Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 164

Thread: Official Gameday Thread: Mandate vs. America, Thursday 10 AM

  1. #61
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4502765]Who you kidding. You won't vote for (R) anyway.[/QUOTE]

    It's ok Flushing, I'm well aware that the (R) Party really loves this ruling and couldn't be happier, because they think it's their best chance of victory in Nov. A rallying cry for "Vote (R)" they think. They, and their mouthpieces, are already chomping at the bit with that rather transparent little bit of politics-as-usual.

    I also know that for (R), their own power and victory is what really counts.

    You're right, I won't vote (R), no. I'll continue to vote my own beleifs and concience, which means third party. And frankly, I'm glad it bothers you so much that you feel the need to comment on it so often.

  2. #62
    Key quotes:

    [QUOTE]We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess. Resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, [B]and our own limited role in policing those boundaries[/B].
    The Federal Government “is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.” Ibid. That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable
    functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers. Congress may, for example, “coin Money,” “establish Post Offices,”and “raise and support Armies.” Art. I, §8, cls. 5, 7, 12. The enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers, because “[t]0he enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.”[/QUOTE]
    [QUOTE]
    Today, the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans’ minds are likely to be affirmative prohibitions, such as contained in the Bill of Rights. These affirmative prohibitions come into play, however, only where the Government possesses authority to act in the firstplace. [B]If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted[/B], even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power. The Constitution authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Our precedents read that to mean that Congress may regulate “the channels of interstate commerce,” “persons or things in interstate commerce,” and “those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.”

    . . .

    Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]art by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). [B]Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.[/B][/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.”[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise.The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” §7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose to describe the “[s]hared responsibility payment” imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a “penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2). There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would apply to a “penalty.”

    Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty”rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as“taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).[/QUOTE]

    [B]HERE COMES THE KEY QUOTE - EXPLAINING HOW HE CAN RULE IT BOTH ISN'T A TAX FOR ANTI-INJUNCTION PURPOSES AND IS A TAX FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES[/B]


    [QUOTE][B]It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or a penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. [/B]Congress may not, for example, expand its power under the Taxing Clause, or escape the Double Jeopardy Clause’s constraint on criminal sanctions, by labeling a severe financial punishment a “tax.”

    [B]The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act,however, are creatures of Congress’s own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress[/B], and the best evidence of Congress’s intent is the statutory text. We have thus applied the Anti-Injunction Act to statutorily described “taxes” even where that label was inaccurate. . . .

    The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty
    for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.[/QUOTE]

    [B]Basically, he ruled that by describing the mandate as a Penalty, Congress exempted it from the protection of the Anti-Injunction Act, but could not alter the result of the Constitutional question.

    It's a deft move, and, I think - despite not liking the result - a sound one.

    [/B][QUOTE][B]The Government advances two theories[/B] for the proposition
    that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. [B]First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause.[/B] Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance [B]because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce[/B], and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. [B]Second, the Government argues that [/B]if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, [B]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.[/B][/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]The Government contends that the individual mandate is within Congress’s power because the failure to purchase insurance “has a substantial and deleterious effect on interstate commerce” by creating the cost-shifting problem. The path of our Commerce Clause decisions has not always run smooth, but it is now well established that Congress has broad authority under the Clause. We have recognized, for example, that “[t]he power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among thestates,” but extends to activities that “have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Congress’s power, moreover, is not limited to regulation of an activity that by itself substantially affects interstate commerce, but also extends to activities that do so only when aggregated with similar activities of others. [/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Congress
    has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product.[B]3[/B] Legislative novelty is not necessarily fatal; there is a first time for everything.[B] But sometimes “the most telling indication of [a] severe constitutional problem . . . is the lack of historical precedent” for Congress’s action.[/B][/QUOTE]

    The footnote is an important smack down of Ginsburg:

    [QUOTE]3[B]The examples of other congressional mandates cited by JUSTICE GINSBURG[/B], post, at 35, n. 10 (opinion concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part), [B]are not to the contrary. Each of those mandates[/B]—to report for jury duty, to register for the draft, to purchase firearms in anticipation of militia service, to exchange gold currency for paper currency, and to file a tax return—[B]are based on constitutional provisions other than the Commerce Clause[/B].[/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]The Constitution grants Congress the power to “[I]regulate [/I]Commerce.” [B]The power to [I]regulate[/I] commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. [/B]If the power to “regulate”something included the power to create it, many of theprovisions in the Constitution would be superfluous. . . . If the power to regulate the armed forces or the value of money included the power to bring the subject of the regulation into existence, the specific grant of such powers would have been unnecessary. [B]The language of the Constitution reflects the natural understanding that the power to regulate assumes there is already something to be regulated.[/B][/QUOTE]

    [B]A key point, and pretty damn hard to argue with. Yet Ginsburg did. Absurd, IMO.

    [/B][QUOTE][B]The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce [/B]by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. [B]Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. . . . Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.[/B]

    Applying the Government’s logic to the familiar case of Wickard v. Filburn shows how far that logic would carry us from the notion of a government of limited powers. . . . Under Wickard it is within Congress’s power to regulate the market for wheat by supporting its price.[B] But price can be supported by increasing demand as well as by decreasing supply. The aggregated decisions of some consumers not to purchase wheat have a substantial effect on the price of wheat, just as decisions not to purchase health insurance have on the price of insurance. Congress can therefore command that those not buying wheat do so, just as it argues here that it may command that those not buying health insurance do so.

    Indeed, the Government’s logic would justify a mandatory
    purchase to solve almost any problem. . . .[/B]Under the Government’s
    theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. James Madison explained that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The Federalist No. 45, at 293. While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits.” The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its authority, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” The Federalist No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the samelicense to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.[/QUOTE]

    More to come. This is a 193 page file; I'm on page 30

  3. #63
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4502769]LOL.

    The ends justifies the means argument.

    And the beat rolls on.

    PS - Health [I]insurance[/I] isn't health [I]care[/I].[/QUOTE]

    The Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutional. The end justifies the means.

    PS- After the Supreme Court ruled on the 2000 election the democrats complained and the Republicans lectured on how it was over and to respect the court.

  4. #64
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4502769]LOL.

    The ends justifies the means argument.

    And the beat rolls on.

    PS - Health [I]insurance[/I] isn't health [I]care[/I].[/QUOTE]

    The Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutional. The end justifies the means.

    PS- After the Supreme Court ruled on the 2000 election the democrats complained and the Republicans lectured on how it was over and to respect the court. And the beat rolls on.

  5. #65
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4502783]The Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutional. The end justifies the means.

    PS- After the Supreme Court ruled on the 2000 election the democrats complained and the Republicans lectured on how it was over and to respect the court.[/QUOTE]

    None of what you wrote here bears any significance to my point. Not remotely.

  6. #66
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4502775]That's a nice thing.

    So would 30 million swimming pools for Americans who do not have them.

    But it's not the job of the federal government, now or ever, to provide these things.[/QUOTE]

    Swimming pools: a luxury

    Health Care Reform: A necessity

    The federal government is within its mandate to protect the citizens and it does so in many ways.

  7. #67
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,858
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4502777]It's ok Flushing, I'm well aware that the (R) Party really loves this ruling and couldn't be happier, because they think it's their best chance of victory in Nov. A rallying cry for "Vote (R)" they think. They, and their mouthpieces, are already chomping at the bit with that rather transparent little bit of politics-as-usual.

    I also know that for (R), their own power and victory is what really counts.

    You're right, I won't vote (R), no. I'll continue to vote my own beleifs and concience, which means third party. And frankly, I'm glad it bothers you so much that you feel the need to comment on it so often.[/QUOTE]

    lol.

    Actual philosophical integrity is a lost concept of flushingsound.

    As he said, he goes where his bread is buttered.

  8. #68
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4502801]Health Care Reform: A necessity

    The federal government is within its mandate to protect the citizens and it does so in many ways.[/QUOTE]

    Obesity Epidemic Solution: A neccessity

    Climate Change Solution: A neccessity.

    Poverty Solution: A neccessity.

    Racism and Inequallity of wealth Solution: A neccessity.

    Hunger in America Solution: A neccessity.

    All of these issues have been described both here, and by mainstream (D) elected officials, as the most pressing, important and vital issues we face, true and unquestionable neccessities to be solved.

    Yes, the pool example is a poor one.

    These, however, are not. And any one, or all, could also fall under the "solution" as Health Insurance did.

    Some may even support that. I'd bet you would, actually. But the idea that this power will only be used once, and never again.....I find to be dubious at best.

    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4502783]PS- After the Supreme Court ruled on the 2000 election the democrats complained and the Republicans lectured on how it was over and to respect the court.[/QUOTE]

    You are 100% right.

    This case is over. The Court ruled. It's decision must be respected.

    Thats how Rule of Law works.

    If only the President felt the same way when it came to enforcing the Law, but I understand that like most things, on both sides, ideals are always fluid depending on the issue, and the party position on that issue. And if one digs deep enough, there is always some piece of ill-defined verbiage or loophole to get what you want. In this case the expansion of Prosecutorial Discretion from a tool to protect the individual, to a tool for the executive to ignore entire Laws as he or she sees fit. Some massive precedents being set this week, truly Nation altering stuff we're witnessing.

    Congrats IJF, big win today. The first step to Single-Payor National healthcare is now stone cold Law and Constitutional.
    Last edited by Warfish; 06-28-2012 at 12:07 PM.

  9. #69
    The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the ruling. "Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It is a good day for families with children under 26 who can keep their children on their health insurance policies. It is a good day for women who can no longer be charged far higher premiums than men.

    "It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs of providing insurance for their employees. It is a good day for 20 million Americans who will soon be able to find access to community health centers.

    "It is an especially good day for the state of Vermont, which stands to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal funds to help our state achieve universal health care.

    "In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America's health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship.

    [url]http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=8BEACA2A-EDE7-4ADD-97CA-18865C0EB0C3[/url]

  10. #70
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4502807].

    Congrats IJF, big win today. The first step to Single-Payor National healthcare is now stone cold Law and Constitutional.[/QUOTE]

    The first step was Medicare a very popular program. A single payer system was never in question based on the Constitution.

  11. #71
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4502815]The first step was Medicare a very popular program. A single payer system was never in question based on the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

    Extemperainious semantics to my point. This was a big win, and a step (first or third makes little difference) towards what Senator Sanders exemplifies above, Universal State Healthcare.

    Are we really going to nitpick saying "congrats to your side" now too?

  12. #72
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,528
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4502777]It's ok Flushing, I'm well aware that the (R) Party really loves this ruling and couldn't be happier, because they think it's their best chance of victory in Nov. A rallying cry for "Vote (R)" they think. They, and their mouthpieces, are already chomping at the bit with that rather transparent little bit of politics-as-usual.

    I also know that for (R), their own power and victory is what really counts.

    You're right, I won't vote (R), no. I'll continue to vote my own beleifs and concience, which means third party. And frankly, I'm glad it bothers you so much that you feel the need to comment on it so often.[/QUOTE]

    No, your interminable I know-better-and-I'm-never-wrong, [B][I]tertium quid[/I][/B] intellectual bridges-to-nowhere essays are what's bothersome. You create wistful threads 24x7 that ask for peoples opinion so don't be surprised when others' opinion run counter to yours. I don't need others approval for my opinion that bad!

    I'm happy when (R) controls things. I've had the most prosperity and well-being in my life when they do. When (D) runs things they take any situation good or bad and make it worse. Any freak who votes for (D) or wastes it on 3rd party saps with reprehensible positions gets my ire. Don't flatter yourself, I hate all enablers of evil.

    Who do I blame most for 0care? Teh (D) aholes in Congress who rammed it through. Roberts, as gutless as he seems, punted it back to America. Romney is on record as wanting repeal and now will have more ammo to blast B. Hussein. I'm pretty positive America will do the right thing collectively in Nov. Whether you do? Not so much.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-28-2012 at 12:26 PM.

  13. #73
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,528
    [QUOTE=freestater;4502805]lol.

    Actual philosophical integrity is a lost concept of flushingsound.

    As he said, he goes where his bread is buttered.[/QUOTE]

    Your solipsistic notion of "integrity" gave everyone B. Hussein.
    A pyrrhic victory.
    Well, that butter was bad for me anyway!

    EDIT: To clarify, I help sell compliance solutions to Pharma. PPACA mandates that companies report all of their spending on recipients on a nationwide basis. Even if the entire bloated bill was struck down, states still have parallel legislation. From a transparency standpoint I have no problem with it.
    It is a cost of doing business to Pharma and nothing to do w/ the mandate or other aspects of the bill.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-28-2012 at 12:23 PM.

  14. #74
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4502821]Extemperainious semantics to my point. This was a big win, and a step (first or third makes little difference) towards what Senator Sanders exemplifies above, Universal State Healthcare.

    Are we really going to nitpick saying "congrats to your side" now too?[/QUOTE]

    I don't think it is at all. This law is a mess and as it's written will pit millions of seniors who vote against millions who are in the zone between medicaid and employer sponsored care who have no constituency at odds with each other.

    This law will actually dismantle Medicare as we know it and as soon as Seniors get the message electoral hell will break out. The Democrats could lose lots of elections when this law is actually fully implimented.

  15. #75
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4502823]No, your interminable I know-better-and-I'm-never-wrong, [B][I]tertium quid[/I][/B] intellectual bridges-to-nowhere essays are what's bothersome.[/quote]

    I don't care what you think of them, or me.

    [QUOTE]You create wistful threads 24x7 that ask for peoples opinion so don't be surprised when others' opinion run counter to yours. I don't need others approval for my opinion.[/QUOTE]

    Don't like it, don't read them. Or go ahead and post your usual and predictable. Either way, I do not care what you think of me or my viewpoints.

    You're a smart man, and a great writer, and I respect both of those things. But you're also rude, arrogant, dismissive, meanspirited and an obvious party-loyalist shill who just can't post without making some personal insult or attack against those you hate, and hate is the right word for you, which includes anyone who doesn't agree with you down the line here.

    So again, I don't care what you think any longer, of me, my views or anything else. Feel free to keep on chruning the same old cryto-liberal whatever.

    And if the length of my writing is what bothers you, or what you see as it's lack of content, you'll simply have to get over it. Because I won't be changing to suit you. The only reply you'll get from here out is a hearty go **** yourself. Or better yet:

    [IMG]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRK4xNs7yjE0uR7dAP3K0nohghPKZQ-3LcIJwdvBmkodsWrIQqkyQ[/IMG]
    Last edited by Warfish; 06-28-2012 at 12:23 PM.

  16. #76
    Another smackdown of Ginsburg:

    [QUOTE]6In an attempt to recast the individual mandate as a regulation of commercial activity, JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “[a]n individual who opts not to purchase insurance from a private insurer can be seen as actively selecting another form of insurance: self-insurance.” Post, at 26. But “self-insurance” is, in this context, nothing more than a description of the failure to purchase insurance. Individuals are no more “activ[e] in the self-insurance market” when they fail to purchase insurance, ibid., than they are active in the “rest” market when doing nothing.[/QUOTE][QUOTE][The Government repeats the phrase “active in the market
    for health care” throughout its brief, see id., at 7, 18, 34, 50, [B]but that concept has no constitutional significance.An individual who bought a car two years ago and may buy another in the future is not “active in the car market” in any pertinent sense.[/B] The phrase “active in the market” cannot obscure the fact that most of those regulated bythe individual mandate are not currently engaged in any commercial activity involving health care, and that fact is fatal to the Government’s effort to “regulate the uninsured as a class.”[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. [B]The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions.[/B] Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.[/QUOTE][B]CONCLUSION: Commerce Clause is limited to activity. It cannot be used to mandate a purchase.[/B]


    [QUOTE]The Government next contends that Congress has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact the individual mandate. . . .

    Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms. Each of our prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. . . .The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power.[/QUOTE][B]Now for the other shoe to drop:

    [/B][QUOTE]That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce
    Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

    The 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 aregulation 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.[/QUOTE][B]The rule of construction that will end up being dispositive, if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly:

    [/B][QUOTE]The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. [B]To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park.[/B] [B]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.[/B] 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.”[/QUOTE][QUOTE]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. 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.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. [/QUOTE][QUOTE]The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one . . . Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.[/QUOTE][B]So much for "activist" judges. If I remember back to Roberts' confirmation, one of his key selling points on the right was his philosophical deference to the legislative and executive branches. Anyone want a do-over?

    [/B][QUOTE]The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment,
    its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax:it produces at least some revenue for the Government.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]
    It is of course true that the Act describes the payment asa “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewedas an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. [B]It is up to Congress
    whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress’s choice of label on that question.[/B] That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

    Our precedent reflects this: In 1922, we decided two challenges to the “Child Labor Tax” on the same day. [B]In the first, we held that a suit to enjoin collection of the so called tax was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. [/B]George, 259 U. S., at 20. Congress knew that suits to obstruct taxes had to await payment under the Anti-InjunctionAct; [B]Congress called the child labor tax a tax; Congress therefore intended the Anti-Injunction Act to apply.[/B] In the second case, however, we held that the same exaction, although labeled a tax, was not in fact authorized by Congress’s taxing power. Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S., at 38. That constitutional question was not controlled by Congress’s choice of label.

    [B]We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress’s power to tax.[/B] In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets—for which the licensee had to pay a fee—could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power. 5 Wall., at 471. And in New York v. United States we upheld as a tax a “surcharge” on out-of-state nuclear waste shipments, a portion of which was paid to the Federal Treasury. 505 U. S., at 171. [B]We thus ask whether the shared responsibility payment falls within Congress’s taxing power, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” [/B]United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294 (1935); cf. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, 310 (1992) (“[B][M]agic words or labels” should not “disable an otherwise constitutional levy” ([/B]internal quotation marks omitted)); Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941) ([B]“In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation,not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it”[/B] (internal quotation marks omitted)) . . .[/QUOTE]Solid precedent, and seems to be a sound principle. The constitutionality of a congressional act should depend on its substance, not what Congress calls it.

    [QUOTE][B]None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct.[/B] Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage. But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]In distinguishing penalties from taxes, this Court has explained that “[B]if the concept of penalty means anything,it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission[/B].” . . . While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to doso is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold §5000A as a tax because Congress did not “frame” it as such. Post, at 17. [U][B]In effect, they contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels.[/B][/U][/QUOTE][QUOTE]There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those who lack health insurance. [B]Even if only a tax, the payment under §5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.[/B][/QUOTE]Well, yeah

    [QUOTE]Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. [B]The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes.[/B][/QUOTE]Ouch

    [QUOTE]Second, Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. [B]A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority.[/B] . . . More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures. . . . We have nonetheless maintained that “‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’”

    We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. . . . [B]Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it. It remains true, however, that the “‘power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’”[/B][/QUOTE][QUOTE]Third, although the breadth of Congress’s power to taxis greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior. Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. . . .

    By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe
    burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose.
    [/QUOTE]That's all on the Mandate from Roberts

    Now, onto Medicaid expansion, [B]which was ruled unconstitutional[/B]. On the argument that the expansion is coercive, because it withdraws other funds if states do not expand medicaid:

    [QUOTE]Given the nature of the threat and the programs at issue here, we must agree. We have upheld Congress’s authority to condition the receipt of funds on the States’ complying with restrictions on the use of those funds, because that is the means by which Congress ensures that the funds are spent according to its view of the “general Welfare.” Conditions that do not here govern the use of the funds, however, cannot be justified on that basis. [B]When, for example, such conditions take the form of threats to terminate other significant independent grants, the conditions are properly viewed as a means of pressuring the States to accept policy changes.[/B][/QUOTE]Having ruled it unconstitutional, the Court turns to severability:

    [QUOTE]The question here is whether Congress would have wanted the rest of the Act to stand, had it known that States would have a genuine choice whether to participate in the new Medicaid expansion. Unless it is “evident” that the answer is no, we must leave the rest of the Act intact.

    We are confident that Congress would have wanted to preserve the rest of the Act. . . .[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by doggin94it; 06-28-2012 at 12:41 PM.

  17. #77
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,528
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4502837]I don't care what you think of them, or me.



    Don't like it, don't read them. Or go ahead and post your usual and predictable. Either way, I do not care what you think of me or my viewpoints.

    You're a smart man, and a great writer, and I respect both of those things. But you're also rude, arrogant, dismissive, meanspirited and an obvious party-loyalist shill who just can't post without making some personal insult or attack against those you hate, and hate is the right word for you, which includes anyone who doesn't agree with you down the line here.

    So again, I don't care what you think any longer, of me, my views or anything else. Feel free to keep on chruning the same old cryto-liberal whatever.

    And if the length of my writing is what bothers you, or what you see as it's lack of content, you'll simply have to get over it. Because I won't be changing to suit you. The only reply you'll get from here out is a hearty go **** yourself. Or better yet:

    [IMG]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRK4xNs7yjE0uR7dAP3K0nohghPKZQ-3LcIJwdvBmkodsWrIQqkyQ[/IMG][/QUOTE]


    I achieved my objective. I got you mad! And not cryptically :P
    Insulting? I don't think I've got anything on the more extreme self-hating pukes here.

    Don't change a thing WF. I believe you are sincere and that is the
    1st step to influencing others. Some self-aware editing/quality control would be useful though. :rolleyes: If at 1st you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do. You will discover truth and beauty in life later if not sooner.

    Nah, my real ire is for the folks, and those losers still haunting this place know who they are, that shoot from the lip, threaten me, invoke the F-word, called me "bigot" "racist" etc. 1st then ask questions later. As a wise part-Latino I won't stand for it!
    Next in line are the folks that are for anything that diminishes my quality of life. That's the other 4/5 of 2/3 of us. Being a minority sucks! :steamin:
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-28-2012 at 12:52 PM.

  18. #78
    The Final Count:

    Mandate unconstitutional under Commerce Clause:

    Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy

    (Constitutional: Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor)

    Mandate Constitutional as Tax:

    Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor

    (Unconstitutional: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy)

    Medicaid Expansion Unconstitutional:

    Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, Kagan, Breyer

    (Constitutional: Ginsburg, Sotomayor).

  19. #79
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4502771]we all will chip in [B]and do so already[/B]. Every time an uninsured person walks into an emergency room we all pay.

    I have no problem paying a little extra to insure that all Americans get decent health care. None.[/QUOTE]

    We don't [B]ALL[/B] pay. Those that already pay will pay even more. Those that do not pay will still not pay.

  20. #80
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,177
    I would like to know what happens with the states that opt-in the medicaid expansion in 5 yrs when the federal aid runs out. How is this sustainable? I would think NY is going to be one of the states that opt-in initially. Who is going to pick up that tab?

    Nobody is against covering children and sick people. But this system/law is going to get exploited by millions.
    Last edited by DDNYjets; 06-28-2012 at 01:02 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us