On Trump and his administration policies

[Slade3200]

Didn't you say, "The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state."? I just gave you a sneak peek how that might look.


.

Yeah, i'm a small government guy, and protecting personal freedoms on the side of what I consider right and wrong. You are the one advocating for locking up people with substance abuse problems. It was a stupid statement so lets just chalk that one up to another one of your non voluntary verbal diarrheas

Really, where did I say anything about people with a substance abuse problem. Find the quote, I'll wait.


.

You didn't, I apologize, I got you confused with BluesLegend who was saying that he wanted to see people with drug or alcohol problems thrown in jail with a mandatory sentence of 20 years. Sick huh?

I changed my mind, 25 years.

I found a national geographic documentary on MJ. It reviews the drugs history and goes into tremendous detail on the medicinal benefits of the drug. Sounds like like pretty strong justification to legalize at least on a medical level. Whats this, I even have a LINK!

Wow, look at this... another National Geographic Documentary, jump to 26 minutes and see how the MJ scene has cleaned up and turned around a neighborhood in Oakland that they are calling Oaksterdam.

 

[OKTexas]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

I voted yes and I think he should start with the State run cartels. He should seize the property of the growers and sellers and all taxes collected by the States. We are a nation of laws selective enforcement is not an option. You don't like a law get your congresscritters to change it..

Do you ever consider the pros and cons of MJ's prohibition? MJ is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, medically; it's prohibition has created a massive black market, and put in jail and prisons non violent offenders at great cost to local and state budgets. Revenue from a well regulated and taxed state approval of recreational use will provide revenue for treatment to those who abuse Alcohol and other drugs.

BTW, I'm not a user of MJ, my experience with the drug during my college years wasn't exactly euphoric - it made me sleepy and hungry.

Have you ever considered there are no nonviolent crimes in the illegal drug trade, every transaction, no matter how innocent it may seem, contributes to the massive flows of cash that are getting people killed every day.

If you think the States aren't spending money locking up black market dealers that continue to operate even in States where recreational use is legalized, you are delusional. The States have even more incentive to do so, because the black marketeers are now direct competition and cutting into their revenues, the same reason one cartel goes after another.

The only real answer is total decriminalization, where anyone can grow what ever they want in any quantity they want and sell to anyone they want. That would flood the market with so much product that organized enterprises would no longer be profitable. Is that what you want, total deregulation, no taxes, no nothing.


.

 

[Slade3200]

The only real answer is total decriminalization, where anyone can grow what ever they want in any quantity they want and sell to anyone they want. That would flood the market with so much product that organized enterprises would no longer be profitable. Is that what you want, total deregulation, no taxes, no nothing.
.

Sounds like you are starting to get it. Kudos. I mean that sincerely. The only part you are missing is the no taxes and no enterprise. People are chomping at the bit to start a MJ business or work for one. The black market dealers can sell directly to the stores in a legit way and be suppliers... the vast majority of people would rather buy from a store than a gangster on a street corner. Tax revenue will clean up cities and fund education and rehab... the states will save billions on enforcement, arrests, and jailings will adding billions in revenue. its a win win win

 

[OKTexas]

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

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

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

 

[OKTexas]

The only real answer is total decriminalization, where anyone can grow what ever they want in any quantity they want and sell to anyone they want. That would flood the market with so much product that organized enterprises would no longer be profitable. Is that what you want, total deregulation, no taxes, no nothing.
.

Sounds like you are starting to get it. Kudos. I mean that sincerely. The only part you are missing is the no taxes and no enterprise. People are chomping at the bit to start a MJ business or work for one. The black market dealers can sell directly to the stores in a legit way and be suppliers... the vast majority of people would rather buy from a store than a gangster on a street corner. Tax revenue will clean up cities and fund education and rehab... the states will save billions on enforcement, arrests, and jailings will adding billions in revenue. its a win win win

Why sell to a store when you can sell directly to the customer for more? Sellers would be on Ebay and Amazon where they avoid the tax stream, just like they are with other products now.


.

 

[Slade3200]

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

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

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

What was rewritten? Show me the old text and the new text.

The courts legislating from the bench is another dishonest talking point. They are interpreting law and stating what the constitution allows and doesn't allow in reference to government laws and actions. Though I have said that the ACA decision is right to be questioned and scrutinized as we don't want there to be too much overreach by the courts

 

[Slade3200]

The only real answer is total decriminalization, where anyone can grow what ever they want in any quantity they want and sell to anyone they want. That would flood the market with so much product that organized enterprises would no longer be profitable. Is that what you want, total deregulation, no taxes, no nothing.
.

Sounds like you are starting to get it. Kudos. I mean that sincerely. The only part you are missing is the no taxes and no enterprise. People are chomping at the bit to start a MJ business or work for one. The black market dealers can sell directly to the stores in a legit way and be suppliers... the vast majority of people would rather buy from a store than a gangster on a street corner. Tax revenue will clean up cities and fund education and rehab... the states will save billions on enforcement, arrests, and jailings will adding billions in revenue. its a win win win

Why sell to a store when you can sell directly to the customer for more? Sellers would be on Ebay and Amazon where they avoid the tax stream, just like they are with other products now.


.

Its the path of least resistance... selling to stores would be much easier and legal so there is no risk. They can take the risk and sell to the open market but then they may face fines or penalties if they get caught.

 

[bendog]

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

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

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

 

[OKTexas]

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

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

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

What was rewritten? Show me the old text and the new text.

The courts legislating from the bench is another dishonest talking point. They are interpreting law and stating what the constitution allows and doesn't allow in reference to government laws and actions. Though I have said that the ACA decision is right to be questioned and scrutinized as we don't want there to be too much overreach by the courts

The word "penalty" replaced by the word "tax" 16 times and the restriction on subsidies was removed 9 times. There are plenty of articles out on the net, feel free to look them up.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

What was rewritten? Show me the old text and the new text.

The courts legislating from the bench is another dishonest talking point. They are interpreting law and stating what the constitution allows and doesn't allow in reference to government laws and actions. Though I have said that the ACA decision is right to be questioned and scrutinized as we don't want there to be too much overreach by the courts

The word "penalty" replaced by the word "tax" 16 times and the restriction on subsidies was removed 9 times. There are plenty of articles out on the net, feel free to look them up.


.

I've seen articles but I always go back to the actual text of the law and the actual text of the SCOTUS decision. Interpreting whether a "penalty" is a fine under the commerce act or whether it is a tax penalty enforced by the IRS is not rewriting the law it is saying which enforcement actions are constitutional and not.

 

[OKTexas]

The only real answer is total decriminalization, where anyone can grow what ever they want in any quantity they want and sell to anyone they want. That would flood the market with so much product that organized enterprises would no longer be profitable. Is that what you want, total deregulation, no taxes, no nothing.
.

Sounds like you are starting to get it. Kudos. I mean that sincerely. The only part you are missing is the no taxes and no enterprise. People are chomping at the bit to start a MJ business or work for one. The black market dealers can sell directly to the stores in a legit way and be suppliers... the vast majority of people would rather buy from a store than a gangster on a street corner. Tax revenue will clean up cities and fund education and rehab... the states will save billions on enforcement, arrests, and jailings will adding billions in revenue. its a win win win

Why sell to a store when you can sell directly to the customer for more? Sellers would be on Ebay and Amazon where they avoid the tax stream, just like they are with other products now.


.

Its the path of least resistance... selling to stores would be much easier and legal so there is no risk. They can take the risk and sell to the open market but then they may face fines or penalties if they get caught.

So you're not in favor of total deregulation and decriminalization? Typical regressive, you want your cake and eat it too. LMAO

 

[Slade3200]

The only real answer is total decriminalization, where anyone can grow what ever they want in any quantity they want and sell to anyone they want. That would flood the market with so much product that organized enterprises would no longer be profitable. Is that what you want, total deregulation, no taxes, no nothing.
.

Sounds like you are starting to get it. Kudos. I mean that sincerely. The only part you are missing is the no taxes and no enterprise. People are chomping at the bit to start a MJ business or work for one. The black market dealers can sell directly to the stores in a legit way and be suppliers... the vast majority of people would rather buy from a store than a gangster on a street corner. Tax revenue will clean up cities and fund education and rehab... the states will save billions on enforcement, arrests, and jailings will adding billions in revenue. its a win win win

Why sell to a store when you can sell directly to the customer for more? Sellers would be on Ebay and Amazon where they avoid the tax stream, just like they are with other products now.


.

Its the path of least resistance... selling to stores would be much easier and legal so there is no risk. They can take the risk and sell to the open market but then they may face fines or penalties if they get caught.

So you're not in favor of total deregulation and decriminalization? Typical regressive, you want your cake and eat it too. LMAO

What are you talking about? It is a controlled substance like tobacco and alcohol, of course I support a responsible approach to how it is regulated in our commerce. What point are you trying to make? It sounds like you are against legalization but trying to attack supporters of legalization for not wanting complete deregulation. Is that really what you are trying to say?

 

[OKTexas]

This is what I said, it's a shame you lack the ability to recognize items separated by commas can stand alone. So technically I provided 3 examples of courts exceeding their authority. Just because you happen to focus on one of the 3 is on you, not me.

I explained how they rewrote the ACA. They turned an unconstitutional penalty into an unconstitutional tax.

Why is the tax unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

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

The only exception to this lies in the 16 Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tell me oh wise one, is not having health insurance, income? The short answer is HELL NO! It's added after you pay the tax on your income. Hence the tax invented by Roberts is, on it's face, unconstitutional because it is assessed over and above the requirements allowed by the 16th, it doesn't matter at all who collects it or what mechanisms are used to calculate it.

As for the second rewrite, I'll try to keep it simple as I can.

The law says 9 times that subsidies can only be paid for insurance purchased in State exchanges. Even though the congress said it 9 times, the court decided that wasn't really what they meant. REALLY? They said it 9 times, what other intent could be derived?

Oh, I forgot something else. Congress routinely adds a severability clause, which allows the courts to strike down portions of a law they find objectionable and uphold the remainder of the law. The ACA had no such clause, so if the court found one word unconstitutional, which they did, they were duty bound to strike the law in its entirety, just as the circuit court in FL ruled.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

That's as simple as I can make it, if you still don't understand, get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

 

[bendog]

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

You THINK you've proven something. And no thanks, I was doing constitutional limitations over 20 years ago. Your limitations are simply that you've never had to acknowledge other views, which is why law school would be a interesting use of your intellect.

As for me ... Obamacare is just a speedbump on the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.

 

[Slade3200]

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. What part of the law did he write? It is the SCOTUS job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. He justified the constitutionality of the mandate through the tax clause while stating that it was unconstitutional to charge a penalty under the commerce clause. I fully agree that his justification of the the matter was controversial and a fair debate can be had about its constitutionality. There were obviously difference of opinions amongst the judges, but that is our process, it is how we dictate our laws and decide the proper course. We can tax income, we can tax property, we can offer loopholes and credits, now we have a tax penalty for not being insured. The whole code is way to corrupt and complicated and needs to be reevaluated in my opinion.

Your subsidies argument was a clear attempt by the GOP to undermine the law. They lawyered up and went after whatever they could to make it fail. The decision to uphold subsidies for federal exchanges passed 6-3 so even some of the right leaning judges don't agree with you.

As for severability, the ACA did include severability in the medicaid expansion section
42 U. S. C. ?1303 so your statement that there was none in the ACA is incorrect. Since the individual mandate was upheld through the tax clause there was no need to have a severability decision.

The SCOTUS is the "referee" between disputes. They point out when a congressional law or presidential action is unconstitutional. They do this by interpreting the actions, regulations, and enforcement of these bodies and judge what is permitted by our constitution. That is the process dictated by the constitution through the powers of Congress. I understand the conflicts that you bring up. But you should also respect the decisions made or fight to change the process. Congress has power over how the supreme court operates. There is always room to evolve in a democracy.

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

Im curious... Do you consider Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs as unconstitutional direct taxes?

 

[OKTexas]

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

What was rewritten? Show me the old text and the new text.

The courts legislating from the bench is another dishonest talking point. They are interpreting law and stating what the constitution allows and doesn't allow in reference to government laws and actions. Though I have said that the ACA decision is right to be questioned and scrutinized as we don't want there to be too much overreach by the courts

The word "penalty" replaced by the word "tax" 16 times and the restriction on subsidies was removed 9 times. There are plenty of articles out on the net, feel free to look them up.


.

I've seen articles but I always go back to the actual text of the law and the actual text of the SCOTUS decision. Interpreting whether a "penalty" is a fine under the commerce act or whether it is a tax penalty enforced by the IRS is not rewriting the law it is saying which enforcement actions are constitutional and not.

If you read the 200 plus pages of the original decision then you got a great education in circular logic. Roberts bent himself in ways never intended by nature or the law to arrive at it. The dissenting opinion is a bit more straight forward and logical. Also feel free to show where the Constitution, as amended, provides for a direct tax for not having government approved health insurance, I've provided evidence it doesn't.


Here's one source.


Changes By The Supreme Court:

68.) Medicaid expansion made voluntary: The court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that it was voluntary, rather than mandatory, for states to expand Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 138% of poverty. The court rewrote the statute to say the federal government could not block funds for existing state Medicaid programs if states choose not to expand the program. (June 28, 2012)

69.) The individual mandate made a tax: The court also decided that violating the law’s mandate that Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance would not produce a “penalty,” as stated in the legislation, but rather would result in individuals’ paying a “tax.” Paying a tax would make it, legally speaking, optional for people to comply and therefore would not violate the U.S. Constitution. (June 28, 2012)

70.) The law doesn’t mean what it says: In King v. Burwell, the court overruled the plain meaning of the ACA limiting tax credits to people living in states that created their own exchanges – cited seven times in the law – and instead allowed tax credits for insurance purchased through federally-facilitated exchanges as well. (June 25, 2015)

70 Changes to ObamaCare… — So Far

I don't know exactly how the changes dictated by the court are incorporated in the written law but they do alter the function, which is rewriting the law. This article says the law restricted subsidizes 7 times, I've read others that said 9.


.

 

[bendog]

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

Im curious... Do you consider Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs as unconstitutional direct taxes?

It's impossible for me to follow whether he's talking about Medicaid expansion, the individ. mandate as a tax, or what.

page 40 of the opinion discusses taxes. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Of course the dissents have other views, but Roberts is right that one has never been able to avoid a tax merely by choosing NOT to do something. The examples from the Founders days are .. many. But more apt today, if you choose not to marry, you have paid a penalty. Choosing not to procreate .... Choosing not to buy a house. He may be trying to make some bastardized argument that "direct" taxes must be evenly levied, but that was abandoned long ago.

It's just that the sources he uses are pretty wingnut. The Scotus blog has a "plain English" feature.

 

[Slade3200]

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

What was rewritten? Show me the old text and the new text.

The courts legislating from the bench is another dishonest talking point. They are interpreting law and stating what the constitution allows and doesn't allow in reference to government laws and actions. Though I have said that the ACA decision is right to be questioned and scrutinized as we don't want there to be too much overreach by the courts

The word "penalty" replaced by the word "tax" 16 times and the restriction on subsidies was removed 9 times. There are plenty of articles out on the net, feel free to look them up.


.

I've seen articles but I always go back to the actual text of the law and the actual text of the SCOTUS decision. Interpreting whether a "penalty" is a fine under the commerce act or whether it is a tax penalty enforced by the IRS is not rewriting the law it is saying which enforcement actions are constitutional and not.

If you read the 200 plus pages of the original decision then you got a great education in circular logic. Roberts bent himself in ways never intended by nature or the law to arrive at it. The dissenting opinion is a bit more straight forward and logical. Also feel free to show where the Constitution, as amended, provides for a direct tax for not having government approved health insurance, I've provided evidence it doesn't.


Here's one source.


Changes By The Supreme Court:

68.) Medicaid expansion made voluntary: The court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that it was voluntary, rather than mandatory, for states to expand Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 138% of poverty. The court rewrote the statute to say the federal government could not block funds for existing state Medicaid programs if states choose not to expand the program. (June 28, 2012)

69.) The individual mandate made a tax: The court also decided that violating the law’s mandate that Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance would not produce a “penalty,” as stated in the legislation, but rather would result in individuals’ paying a “tax.” Paying a tax would make it, legally speaking, optional for people to comply and therefore would not violate the U.S. Constitution. (June 28, 2012)

70.) The law doesn’t mean what it says: In King v. Burwell, the court overruled the plain meaning of the ACA limiting tax credits to people living in states that created their own exchanges – cited seven times in the law – and instead allowed tax credits for insurance purchased through federally-facilitated exchanges as well. (June 25, 2015)

70 Changes to ObamaCare… — So Far

I don't know exactly how the changes dictated by the court are incorporated in the written law but they do alter the function, which is rewriting the law. This article says the law restricted subsidizes 7 times, I've read others that said 9.


.

This is the problem when you read opinion articles, especially biased ones. They are full of implications and often include false or misleading facts. Best to see that actual laws, texts and writings to verify the claims you read about from pundits. So far is sounds like a lot of demonizing accusations but not concrete facts to back up how everything played out.

The other question that comes from this is, does the SCOTUS have the right and power to dictate or advise about implementation of policy and law? If a law is passed and challenged can the supreme court decide and define which actions are appropriate and inappropriate under the constitution. To me, that makes sense. The notion of "precedent" based on the SCOTUS decisions is what has molded our laws and kept the implementation and execution in check. If every law that was challenged was completely overturned for minor elements that were executed unconstitutionally then it would result in a lot of chaos and gridlock, don't you think?

 

[OKTexas]

Once again black letter law says it was a penalty, not a tax, the court found the penalty unconstitutional, they should have returned it to congress to fix, they have no authority to decree a fix. Of course they, as with all the feds, are only interested in expanding its reach and authority. There is no consistency in the court, they use intent or letter of the law which ever is most convenient to reach the decision they desire. It is not the courts function to salvage badly written legislation as Roberts suggested, it's their duty to strike it down if it's unenforceable as written.

Oh and then there's this.

Judge Vinson based this decision on the fact that, before passing the Health Care Act, Congress removed a severability provision from an earlier draft of the law.Further, Judge Vinson reasoned that, by removing the severability clause, Congress showed that the Health Care Act needed the minimum coverage provision to function properly.

Severability Preview » US Supreme Court Health Care ("Obamacare") Cases


.

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

You THINK you've proven something. And no thanks, I was doing constitutional limitations over 20 years ago. Your limitations are simply that you've never had to acknowledge other views, which is why law school would be a interesting use of your intellect.

As for me ... Obamacare is just a speedbump on the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

 

[Slade3200]

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

You THINK you've proven something. And no thanks, I was doing constitutional limitations over 20 years ago. Your limitations are simply that you've never had to acknowledge other views, which is why law school would be a interesting use of your intellect.

As for me ... Obamacare is just a speedbump on the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?