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.
The health of the people is a national interest. It is an economic national interest. It is a national security interest.
Therefore the federal government, which if nothing else has the constitutional authority to protect this nation's interests,
has the authority to involve itself in healthcare.
ROFL marx has nothing on you. Be proud comrade wave that red flag!
How can the health of a nation's people not be a national interest?
We have a national system of government healthcare for veterans. Is that unconstitutional?
We have government doctors and nurses, etc., etc., in a government healthcare system in the military.
Is that unconstitutional?
Ehh.. IMO he did not endorse it. He merely said it's constitutional. And he would be right. If you don't like undue taxes you have to put in different elected leaders. If you don't like income taxes you have to redact the 16th amendment.Actually Chief Justice Roberts "shoehorned" it. Please try to keep up.
Actually, John Roberts, fuck be upon him, just said it's all good because it's a tax and Congress apparently has almost no limit to taxation powers whatsoever.
Poll taxes are a no go, but taxed for being alive is somehow kosher.
They key thing he endorsed was discriminatory taxation - the idea that taxes can be used as a tool to dictate behavior. This is, of course, not the purpose of granting government the power to levy taxes, but legislators long ago learned it could be used to do an end run around limitations on government power.
ROFL marx has nothing on you. Be proud comrade wave that red flag!
How can the health of a nation's people not be a national interest?
We have a national system of government healthcare for veterans. Is that unconstitutional?
We have government doctors and nurses, etc., etc., in a government healthcare system in the military.
Is that unconstitutional?
The health of the nation is in the interest of the nation. Redistributing income isn't.
The military are our employ. Employers provide healthcare for their employees. It is our duty as employers to pay for injuries incurred by our employ while they are on duty.
Ehh.. IMO he did not endorse it. He merely said it's constitutional. And he would be right. If you don't like undue taxes you have to put in different elected leaders. If you don't like income taxes you have to redact the 16th amendment.Actually, John Roberts, fuck be upon him, just said it's all good because it's a tax and Congress apparently has almost no limit to taxation powers whatsoever.
Poll taxes are a no go, but taxed for being alive is somehow kosher.
They key thing he endorsed was discriminatory taxation - the idea that taxes can be used as a tool to dictate behavior. This is, of course, not the purpose of granting government the power to levy taxes, but legislators long ago learned it could be used to do an end run around limitations on government power.
Ehh.. IMO he did not endorse it. He merely said it's constitutional. And he would be right. If you don't like undue taxes you have to put in different elected leaders. If you don't like income taxes you have to redact the 16th amendment.They key thing he endorsed was discriminatory taxation - the idea that taxes can be used as a tool to dictate behavior. This is, of course, not the purpose of granting government the power to levy taxes, but legislators long ago learned it could be used to do an end run around limitations on government power.
It's not a question of undue taxes, it's the tactic of using taxes as a means of coercing behavior. And he endorsed that explicitly in his decision.
Ehh.. IMO he did not endorse it. He merely said it's constitutional. And he would be right. If you don't like undue taxes you have to put in different elected leaders. If you don't like income taxes you have to redact the 16th amendment.
It's not a question of undue taxes, it's the tactic of using taxes as a means of coercing behavior. And he endorsed that explicitly in his decision.
Endorsed? Ok I'll read it and post back. I'm in disbelief.
Roberts is a Whore said:Congresss use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can.
It's not a question of undue taxes, it's the tactic of using taxes as a means of coercing behavior. And he endorsed that explicitly in his decision.
Endorsed? Ok I'll read it and post back. I'm in disbelief.
Here's one snippet -
Roberts is a Whore said:Congresss use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.
Endorse: to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something).
No, I don't see Roberts endorsing the tactic of using taxes as a means of coercing behavior.
At best you could argue that Roberts refused to legislate from the bench to the benefit of his conservative values.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.
Endorse: to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something).
No, I don't see Roberts endorsing the tactic of using taxes as a means of coercing behavior.
Ok, so you want to equivocate on the meaning of 'endorse'? Whatever.
The point is, he cited Congress's power to coerce behavior through taxation as an acceptable practice.
At best you could argue that Roberts refused to legislate from the bench to the benefit of his conservative values.
What is your opinion on the practice? Should Congress be able to use the taxation power to dictate our behavior when no other power grants them that ability?
Typicall rhetorical class from a shit stained texan. texas grammar101.Get you lips off my ass hole. I don't feel like giving you shit.
Wow. Had you not posted this gem I would never have guessed you completed the third grade. Congratulations, you are almost literate. Your use of vulgar prose is accomplished, you can now feel fee to write on the walls of public restrooms, you are that good. A rare accomplishment for a Texan.
All you are good at is stealing money from grandma to pay for your welfare. You are the scum of the earth. You accuse republicans of hoarding cash to kill people. Then wonder why you get vulgar comments in response. You are a TROLL. I spit on your face. I urinate on your shoes. I slap you. Run away little Troll.
Typicall rhetorical class from a shit stained texan. texas grammar101.Wow. Had you not posted this gem I would never have guessed you completed the third grade. Congratulations, you are almost literate. Your use of vulgar prose is accomplished, you can now feel fee to write on the walls of public restrooms, you are that good. A rare accomplishment for a Texan.
All you are good at is stealing money from grandma to pay for your welfare. You are the scum of the earth. You accuse republicans of hoarding cash to kill people. Then wonder why you get vulgar comments in response. You are a TROLL. I spit on your face. I urinate on your shoes. I slap you. Run away little Troll.
I know all about those pointed texas boots used to kick cochroaches in corners.Typicall rhetorical class from a shit stained texan. texas grammar101.All you are good at is stealing money from grandma to pay for your welfare. You are the scum of the earth. You accuse republicans of hoarding cash to kill people. Then wonder why you get vulgar comments in response. You are a TROLL. I spit on your face. I urinate on your shoes. I slap you. Run away little Troll.
Shit on me and mine and you'll get a boot in your ass every time schnook.
I can't say the same for the other judges, but Roberts was put between a rock and a hard place.
I can't say the same for the other judges, but Roberts was put between a rock and a hard place.
BS. All roberts had to say is "setting up a health care system is NOT a listed power of congress and hence the ACA is unconstitutional". Instead he took a bribe and ok'd it.
I can't say the same for the other judges, but Roberts was put between a rock and a hard place.
BS. All roberts had to say is "setting up a health care system is NOT a listed power of congress and hence the ACA is unconstitutional". Instead he took a bribe and ok'd it.
You are confused. Setting up a health care system was not up for debate by the SCOTUS. The issue brought to them through the federal court system was the whether or not the mandate/tax if you don't buy insurance is constitutional or not.
Just as we have a tax break that only applies to people who buy homes, another for people that spend money on education, ... this is a tax break so to speak for people who buy insurance.
IMO it sucks that government legislates behavior through taxation, but that is where we are at. Don't like it? You need to change the Constitution, or change the elected representatives.
The issue you bring up, that of setting up the health care system, that will be another thing the SCOTUS gets to look at, if they so desire, and if it gets through the federal court system. You'll note the exchanges are being run by the states. I've got a bad feeling that we are screwed.
AYUP.. the conservatives were hoping beyond hope that Roberts would become an activist judge for that one ruling. I was ticked too when it happened, but after calming down ... yeah he had no choice. The democrats lied, it was a tax. I was hoping they could throw it out because they lied calling it a mandate to get it through but alas... the procedural steps used by congress were not up for debate.BS. All roberts had to say is "setting up a health care system is NOT a listed power of congress and hence the ACA is unconstitutional". Instead he took a bribe and ok'd it.
You are confused. Setting up a health care system was not up for debate by the SCOTUS. The issue brought to them through the federal court system was the whether or not the mandate/tax if you don't buy insurance is constitutional or not.
Just as we have a tax break that only applies to people who buy homes, another for people that spend money on education, ... this is a tax break so to speak for people who buy insurance.
IMO it sucks that government legislates behavior through taxation, but that is where we are at. Don't like it? You need to change the Constitution, or change the elected representatives.
The issue you bring up, that of setting up the health care system, that will be another thing the SCOTUS gets to look at, if they so desire, and if it gets through the federal court system. You'll note the exchanges are being run by the states. I've got a bad feeling that we are screwed.
Taxation that alters behavior is as American as apple pie. Some of the first laws passed under the Constitution were tax laws that changed behavior. All tax laws probably change behavior even those tax laws passed just for revenue.
