does not pay a penalty. See id. § 5000A(g)(2)(B). Not so for individuals who fail to pay
> ...




The_ Thomas More Law Center_ case provides an excellent outline as to what the Court will review. 

The Court will review the issue of &#8216;presumed constitutionality&#8217;: 



> The minimum coverage provision, like all congressional enactments, is entitled
> to a &#8220;presumption of constitutionality,&#8221; and will be invalidated only upon a &#8220;plain
> showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.&#8221; United States v.
> Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000). The presumption that the minimum coverage
> ...



Constitutional case law and precedent: 



> Recognizing that uniform federal regulation is necessary in some instances, the
> Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the power &#8220;[t]o regulate
> commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
> Tribes.&#8221; U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Supreme Court has held that Congress has
> ...



Why the individual mandate is Constitutional: 



> By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the
> minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for
> two independent reasons. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress
> had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In
> ...



And the issue of &#8216;regulating inactivity&#8217;:  



> Thomas More argues that the minimum coverage provision exceeds Congress&#8217;s
> power under the Commerce Clause because it regulates inactivity. However, the text of
> the Commerce Clause does not acknowledge a constitutional distinction between activity
> and inactivity, and neither does the Supreme Court. Furthermore, far from regulating
> ...





> Health insurance is available to everyone. Like any other commodity, it has to be purchased. Those that cannot afford coverage have a number of options available in the form of social programs. We do not need another expensive and impossible to administer entitlement plan.



As Judge Sutton correctly noted in _Thomas More Law Center_, just because a law is bad, doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s un-Constitutional. The remedy is legislative, not judicial. 

It&#8217;s also incorrect that &#8216;[t]hose that cannot afford coverage have a number of options available in the form of social programs.&#8217; Adults between the ages of 18 and 65 with no deprived minor children and are not established disabled by the Social Security Administration or by a given state&#8217;s disability unit are not eligible for Medicaid or any other medical program. 



> The ACA law IS a tax.



The ACA is not a tax: 



> The individual mandate is a regulatory penalty, *not a revenue-raising tax*, for
> several reasons. First, that is what Congress said. It called the sanction for failing to
> obtain medical insurance a &#8220;penalty,&#8221; not a tax. Words matter, and it is fair to assume
> that Congress knows the difference between a tax and a penalty, between its taxing and
> ...





Link for the cited above: 

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf


----------



## dblack (Nov 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> how is the mandate different from having to contribute to social security?



Social Security is a program administered by out government. Insurance is a private, for-profit service. The government has a legitimate authority to force us to pay for its services (even if we don't want to). Insurance corporations do not - or rather, shouldn't. The ACA essentially grants them the power to tax us. It's the epitome of taxation without representation.


----------



## dblack (Nov 15, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.



It's not designed to raise revenue for the state. It IS designed to raise revenue for the insurance industry. That's the whole point, to compensate them for the losses that will result from being forced to 'insure' people who are already sick.


----------



## dblack (Nov 15, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The ACA has no provisions for criminal prosecution whatsoever.



This argument is equivocation and deception. They're talking out of both sides of their mouths. They can say there are no criminal penalties for not paying the fine, but there are definitely criminal penalties for not paying your taxes, which is why they chose the IRS as their collection agency. 



> The ACA is not a tax



More equivocation. From the Obama administration's point of view, it's apparently both a tax and not a tax, depending on which crap they're trying to fling on that wall at the time.


----------



## dblack (Nov 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> The only reason insurance companies are in loop is they spend 150 million lobbying Congress to block the single payer system which would have provide much lower cost coverage.



Whatever. The reasons the law is fucked up don't interest me as much as how we're going to get rid of it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Link for the cited above:
> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf


Is the SCotUS was bound by CA6 decisions?
If not, then the authority of your citations is, well, diminuitive.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2011)

I'll ask again:

On what basis are people who decide to not buy/get insurance being punished?
Did they commit a crime? Where's the trial?
Is it a civil penalty? What cost have they incurred to the government?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2011)

M14, the SCOTUS is not interested in your questions.  The justices will be concerned only with the issue of Congress having the power to regulate an interstate commerical interest, insurance companies.


----------



## Liability (Nov 16, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> M14, the SCOTUS is not interested in your questions.  The justices will be concerned only with the issue of Congress having the power to regulate an interstate commerical interest, insurance companies.



Probably incorrect, Fakey.

It is, in fact, quite likely that the SCOTUS *WILL* be pretty fucking interested in the issue of whether the "penalties" constitute a "tax" or not --

as long as we're talking about the issue of whether there is or isn't any Constitutional authority to do this kind of thing.


----------



## Liability (Nov 16, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'll ask again:
> 
> On what basis are people who decide to not buy/get insurance being punished?
> Did they commit a crime? Where's the trial?
> Is it a civil penalty? What cost have they incurred to the government?



Good questions.

Fakey's rejoinder notwithstanding.


----------



## Liability (Nov 16, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The mandate is designed EXACTLY to raise revenue.
> ...



Your President has already said otherwise.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2011)

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > M14, the SCOTUS is not interested in your questions.  The justices will be concerned only with the issue of Congress having the power to regulate an interstate commerical interest, insurance companies.
> ...


Absolutely.
After all, the government only has the power to tax in order to provide revenue to spend on the general welfare/common defense -- not to punish people for not following civil law.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 16, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> M14, the SCOTUS is not interested in your questions.  The justices will be concerned only with the issue of Congress having the power to regulate an interstate commerical interest, insurance companies.


Maybe you should actually read the questions that were granted cert.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 16, 2011)

Liability said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


pffft... even liberals don't pay any attention to what he _says_ anymore.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > M14, the SCOTUS is not interested in your questions.  The justices will be concerned only with the issue of Congress having the power to regulate an interstate commerical interest, insurance companies.
> ...


-That- would require intellectual honesty.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 16, 2011)

This is what the SCOTUS will hear..

1. Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress&#8216;s spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply?
2. May Congress treat States no differently from any other employer when imposing invasive mandates as to the manner in which they provide their own employees with insurance coverage, as suggested by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), or has Garcia&#8216;s approach been overtaken by subsequent cases in which this Court has explicitly recognized judicially enforceable limits on Congress&#8216;s power to interfere with state sovereignty?
3. Does the Affordable Care Act&#8216;s mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceed Congress&#8216;s enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/11-400 Cert Petition.pdf


----------



## deaddogseye (Nov 16, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think.   5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.
> 
> That isn't really how it should be for something like this.   The dems will never agree to this, but they oughta scrap the whole damn thing and do it right this time with enougn bipartisan support to avoid a SCOTUS decision.   I suppose that's asking for too much, we don't have enough pols who are willing to make a tough call that's in the best interests of the country rather than what's best for themselves or their party.



This may have been said elsewhere but if its 5-3 to uphold when it gets to roberts, he votes last, he could vote for it as well making it 6-3. This would allow him to control the writing of the majority opinion. not saying this will happen but it could and its no secret that it has in the past


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 16, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> This is what the SCOTUS will hear..
> 
> 1. Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress&#8216;s spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply?
> 2. May Congress treat States no differently from any other employer when imposing invasive mandates as to the manner in which they provide their own employees with insurance coverage, as suggested by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), or has Garcia&#8216;s approach been overtaken by subsequent cases in which this Court has explicitly recognized judicially enforceable limits on Congress&#8216;s power to interfere with state sovereignty?
> ...


They also granted cert to one question about whether states were precluded from suig under the tax anti injunction act which I believe came from the 6th circuit decission and could give them a vehicle to punt with.



> Here is a comprehensive list of the questions on which the Court granted certiorari this morning:
> 
> On severability (90 minutes of argument):
> 
> ...


aca litigation blog

they will punt.


----------



## Conservative (Nov 16, 2011)

interesting side note...
Lawmakers, Broadcaster Request Camera In Courtroom For Health Care Hearing | Fox News


> Republican Sen. Charles Grassley and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi are joining C-SPAN's call to have cameras in the Supreme Court hearing room for the five-and-a-half hour arguments relating to the federal health care law.
> 
> Grassley, of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to Chief  Justice John Roberts on Tuesday requesting that audio and video coverage be allowed in the landmark case.
> 
> ...



more bipartisanship. Will this madness never end?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 16, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Intellectual honesty is neither of your suits, kiddos.  SCOTUS will only be interested in the interstate commerce interess of Congress, nothing else.  Roberts and one other conservative may well vote to uphold the act, making the final decision 6-3 or 7-2.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 16, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


odd, thats not what the questions that were granted cert say. 

let us know when you have actual facts instead of JokeFakey facts.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 16, 2011)

This is a gigantic mistake.
The SCOTUS should NEVER be confused with a television spectacle.
Televised SCOTUS proceedings would be a national tragedy.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Nov 16, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> This is a gigantic mistake.
> The SCOTUS should NEVER be confused with a television spectacle.
> Televised SCOTUS proceedings would be a national tragedy.



I'm inclined to agree.  Not only that, but I simply can't see anything of actual benefit gained by the public.  Interested individuals can read the resulting opinions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You are quoting spin that will have nothing to do with the decision on merits itself.  Tis what tis.  No far right wacks need apply to adult discussion here until you are willing to discuss the facts, not the spin.


----------



## Liability (Nov 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Please link to the support you surely must have for the proposition you offer that the SCOTUS will decide the case based only on a narrow basis?  http://www.usmessageboard.com/4417130-post250.html

Ben cited aca litigation blog as HIS support for the ACTUAL BASIS upon which the SCOTUS granted certiorari.   See, also, http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111411zor.pdf

So, what do YOU have to offer, there, Fakey?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2011)

The facts, Liability, not the spin.  If you are only going to spin, then have the last word.   We will move on.


----------



## Liability (Nov 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The facts, Liability, not the spin.  If you are only going to spin, then have the last word.   We will move on.



Unlike you, Fakey, I have offered facts *AS DID Ben.*

By contrast, Fakey, as EVERYONE can plainly see, YOU have offered only your own pathetically shallow mere "opinion."

This explains why you are still DODGING the question:  Cite to your *source*.

YOU made the claim.  Or, as you would call it if you were honest enough to apply the words to yourself, YOU provided the "spin."

Only you have done that "spin" thing.

Step up to the plate half as well as Ben did.   Stop spinning like a top.  Make a FACTUAL assertion and BACK IT UP.  CITE to your source.   Link it.

*But you won't. * Why not?  Because, as you have established time and time again, you remain nothing but a fraud.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 17, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > This is what the SCOTUS will hear..
> ...



I've read both several times, it does seem there are many things about the H.C. bill they are calling into question. This is a  huge case in my humble opinion not just in terms of the  H.C. Bill itself  but on several constitutional issues that have been called into question.  The "states" case as I like to call it,  makes reference to the  San Antonio case quite a bit and if that case is to be  revisited  then there are  10th Amendment issues there as well as  well Article 1 Sec. 8  issues  to be resolved, they also cite the Lopez case.  In my opinion this case is a landmark case and will have far reaching  implications.  I personally do not believe this is a narrow  case focused on one issue and anyone who reads the cert.  will see that almost immediately. It should prove very interesting though as  the amount of time of oral arguements  should  tell people this case is not a narrow case.  Frankly, I don't see how the court  can throw out the entire H.C. Bill ,  and  do not see that happening, but rather seem them striking down parts of it with a long lengthy decision.  Although, when it comes to trying to figure out what this court will do, you run into issues so I will remain an observer.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


LOL... no dumbass, I'm linking to the actual questions that were granted cert and scheduled for argument.


----------



## BenNatuf (Nov 17, 2011)

Navy1960 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...


I think they will have a long opinion, and iot will consist of mostly non-binding dicta that clearly implies what the court will do if the law is not amended before 2014.  I think that's why the court added the question about the anti-injunction act themselves.  It is the courts "punting" vehicle.

I think they will use the two questions on severability to draw a line in the sand that they previously left fuzzy.  The court has previously ruled that the congress failure to include a severability clause was not evedence of the congressional will to make a law unseverable.  In this case however the congress removed a severability clause from the bill before passage, I believe that will be the line they draw, leaving in tact the proposition that the court may sever laws sans severability clauses based on how the stricken portions effect the rest of the bill if the congress has not rejected a severability clause in passage of the bill. Hinting to the congress at what they must do if they want to salvage any part of the bill; and then apply it to the law which would throw the whole thing out (which they will not do... yet).

I think they could not avoid the question of the mandate if they wanted too... which they probobly did.  I have no earthly idea how much they will either restrict or stretch the commerce clause in the decission (which won't be final)

I think the question on Medicaid is the big question as it addresses the fedralist system, and they will use it to draw a clearer fuzzy line on the power of the federal government to coerce states by withholdng the federal portion of spending in unfunded mandates on the states.

I think they will use the anti injunction act to dismiss the case for a lack of standing while the rest of the decission clearly implies that the law will be overturned if unamended when they get it back in 2014. (punt)


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2011)

Everybody should be against the mandate because once the government tells you that you have to buy something they won't just stop with one thing.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Everybody should be against the mandate because once the government tells you that you have to buy something they won't just stop with one thing.



That's a valid concern. But I think a more immediate byproduct of the mandate, and of the overall effort to make government responsible for our health care, will be a tremendous incentive for government to dictate any personal behaviors that might affect our health. I see many of the same people who are now complaining about the loss of freedom imposed by the mandate, happily supporting laws that micro-manage our lives in the name of saving taxpayer money on health care. 

Conservatives will go after gays who risk contracting AIDS. Liberals will want to crack down on fatties and smokers. The whole process will be heavily politicized with all manner of minority groups being scapegoated as freeloaders who waste taxpayer money with their unhealthy (or simply unpopular) personal habits.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2011)

You are entitled to your opinion, BenNatuf, but the case will be decided on the interstate commerce clause, nothing else.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2011)

dblack said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Everybody should be against the mandate because once the government tells you that you have to buy something they won't just stop with one thing.
> ...



I agree


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



All of which makes health care in Europe much less expensive leading to the better health and longetivity of Europeans in national health care.

Thanks, guys.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Maybe you didn't get the memo
1. this is America we have individual rights to pick and choose what we want to do no matter if it's unhealthy.
2. Europe is going broke
3. If you want affordable healthcare that you claim Europe has move there.


----------



## Liability (Nov 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are entitled to your opinion, BenNatuf, but the case will be decided on the interstate commerce clause, nothing else.



In other words, Fakey has ZERO support for his now repeated mere expression of opinion.

It would have been more honest to just admit it.

But, alas, Fakey is simply not comfortable with being honest.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Not becasue of improved, cheaper health care, you silly.  You still don't get to be the dictator here, or your few friends.  'sides, I have VA 100% because I served protecting your freedoms.  I accept your thanks for my service.  I also pay boodles in federal income tax as well.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2011)

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are entitled to your opinion, BenNatuf, but the case will be decided on the interstate commerce clause, nothing else.
> ...



There is nothing to discuss of merit of your whinging, guys.  The merits of Congressional right to control interstate commerce.  That's what it will be.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 17, 2011)

Liability said:


> In other words, Fakey has ZERO support for his now repeated mere expression of opinion.
> 
> It would have been more honest to just admit it.
> 
> But, alas, Fakey is simply not comfortable with being honest.


None of this is new.


----------



## Liability (Nov 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



"Whinging."

Methinks the dimwit meant "whining." v Of course, there hasn't been any whining, either.

But he's half right.

There *is* nothing to discuss with Fakey since he adamantly sticks to his mere opinion when it is noted that he has nothing with which to support his views.

If he says it a couple of times, or adds another _ad hominem_, then by golly, it MUST be a powerful opinion.  

Meanwhile, the SCOTUS grants cert as it sees fit and determines these issues on the bases they consider appropriate.  Oddly, they never seem to consult with Fakey.


----------



## Liability (Nov 17, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, Fakey has ZERO support for his now repeated mere expression of opinion.
> ...



True.  But it's good to note it periodically for the new folks not yet used to his bogus little routine.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



NO jokey what you want is to impose your will onto others by having the government control peoples lives. You claim anyone that does not view things as you do want to take away peoples right's in your last post's you have made that real clear you want to impose your will on others, by using affordable healthcare as a way of doing it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 17, 2011)

You jokers are fun to read.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 17, 2011)

Liability said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Well, true - one might accidentally take him seriuosly.
The good news is that said accident will quickly correct itself.


----------



## Liability (Nov 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You jokers are fun to read.



I wish _your_ posts were fun or of any actual value.

Well, your avatar is cute, at least.

Fakey STILL can't back up his empty claim and apparently is content not to embarrass himself further by pretending that he could.

Not unexpected.  Cowardly, yes.  But not at all unexpected.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 18, 2011)

Loopy so-called conservatives keep nattering about nothing.  We all know what SCOTUS will make its determination on, and most of us suspect the bill will survive intact.


----------



## Liability (Nov 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Loopy so-called conservatives keep nattering about nothing.  We all know what SCOTUS will make its determination on, and most of us suspect the bill will survive intact.



Fake Republican Fakey, still unable to support his biased rank speculation, pretends that any disagreement with his unsupported (and unsupportable) musings somehow constitute mere "nattering."

The converse, of course, is the truth.

And, naturally, we do NOT "all know" what the SCOTUS will make its determination on.  We certainly don't all "know" the fanciful speculation that Fakey presumes.   Funny thing is, neither does Fakey.

What most of us DO know is that Fakey doesn't have the first clue.  He has just his own ignorant speculation to go on.  And that ain't much of anything.  Nothing, in fact, of any actual value.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Loopy so-called conservatives keep nattering about nothing.



of course if the Feds can make us buy health insurance they can make us do anything. That is totally anti-American and, you are right,  that means nothing..... to a liberal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Loopy so-called conservatives keep nattering about nothing.  We all know what SCOTUS will make its determination on, and most of us suspect the bill will survive intact.



words that appear to have been written by a liberal. These words could have been written by any liberal here, But they weren't they where written by the faux republican jake starkey. Now if they had a feature that allowed you to smell you could smell total bullshit right now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2011)

Brutus said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Loopy so-called conservatives keep nattering about nothing.
> ...



Brutus, I am not a liberal any more than a reactionary wack like you is a conservative.

American legal and constitutional and political history clearly invalidates your opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Loopy so-called conservatives keep nattering about nothing.  We all know what SCOTUS will make its determination on, and most of us suspect the bill will survive intact.
> ...



bigreb, I am not a liberal any more than a reactionary wack like you is a conservative.

The decision will involved only congress and its interstate commerce power, nothing else.


----------



## Liability (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Fakey, you can say it a billion more times, and based on the nonsense you spew nobody will ever buy your lie.

You ARE a liberal and you are a Democratic.  You are not a Republican.

And the SCOTUS is much more likely to determine the issue on the various BASES upon which THEY granted cert than on the basis of what YOU unverifiably contend.

You have not the first iota of credibility, Fakey.   That's the outcome of you having been such a transparent fraud for so long.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Of course you are an idiot liberal  that is why you were so afraid to even try to offer a reason In support of your assertion. Reason does not occur to liberals.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2011)

Brutus said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



The reasons have been given over and over.  Go look them up.  Of course you are not a conservative, just a mere loony reactionary wack way off to the Hard Right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2011)

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



 All of your whining and pining, grasshopper, does not change the simple fact that you are wrong.  Creditibility with the Hard right is gone?  Oh, no, how will I survive?


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



1) liberal idiot still afraid to give a reason
2) liberal idiot still afraid to say where I differ from Limbaugh, buckley,Friedman, Aristotle, Reagan


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2011)

Reactionary wack has been given reasons but denies that.

Reactionary wack has never given reason to make any reader believe that he is comparable to Buckley, Reagan, or Aristotle.  Friedman and Limbaugh are holding their hands out for your $$$.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 19, 2011)

> of course if the Feds can make us buy health insurance they can make us do anything. That is totally anti-American and, you are right, that means nothing..... to a liberal.



This makes no sense given the fact conservative judges have ruled the IM is Constitutional. And to respond that those judges arent real conservatives accordingly only exhibits ones partisan ignorance.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Reactionary wack has been given reasons but denies that.
> 
> Reactionary wack has never given reason to make any reader believe that he is comparable to Buckley, Reagan, or Aristotle.  Friedman and Limbaugh are holding their hands out for your $$$.


 
Jefferson and Buckley were for freedom from liberal government as are modern Republicans.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2011)

Brutus said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Reactionary wack has been given reasons but denies that.
> ...



Jefferson was for owning human beings, and funny you did not mention him at first.

Buckley was for "classical liberalism", something that far right reactionaries like you hate, hate, hate.


----------



## Liability (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Jefferson owned slaves, but he was actually opposed to the idea.  Alas, he was weak and pretty hypocritical on that one.

Classic liberalism *is* pretty much modern day conservatism; and those you falsely accuse of being "far right reactionaries" are actually (more often than not) simply conservatives.

And *you* hate hate hate actual conservatism, Fakey.  That's because you lie about who and what you are.  But it shines through.  You are a modern day liberal and a you are a Democratic.

Yeech.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2011)

Jefferson was so opposed he freed his children but not their mother.

Post-Reagan conservatism is antithetical to classical liberalism.

And I love, love, love the Constitution and the American Way of Life, Truth, and Justice, and those who do won't let the Hippy Dippy Left or the Radical Hard Right take it away.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 you mean he was born owning slaves and manumission was illegal and that Jefferson invented the freedom that later freed billions all over the world. See why we are sure a liberal will be low IQ?


----------



## Liability (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jefferson was so opposed he freed his children but not their mother.



Yes.  I already noted that he was hypocritical on that matter.



JakeStarkey said:


> Post-Reagan conservatism is antithetical to classical liberalism.



No.  It's not.  Your understanding of it is another story, perhaps.  But your "understanding" is wrong.



JakeStarkey said:


> And I love, love, love the Constitution and the American Way of Life, Truth, and Justice, and those who do won't let the Hippy Dippy Left or the Radical Hard Right take it away.



No.   You love love love only PARTS of the Constitution.  But since tools like you think it is a living, breathing, changing, mutable thing, you feel inclined to pick and choose what parts you will comply with and what parts must be subverted.

You hard right lefties are generally dishonest, but YOU really take the cake, Fakey.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2011)

Jefferson invented "no freedom" for anyone other than white males, he did own his mistress and their children, and set the children free but not mom.  He believed in owning human beings.

Buckley, I am glad you agree with me!, was a classical liberal.  You are, sadly, not so.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Of course as a liberal idiot you are afraid to even try to explain where I differ from Buckley who termed himself a radical conservative. Low IQ??


----------



## Liability (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jefferson invented "no freedom" for anyone other than white males, he did own his mistress and their children, and set the children free but not mom.  He believed in owning human beings.
> 
> Buckley, I am glad you agree with me!, was a classical liberal.  You are, sadly, not so.



YOU couldn't tell.  YOU are too consumed with the irrationalities of being a modern day liberal, Fakey.

You fool nobody.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jefferson invented "no freedom" for anyone other than white males, he did own his mistress and their children, and set the children free but not mom.  He believed in owning human beings.
> 
> Buckley, I am glad you agree with me!, was a classical liberal.  You are, sadly, not so.



Too stupid as usual. The first draft of Jefferson's Declaration was more about the evils of slavery than taxes. You are perfectly ignorant. Catching on now, liberal ??


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



not really weak since manumission was illegal, he wrote the Declaration about slavery, and he tried to have slavery banned in Virginia twice. He was well ahead of his time; especially for a man who was born owning slaves.




Liability said:


> [
> Classic liberalism *is* pretty much modern day conservatism; and those you falsely accuse of being "far right reactionaries" are actually (more often than not) simply conservatives.



Very true indeed; this is why he can't say what the difference is between Jefferson ( a government hater if ever there was one) and modern Republicans. Liberals brainwashed him into thinking modern conservatives and our Founders were odd extremists. It shows he understands nothing about our country. Sad.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2011)

Modern day libertarians and far Hard Right reactionaries do not believe in Classical Liberalism at all.

For them it is a shell game.  Jefferson owned slaves.  Washington manumitted his slaves.  Jefferson could have done the same.

Buckley would have nothing to do with Brutus in terms of classical liberalism, merely spurn him as he did Joe McCarthy.  All extremists, right or left, are a danger to American civil liberties.

Brutus proves that every time he posts.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jefferson owned slaves.  Washington manumitted his slaves.  Jefferson could have done the same.



wrong wrong wrong!! Jefferson was in debt and so it was illegal !!



JakeStarkey said:


> Buckley would have nothing to do with Brutus in terms of classical liberalism, merely spurn him as he did Joe McCarthy.




See why we are popsitive a liberal will have a low IQ???

Old National Review: Murrow concluded his half-hour blast by inviting McCarthy to take the half-hour slot the following week to reply to Murrows charges. 

McCarthys office advised CBS that the senator had decided to turn his half hour over to William Buckley to reply to Murrow.










Murrow concluded his half-hour blast by inviting McCarthy to take the half-hour slot the following week to reply to Murrows charges. 

McCarthys office advised CBS that the senator had decided to turn his half hour over to William Buckley to reply to Murrow. The film depicts this scene. William Paley, CBS boss, is leaving the office with Fred Friendly, Murrows producer. They want to give the time to William Buckley, Paley says. Im opposed. Friendly agrees. 

 A few weeks have gone by since the film was released. In Stamford, Connecticut, on Saturday, Buckley is seen at a movie house watching Good Night, and Good Luck. Are you going to comment on it? a fellow viewer asks at the films close. Buckley says, I dont think so. Ive written two books about McCarthy. 

But the next day there are large headlines in the Stamford Advocate, which is co-sponsoring an evening  this very evening, Tuesday, December 6  featuring an award to Buckley by the distinguished Ferguson Library of Stamford, the first-ever Ferguson Award. It was 51 years ago that McCarthy named Buckley as best-equipped to answer Murrow, and now  tonight!!  he can do so in the heart of Stamford, Connecticut.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 19, 2011)

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Doncha just love these people who claim to be "above the fray"?
Like they have it all figured out or have all the answers?
Sort of like when Obama pontificates using a plethora of first person pronouns?
Or when Obama refers to the people of the United States as "America". 

Such elitism is nauseating.


----------



## Liability (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Modern day libertarians and far Hard Right reactionaries do not believe in Classical Liberalism at all.
> 
> For them it is a shell game.  Jefferson owned slaves.  Washington manumitted his slaves.  Jefferson could have done the same.
> 
> ...



More of Fakey's dishonestly based pontification.

Forget it Fakey.

NOBODY buys anything YOU have to say.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Modern day libertarians and far Hard Right reactionaries do not believe in Classical Liberalism at all.
> 
> For them it is a shell game.  Jefferson owned slaves.  Washington manumitted his slaves.  Jefferson could have done the same.
> 
> ...


Classical liberalism no longer exists.


----------

