Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Silly Dante. You don't challenge me.
You side with the argument of Dante or retardreb?
A person who communicates in third person calling me retard?
When a person talks in third person shows a sign of insanity
So the retarded blather that you speak is just that retarded
Silly Dante. You don't challenge me.
You side with the argument of Dante or retardreb?
A person who communicates in third person calling me retard?
When a person talks in third person shows a sign of insanity
So the retarded blather that you speak is just that retarded
Wingnuts are stuck focusing on comments and arguments over the validity of the legal arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate as oppossed to the ruling itself
There were multiple arguments. Some were considered invalid, some were ruled valid. But the mandate itself was ruled constitutional.
Frigging wingnut world is too fucking funny
Sigh. Sometimes I wish I could just slap Roberts. But he ruled correctly. I hate that he did that.
You side with the argument of Dante or retardreb?
A person who communicates in third person calling me retard?
When a person talks in third person shows a sign of insanity
So the retarded blather that you speak is just that retarded
Conservative Republican standard bearer and party nominee Bob Dole
nuf said
you're an ignorant bastard I posted two links move on dumb ass.
Your link(s) disagree with Roberts.
Post a quote from the ruling that supports your inane position. You won't because you can't. It doesn't exist outside of tbe Rightwing Noise Machine Circle Jerk Chamber
page 9
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Wingnuts are stuck focusing on comments and arguments over the validity of the legal arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate as oppossed to the ruling itself
There were multiple arguments. Some were considered invalid, some were ruled valid. But the mandate itself was ruled constitutional.
Frigging wingnut world is too fucking funny
Sigh. Sometimes I wish I could just slap Roberts. But he ruled correctly. I hate that he did that.
You side with the argument of Dante or retardreb?
A person who communicates in third person calling me retard?
When a person talks in third person shows a sign of insanity
So the retarded blather that you speak is just that retarded
Or he's hinting that he might be both Dante and retardreb... just sayin, there are useful reasons for 3rd party speech. One might think, no?
Wingnuts are stuck focusing on comments and arguments over the validity of the legal arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate as oppossed to the ruling itself
There were multiple arguments. Some were considered invalid, some were ruled valid. But the mandate itself was ruled constitutional.
Frigging wingnut world is too fucking funny
Sigh. Sometimes I wish I could just slap Roberts. But he ruled correctly. I hate that he did that.
I don't agree. He endorsed discriminatory taxation, a clear violation of equal protection.
Your link(s) disagree with Roberts.
Post a quote from the ruling that supports your inane position. You won't because you can't. It doesn't exist outside of tbe Rightwing Noise Machine Circle Jerk Chamber
page 9
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
SHAME!
Still afraid to post a full context quote? Of course that would expose you as the fraud and imbecile you truly are
Loser
Geesh, can you really be this dense?
Wingnuts are stuck focusing on comments and arguments over the validity of the legal arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate as oppossed to the ruling itself
There were multiple arguments. Some were considered invalid, some were ruled valid. But the mandate itself was ruled constitutional.
Frigging wingnut world is too fucking funny
Sigh. Sometimes I wish I could just slap Roberts. But he ruled correctly. I hate that he did that.
I'll agree on the tax part which was how obamacare was ruled constitutional.
An argument with no merit
Wingnuts are stuck focusing on comments and arguments over the validity of the legal arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate as oppossed to the ruling itself
There were multiple arguments. Some were considered invalid, some were ruled valid. But the mandate itself was ruled constitutional.
Frigging wingnut world is too fucking funny
Sigh. Sometimes I wish I could just slap Roberts. But he ruled correctly. I hate that he did that.
I don't agree. He endorsed discriminatory taxation, a clear violation of equal protection.
Dense is when someone post a link that refutes what the other person says and that person continues to argue about it.Geesh, can you really be this dense?Sigh. Sometimes I wish I could just slap Roberts. But he ruled correctly. I hate that he did that.
I'll agree on the tax part which was how obamacare was ruled constitutional.
You are confusing rulings on the validity of arguments with the ruling on the case before the court?
The "share responsibilty payment" in the Individual Mandate is codified as a penalty. Roberts ruled the penalty 'functions' asa tax for the purposes of constitutional argument. CJ Roberts did NOT change the wording of the law.
The 'shared responsibilty payment' was ruled constitutional under the Constitutions tax and spend clause
SHAME!
Still afraid to post a full context quote? Of course that would expose you as the fraud and imbecile you truly are
Loser
I can't post from the link because the link doesn't allow are you to fucking lazy to click on the link? hows that for a fail on your part?
SHAME!
Still afraid to post a full context quote? Of course that would expose you as the fraud and imbecile you truly are
Loser
I can't post from the link because the link doesn't allow are you to fucking lazy to click on the link? hows that for a fail on your part?
Quote: "The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfThe Governments tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads no vehicles in the park might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: [T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act. Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).
The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance.
After all, it states that individuals shall maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Governments alternative reading of the statutethat it only imposes a tax on those without insuranceis a reasonable one.
Quote Having held the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, the majority examined whether that provision could be severed from the remainder of the Act. The majority determined that, contrary to the District Courts view, it could. The court thus struck down only the individual mandate, leaving the Acts other provisions intact.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfThe Governments tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads no vehicles in the park might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: [T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act. Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).
The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance.
After all, it states that individuals shall maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Governments alternative reading of the statutethat it only imposes a tax on those without insuranceis a reasonable one.
,..,,.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfThe Government’s tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).
The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance.
After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
,..,,.
one more time
Having held the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, the majority examined whether that provision could be severed from the remainder of the Act. The majority determined that, contrary to the District Court’s view, it could. The court thus struck down only the individual mandate, leaving the Act’s other provisions intact.
