Post Reply
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Supreme Court: Playing the States Rights Game Or Translating Law?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 9:25PM #21
Bodean
Posts: 9,702

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:09PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:19PM, nnsecu wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.






One of the major challenges Obama and his idiot followers had, was saying that it was a tax and under the Anti-Injunction Act could not be challenged until 2014 when it went into effect.



So its only a tax if it can delay the court ruling to knock it down and its not a tax if the court could rule that tax unconstitutional? 




Ok...I've got to read all of these [poll] sites, drawout listed. But, in the mean time, do you think that someone is trying to pretend that the President said that the individual mandate is a tax? Why would anyone do that? They are perpetrating a great big whammy!!!





Sometimes I wonder .... sometimes I'm sure.


1) Obamacare passed as I described would have flown throught the courts.  There is already precedent for it in the rulings with S.S. and Medicare.


2) YES .. Obama is trying to say the "penalty" is a tax, based on the premise that it is collected by the IRS. [dang vc .. where have you been??]

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 1:05PM #22
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:




1) Obamacare passed as I described would have flown throught the courts.  There is already precedent for it in the rulings with S.S. and Medicare.


True.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:


2) YES .. Obama is trying to say the "penalty" is a tax, based on the premise that it is collected by the IRS. [dang vc .. where have you been??]




False.


The President and everyone involved with the Affordable Care Act, has said that the individual mandate IS NOT A TAX. Those who don't purchase insurance will pay a penalty. I wonder if it will be like medicare...where if you don't purchase it when you turn 65...you will pay a penalty for all the years you didn't have it, if you need it later!


The individual mandate is not a TAX...repeat...it is not a tax.  If it were a tax it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


The far-wrong wingers are spreading the [IT'S A TAX] story.  But, they know that they are not telling the truth.


Hear ye, hear ye! The individual mandate is not a TAX!!!

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 1:53PM #23
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,552

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:05PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:




1) Obamacare passed as I described would have flown throught the courts.  There is already precedent for it in the rulings with S.S. and Medicare.


True.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:


2) YES .. Obama is trying to say the "penalty" is a tax, based on the premise that it is collected by the IRS. [dang vc .. where have you been??]




False.


The President and everyone involved with the Affordable Care Act, has said that the individual mandate IS NOT A TAX. Those who don't purchase insurance will pay a penalty. I wonder if it will be like medicare...where if you don't purchase it when you turn 65...you will pay a penalty for all the years you didn't have it, if you need it later!


The individual mandate is not a TAX...repeat...it is not a tax.  If it were a tax it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


The far-wrong wingers are spreading the [IT'S A TAX] story.  But, they know that they are not telling the truth.


Hear ye, hear ye! The individual mandate is not a TAX!!!





You should re-look at post #17 which shows that you're wrong. Obama claimed it wasn't a tax and now that it's being challenged by the court his administration is claiming that it is a tax. If it's a tax it's constitutional.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 2:40PM #24
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,722

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.




?


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.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 3:11PM #25
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:05PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:




1) Obamacare passed as I described would have flown throught the courts.  There is already precedent for it in the rulings with S.S. and Medicare.


True.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Bodean wrote:


2) YES .. Obama is trying to say the "penalty" is a tax, based on the premise that it is collected by the IRS. [dang vc .. where have you been??]




False.


The President and everyone involved with the Affordable Care Act, has said that the individual mandate IS NOT A TAX. Those who don't purchase insurance will pay a penalty. I wonder if it will be like medicare...where if you don't purchase it when you turn 65...you will pay a penalty for all the years you didn't have it, if you need it later!


The individual mandate is not a TAX...repeat...it is not a tax.  If it were a tax it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


The far-wrong wingers are spreading the [IT'S A TAX] story.  But, they know that they are not telling the truth.


Hear ye, hear ye! The individual mandate is not a TAX!!!





You should re-look at post #17 which shows that you're wrong. Obama claimed it wasn't a tax and now that it's being challenged by the court his administration is claiming that it is a tax. If it's a tax it's constitutional.




I wonder if someone forgot to quote the whole passage in the constitution!


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [... and] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes [...]  And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof


I just looked at post #17.


WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”


And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.


Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.


Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.


In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.


Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.


While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.


“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”


When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”


Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.


Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.


Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.


“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”


The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.


Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.


In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”


Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.


Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.


Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”


Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.


Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.


“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.


In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”


In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.


In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.


The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.



Ah, ok I think I see what's going on! The "right" wants the President to say he's raising taxes. "Oh what a tangled web we weave..." 


 

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 3:18PM #26
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:40PM, Nepenthe wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.




?


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.




I hear ya, but, I don't think the issue is does Congress have the power to collect taxes; I think the issue is...regulating commerce among the several States






 




"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 3:44PM #27
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

 


What judges said who declared the individual mandate to be unconstitutional.


www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/health...


 

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 11:01AM #28
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. I usually (always) learn something when I ask a question on this board...but this time I haven't learned anything. Actually I'm more confused. When I said...that if the individual mandate were a tax it would be unconstitutional, I was repeating what others...whose opinions I trust said. I normally question why!...But, this time I didn't (I should never say what I think based only on what someone else thinks or knows if I don't understand what I'm saying. Sorry.)


Although, the complaint (in the supreme court) has nothing to do with the "tax" portion of the Commerce Clause. The complaint deals with the Commerce Clause portion concerning the States [interstate commerce]. Ah, I'm so confused!!! 


If I'm deducting correctly...they're (far right-wing) leading to what the President wanted all along and that is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insu...


I just found this great site (a second ago). It kind of puts it all into perspective (I think):   www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/sup...


Again thanks to all!!!

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 3:11PM #29
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,350

Apr 7, 2012 -- 11:01AM, voice-crying wrote:

Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. I usually (always) learn something when I ask a question on this board...but this time I haven't learned anything. Actually I'm more confused. When I said...that if the individual mandate were a tax it would be unconstitutional, I was repeating what others...whose opinions I trust said. I normally question why!...But, this time I didn't (I should never say what I think based only on what someone else thinks or knows if I don't understand what I'm saying. Sorry.)


Although, the complaint (in the supreme court) has nothing to do with the "tax" portion of the Commerce Clause. The complaint deals with the Commerce Clause portion concerning the States [interstate commerce]. Ah, I'm so confused!!! 


If I'm deducting correctly...they're (far right-wing) leading to what the President wanted all along and that is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insu...


I just found this great site (a second ago). It kind of puts it all into perspective (I think):   www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/sup...


Again thanks to all!!!


I have not participated on this thread because I am not a constitution scholar or expert.   lol  and none of the other posters are either.  lol

Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 6:44PM #30
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:35PM, voice-crying wrote:

The Supreme Court is ruling on the: Individual Mandate (in the health care bill-ObamaCares). I'm not a lawyer but looking at: article I, section 8, clause 3; it says that congress has the power to regulate commerce with: foreign Nations...and among the SEVERAL STATES..., we have 50 States). IMO, the: "several states" IS: interstate commerce.  

There's something in the constitution that says that if a law is constitutional and the Supreme Court loses its mind and rules it unconstitutional; the Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislatures can overrule them. I didn't know anyone could overrule the SC.

We know who's on the bench and what they are capable of doing...i.e. 2000 election. So! My question is: are those who brought this issue to the courts actually trying to take all rights from the Federal Government in favor of States Rights? Or, are they just playing politics?
 
 
The way I'm reading it..each of the 50 States-Congress, would have to vote on an issue (let's say the individual mandate); if 3/4 of all States vote for it, even though the SC (unjustly) ruled it unconstitutional, Congress would win. What I don't understand is...who tells the SC that they are wrong? How many centuries would it take for their (SC) ruling to be overturned so the different State Legislatures can vote?

This whole thing sounds very confusing. I think it is a diversion and those who filed the complaint knows it. 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]



[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;


The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases.



 


  



Interstate commerce doesn't happen when there is no commerce. Forced commerce isn't found in the Constitution.


Your statement regarding the SC being overruled is incorrect. If something is found unconstituional, the only remedy is to amend the constitution.


In 2000 4 of the 9 weren't on the court, so I question if you know anything about which you are speaking of. Especially when no one can take all power from the Federal govt; the constitution gives certain powers to the Feds. Such as the power to declare war.


The people who filed the complaint simply think the govt is out to grab too much power. The confusion is solely due to Obamacare, and those that would do anything to enforce something so blatantly unconstitutional.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook