CA Teacher sues Union: Fees violate First Amendment

[emilynghiem]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

You mean the unconstitutional direct tax instituted by SCOTUS? The law said it was a penalty, SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.

Dear OKTexas I WISH Justice Roberts and the Court had been that clear. Yes, the commerce clause argument was struck down. But even though the bill was not passed as a tax, and argued before Congress it was NOT a tax, the Courts somehow changed the interpretation to be a tax, that yes the federal govt did have Constitutional authority to tax. And somehow the mandates place conditions on tax exemptions.

And that's the controversy. This ACA did NOT pass both Congress and Courts as a tax.
It passed through Congress as "not a tax" which would have been stopped at the Courts
that DID strike down the commerce clause argument as expected.

But the Courts passed it through "as a tax" which would NOT have passed through Congress!
Had Congress voted on the bill as interpreted by the SCOTUS, it would NOT pass.

So it did not really get checked and balanced. There were two different versions of this bill.
THERE WAS NOT ONE VERSION THAT PASSED BOTH CONGRESS AND COURTS.

One that passed through Congress by nearly 50/50 split vote that this was NOT a tax but a stretch of general welfare and commerce clause as a "revised public health bill."

And One that passed through SCOTUS as a tax bill.

I hope the next court that hears the argument about tax revenue bills needing to originate in the House strikes this down. If it is a health bill, then it cannot be justified as a tax bill. If it is a tax bill, then it should have clearly started, stayed and been stated that way or it is misrepresenting the purpose of the bill.

If it's going to be both, then make it optional to follow.

Like the Second Amendment, if you want to allow both sides to argue that "people" means regulated militia like govt, or "people" means citizens who don't have to be members of formal militia or govt, then let all people CHOOSE their own way to interpret it, and not require one and ban the other. Then it's okay for the same law to mean different things to different people if they are both allowed their own ways voluntarily, without imposing on others who believe otherwise.

But it would have been dishonest to run the Second Amendment through Congress, getting the approval because "people means state militia and does not mean independent citizens" THEN turning around and telling Courts that no, the people means citizens outside of govt and doesn't mean formal membership, so it passes the Courts.

That's not even the same bill, but voting on two different ones.

Don't mean to be critical but you need to condense you ideas into a more concise format.

First there were more than 20 revenue raising provisions in the ACA, all were required constitutionally to originate in the house. The penalty that SCOTUS struck down was only one of them. Then Roberts renamed the penalty to a tax which the court has no authority to rewrite legislation. But that aside, the tax Roberts invented was also unconstitutional because it violated the constitutional prohibition on direct taxes. It can not be consider an income tax even though income is used as a multiplier because it is assessed after the requirements allowed in the 16th Amendment have been met.

I'm only going to address one point you made on the 2nd Amendment. There is no place in the Constitution where the State and the people are used synonymously, they are separate and distinct terms. The first and second phrases in the 2nd Amendment are separated by a comma, meaning either can stand alone, one is not dependent on the other and that's the way the SCOTUS ruled. The right to keep and bear arms is reserved expressly to the people in the 2nd and leaves no room for any other interpretations.

1. Yes, on the SCOTUS issue I agree it was unconstitutional for the Justice to "rewrite" legislation which is the job of the Legislative branch. The bill should have been rejected and kicked back to Congress.

However, the tax penalties and mandates are still being enforced and treated as if constitutional.
So either we need to publicly rebuke Pelosi, Obama and Roberts and demand this be corrected IN SPIRIT FIRST -- to RECOGNIZE the bypassing and violation of Constitutional procedures and MEANING (as in a public agreement directly between people, before we try to bring such an agreement into the system and correct the conflicts using the formal legal and govt processes).

Or just continue going through the legal routes to prove these points in Court. I am one for establishing this agreement IN PUBLIC that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL first, before seeking the legal/govt backing.

However, OKTexas I keep running into LITERAL Liberalists who ONLY follow the LEGAL trail. They need to see it established first legally, THEN it becomes a real argument that the ACA mandates are unconstitutional (and not before it is official).

They DO NOT BELIEVE and DO NOT GET, that the spirit of any of this is Unconstitutional.
To them, in their minds, like how atheists think compared to theists, these arguments aren't even REAL. They don't register. Only what Congress and the Courts say has any bearing on law to them.

So on that point, that is what I mean about the 2nd Amendment:

2. REGARDLESS of the history (you and I can argue up down sideways, point out history and ALL the precedents and circumstances that PROVE it doesn't mean people have to be members of regulated militia) Guess what? That does not change the POLITICAL BELIEFS of these same people who see it as something else. That's their BELIEF. That's why it won't change despite all proof otherwise.

No matter if it's right or wrong, they have the right to their BELIEF until THEY freely choose to open their mind to other beliefs. The govt CANNOT be abused to force someone to CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS.

So instead of fighting back and forth about beliefs, I am saying don't impose either one. Let both believe as they will, agree to accept these are beliefs, and QUIT trying to take away beliefs in gun rights or beliefs in gun control. Go work out a consensus on policy or don't enforce laws at all by BULLYING.

So neither belief can be imposed unfairly.

I say keep the 2nd Amendment written as is, and let people interpret it either way.
(I believe both sides might agree that people means LAW ABIDING citizens, whether or not they can agree on procedures to enforce or determine that. I think this is up to each community to work with police and teachers on crafting local ordinances to be taught and enforced for all residents uniformly.)

So OKTexas I totally agree with you on the interpretation based on people like us who FOLLOW the Constitutional history.

For those who belief systems DO NOT, similar to Atheists who do NOT follow the Bible and the laws and history, these other people have the right to their own beliefs but not to impose those through govt.

In order to enforce that concept consistently, then it follows neither should we impose our beliefs about Constitutional laws, history and meaning on them either. We need to recognize these political beliefs,
in order to stop judging, punishing and bullying people over them. People cannot help what they believe, and certainly cannot be forced by govt to change their own beliefs. So I offer to accommodate equally.

3. OKTexas since you write more concisely than I do, would you like to partner on writing up a statement on how the ACA mandates are unconstitutional, and demand corrections by Pelosi, Obama, Roberts and other federal officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and "not put loyalty to persons or party" above govt duties. See Code of Ethics ethics-commission.net

If you could please help me write up these points, if we get more people on agreement on ALL POSSIBLE points that people believe are unconstitutional (where each signer only has to agree on at least one to sign the complaint), then I'd like to present that to the Democratic Party leaders to fix this ACA mandate by making it optional, due to differences in political beliefs that are infringed upon by this bill.

 

[Timmy]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

Why do we get taxed for opting out of insurance?

Why do I get taxed for not having children?

Tax code has all kinds of write offs .

 

[OKTexas]

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

You mean the unconstitutional direct tax instituted by SCOTUS? The law said it was a penalty, SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.

Dear OKTexas I WISH Justice Roberts and the Court had been that clear. Yes, the commerce clause argument was struck down. But even though the bill was not passed as a tax, and argued before Congress it was NOT a tax, the Courts somehow changed the interpretation to be a tax, that yes the federal govt did have Constitutional authority to tax. And somehow the mandates place conditions on tax exemptions.

And that's the controversy. This ACA did NOT pass both Congress and Courts as a tax.
It passed through Congress as "not a tax" which would have been stopped at the Courts
that DID strike down the commerce clause argument as expected.

But the Courts passed it through "as a tax" which would NOT have passed through Congress!
Had Congress voted on the bill as interpreted by the SCOTUS, it would NOT pass.

So it did not really get checked and balanced. There were two different versions of this bill.
THERE WAS NOT ONE VERSION THAT PASSED BOTH CONGRESS AND COURTS.

One that passed through Congress by nearly 50/50 split vote that this was NOT a tax but a stretch of general welfare and commerce clause as a "revised public health bill."

And One that passed through SCOTUS as a tax bill.

I hope the next court that hears the argument about tax revenue bills needing to originate in the House strikes this down. If it is a health bill, then it cannot be justified as a tax bill. If it is a tax bill, then it should have clearly started, stayed and been stated that way or it is misrepresenting the purpose of the bill.

If it's going to be both, then make it optional to follow.

Like the Second Amendment, if you want to allow both sides to argue that "people" means regulated militia like govt, or "people" means citizens who don't have to be members of formal militia or govt, then let all people CHOOSE their own way to interpret it, and not require one and ban the other. Then it's okay for the same law to mean different things to different people if they are both allowed their own ways voluntarily, without imposing on others who believe otherwise.

But it would have been dishonest to run the Second Amendment through Congress, getting the approval because "people means state militia and does not mean independent citizens" THEN turning around and telling Courts that no, the people means citizens outside of govt and doesn't mean formal membership, so it passes the Courts.

That's not even the same bill, but voting on two different ones.

Don't mean to be critical but you need to condense you ideas into a more concise format.

First there were more than 20 revenue raising provisions in the ACA, all were required constitutionally to originate in the house. The penalty that SCOTUS struck down was only one of them. Then Roberts renamed the penalty to a tax which the court has no authority to rewrite legislation. But that aside, the tax Roberts invented was also unconstitutional because it violated the constitutional prohibition on direct taxes. It can not be consider an income tax even though income is used as a multiplier because it is assessed after the requirements allowed in the 16th Amendment have been met.

I'm only going to address one point you made on the 2nd Amendment. There is no place in the Constitution where the State and the people are used synonymously, they are separate and distinct terms. The first and second phrases in the 2nd Amendment are separated by a comma, meaning either can stand alone, one is not dependent on the other and that's the way the SCOTUS ruled. The right to keep and bear arms is reserved expressly to the people in the 2nd and leaves no room for any other interpretations.

1. Yes, on the SCOTUS issue I agree it was unconstitutional for the Justice to "rewrite" legislation which is the job of the Legislative branch. The bill should have been rejected and kicked back to Congress.

However, the tax penalties and mandates are still being enforced and treated as if constitutional.
So either we need to publicly rebuke Pelosi, Obama and Roberts and demand this be corrected IN SPIRIT FIRST -- to RECOGNIZE the bypassing and violation of Constitutional procedures and MEANING (as in a public agreement directly between people, before we try to bring such an agreement into the system and correct the conflicts using the formal legal and govt processes).

Or just continue going through the legal routes to prove these points in Court. I am one for establishing this agreement IN PUBLIC that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL first, before seeking the legal/govt backing.

However, OKTexas I keep running into LITERAL Liberalists who ONLY follow the LEGAL trail. They need to see it established first legally, THEN it becomes a real argument that the ACA mandates are unconstitutional (and not before it is official).

They DO NOT BELIEVE and DO NOT GET, that the spirit of any of this is Unconstitutional.
To them, in their minds, like how atheists think compared to theists, these arguments aren't even REAL. They don't register. Only what Congress and the Courts say has any bearing on law to them.

So on that point, that is what I mean about the 2nd Amendment:

2. REGARDLESS of the history (you and I can argue up down sideways, point out history and ALL the precedents and circumstances that PROVE it doesn't mean people have to be members of regulated militia) Guess what? That does not change the POLITICAL BELIEFS of these same people who see it as something else. That's their BELIEF. That's why it won't change despite all proof otherwise.

No matter if it's right or wrong, they have the right to their BELIEF until THEY freely choose to open their mind to other beliefs. The govt CANNOT be abused to force someone to CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS.

So instead of fighting back and forth about beliefs, I am saying don't impose either one. Let both believe as they will, agree to accept these are beliefs, and QUIT trying to take away beliefs in gun rights or beliefs in gun control. Go work out a consensus on policy or don't enforce laws at all by BULLYING.

So neither belief can be imposed unfairly.

I say keep the 2nd Amendment written as is, and let people interpret it either way.
(I believe both sides might agree that people means LAW ABIDING citizens, whether or not they can agree on procedures to enforce or determine that. I think this is up to each community to work with police and teachers on crafting local ordinances to be taught and enforced for all residents uniformly.)

So OKTexas I totally agree with you on the interpretation based on people like us who FOLLOW the Constitutional history.

For those who belief systems DO NOT, similar to Atheists who do NOT follow the Bible and the laws and history, these other people have the right to their own beliefs but not to impose those through govt.

In order to enforce that concept consistently, then it follows neither should we impose our beliefs about Constitutional laws, history and meaning on them either. We need to recognize these political beliefs,
in order to stop judging, punishing and bullying people over them. People cannot help what they believe, and certainly cannot be forced by govt to change their own beliefs. So I offer to accommodate equally.

3. OKTexas since you write more concisely than I do, would you like to partner on writing up a statement on how the ACA mandates are unconstitutional, and demand corrections by Pelosi, Obama, Roberts and other federal officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and "not put loyalty to persons or party" above govt duties. See Code of Ethics ethics-commission.net

If you could please help me write up these points, if we get more people on agreement on ALL POSSIBLE points that people believe are unconstitutional (where each signer only has to agree on at least one to sign the complaint), then I'd like to present that to the Democratic Party leaders to fix this ACA mandate by making it optional, due to differences in political beliefs that are infringed upon by this bill.

The maobamacare mandate tax couldn't be challenged until someone actually had to pay it. The courts justification for that philosophy is, there is no harm until the tax is paid. My circumstance prevent me form having to pay the tax or I would be happy to be the plaintiff.

As far as the 2nd goes, people can believe anything they want concerning the militia, but they can't impose it on the rest of us. There is no middle ground, it gives the people the right to keep and bear arms outside any militia. They can feel free not to exercise their rights, that's the way it is now.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Go find another job. Right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Importantly, she is allowed to opt-out of contributing an additional $350 to fund the union’s political advocacy. But Friedrichs and her lawyers say that limited opt-out is not enough.

So she objects to paying for political advocacy that she doesn't have to pay for?

Hilarious.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes I hope she wins too Then let her ask her bosses for raises vacation time sick days etc etc

She will get the benefit of union negotiations (better salary, working conditions) but she doesn't want to pay her share of the costs of those negotiations. Typical freeloading right winger.

Dear BULLDOG Are you saying that ALL workers who receive benefits of sick and vacation days off are "freeloading" off the unions, lobbying and collective bargaining of socialist and labor rights activists?

I've heard this argument before
that we "used to need unions" to fight for better working conditions, wages, benefits, etc.
but once we got our employee rights "we don't need them anymore" (well, at least until the federal regulations get eroded by corporate interests if that political lobbying goes away)

This is similar to arguments
that we don't need affirmative action any more:
it was temporary during the transition culturally to get past segregation and exclusion of Blacks
(while activists who disagree continue to push and complain of racial biases and discrimination)
but now it's "no longer necessary" or causes more problems than it solves

No.Not All workers. Just the ones who benefit from collective bargaining but don't want to do their part to support it. Our employee rights are being stripped daily, and they can't be salvaged without continued collective bargaining.

 

[saveliberty]

This case looks pretty straightforward for the SC. Too bad we can't get them to see PACs and corporations the same way.

 

[emilynghiem]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

Why do we get taxed for opting out of insurance?

Why do I get taxed for not having children?

Tax code has all kinds of write offs .

Timmy
A. Actually the same issues with personal matters of family and children should also be taken out of govt
and handled locally, for similar reasons. If liberals are going to push for separation of church and
state, this is another area where values gets too personal with marriage and family, and need to be
outside of govt and represented by the people. So different values don't get infringed upon and cause conflicts in beliefs.

Health care is as personal as the feds trying to regulate sexual relations through govt and
fining people for having sex outside of marriage that increases risk of spreading diseases,
and giving exemptions to people who join Christian groups with rules against sex outside of marriage.

Too personal, the govt is not designed to regulate people's personal lives and health care.
As many people complain the govt should not reward people with too many children they can't afford
by paying more and more welfare the more children a parent has to feed.
If that were done through charities, the charities can adopt the families for counseling to
help with financial and social stability. But govt is not designed to do one-on-one individual case-by-case work.
So that is why the social programs are failing, and it's the nonprofits that are getting the work done.
Why not just set up the programs directly there with what works, because nonprofits have to be reliable and effective
or they won't get paid; and quit paying failed govt programs that are abused with no accountability?

B. RE: tax writeoffs are the OPPOSITE of how ACA mandates are set up

If ACA had been written as writeoffs it would be different.

It would NOT ADD a requirement to buy anything, but would just SUBTRACT.
Give tax DEDUCTIONS for paying for insurance, for health care, for exchanges,
for payments you make toward medical bills, insurance, health care program development etc.

That's the OPPOSITE of what ACA does.

C. With ACA you aren't allowed to write off paying for health care yourself.
Or investing in building a hospital or nursing program.

You don't have that freedom to handle health care yourself and/or charity for others and write it off.

You'll still be fined ON TOP of what you are already paying
for health care unless you meet preapproved choices that are very limited!

* Unless you buy insurance regulated under ACA
* pay for religious membership in programs approved by ACA
* enroll in exchanges with terms and costs decided by ACA
* you qualify for hardships that require documentation and registering with the ACA marketplace so this is regulated by feds

ACA is like the IRS telling you WHICH companies are APPROVED BY FEDS to buy WHICH THINGS for your kids
to qualify to write off those expenses as exemptions, but not letting you buy them from other companies that don't count.
It is DICTATING how when and where to qualify for exemptions that are very limited and regulated.
It is NOT OPEN to free choice of what to pay for and write it off.

BTW Timmy there was a candidate running for office with this
idea of CHANGING ACA where it is a tax writeoff (and not adding costs by taking money from people's tax returns).
Otherwise this targets people who make more money even if they are paying for
charity hospitals, they are still punished because that's not an approved option!

You don't have free choice of what to write off as exemptions under ACA
yet health care involves individualized choices that can't be regulated the same way for everyone through govt.

C. Also any changes to ACA have to go through CONGRESS.

If we had health care set up on the state or local level
then decisions and policies changes can be decided there.
It is easier per state and district to work with local reps to develop health care.
When we go through Washington, the corporate insurance lobby had more say in
ACA than any citizens, so that's who got the biggest payments out of it. The insurance
companies got paid trillions to set up their end. Did any of that money go to citizens
to buy insurance from those companies? Why did they get paid for their costs they
demanded in order to agree to the terms, but citizens did not get to demand what
costs we want to be paid in advance cover before WE AGREE TO THE TERMS?

That's only paying one side of the contract to get them to agree, the insurance lobbyists.
Nobody asked the citizens if we agreed to pay under these terms, before "signing our names to this contract."

Timmy do you know the DIFFERENCE between
controlling laws and regs in WASHINGTON vs. going through your STATE?

Your exemptions are regulated at the federal level,
although health care is a personal decision at a local level.

Timmy
This ACA would be like adding an ADDITIONAL requirement to the tax code
that you have to go out and PAY FOR A CHILD OR ELSE GET AN ADDITIONAL FINE.
And your choices of "how to pay for a child" are all dictated by federal govt,
or else you will get fined anyway if you pay "any other way."

That isn't free choice and it isn't the role of federal govt to dictate that
and fine people for not following terms we didn't get to vote on,
when this "business contract" involves personal financial and health care decisions.

I never agreed to give up my freedom to govt at this level.
What makes you think anyone in Congress or federal govt has the right to pass laws treating me like a criminal and fining me in advance where I cannot choose which charity programs I find most efficient in helping with health care for the poor?

Why do the nonprofits that actually heal diseases for free, and cut costs of crime and medical bills NOT COUNT as exemptions. But the corporate insurance lobbies can add the mandate into the law to make sure THEY get paid by forcing citizens to buy insurance from them?

The reason Obama could not drop that mandate is "he made a deal with insurance companies."
Why didn't he consult with the taxpayers who were also made part of this deal?