quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


The only way the individual mandate could be upheld as constitutional, was for it to be considered a tax. If you believe that you're smarter than our Supreme Court Justices and feel your arguments that it is truly a fine would prevail, then you would likely be responsible for the downfall of the ACA. It cannot survive without the individual mandate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


The only way the individual mandate could be upheld as constitutional, was for it to be considered a tax. If you believe that you're smarter than our Supreme Court Justices and feel your arguments that it is truly a fine would prevail, then you would likely be responsible for the downfall of the ACA. It cannot survive without the individual mandate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


The only way the individual mandate could be upheld as constitutional, was for it to be considered a tax. If you believe that you're smarter than our Supreme Court Justices and feel your arguments that it is truly a fine would prevail, then you would likely be responsible for the downfall of the ACA. It cannot survive without the individual mandate.

Congress said as much. It's a fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


The only way the individual mandate could be upheld as constitutional, was for it to be considered a tax. If you believe that you're smarter than our Supreme Court Justices and feel your arguments that it is truly a fine would prevail, then you would likely be responsible for the downfall of the ACA. It cannot survive without the individual mandate.

Even if its a Tax its unconstitutional because all revenue producing laws must originate from the house not the senate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


The only way the individual mandate could be upheld as constitutional, was for it to be considered a tax. If you believe that you're smarter than our Supreme Court Justices and feel your arguments that it is truly a fine would prevail, then you would likely be responsible for the downfall of the ACA. It cannot survive without the individual mandate.

Congress said as much. It's a fine.

Originally. But the Government's attorneys took a fallback position of it actually being a tax so that the Supreme Court would reverse the previous Court's position that it was unconstitutional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


The only way the individual mandate could be upheld as constitutional, was for it to be considered a tax. If you believe that you're smarter than our Supreme Court Justices and feel your arguments that it is truly a fine would prevail, then you would likely be responsible for the downfall of the ACA. It cannot survive without the individual mandate.

Congress said as much. It's a fine.

Originally. But the Government's attorneys took a fallback position of it actually being a tax so that the Supreme Court would reverse the previous Court's position that it was unconstitutional.

Has Congress altered the language of the ACA? If not, it's a fine pursuant to Congressional authority. SCOTUS cannot alter that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


The only way the individual mandate could be upheld as constitutional, was for it to be considered a tax. If you believe that you're smarter than our Supreme Court Justices and feel your arguments that it is truly a fine would prevail, then you would likely be responsible for the downfall of the ACA. It cannot survive without the individual mandate.

Congress said as much. It's a fine.

Originally. But the Government's attorneys took a fallback position of it actually being a tax so that the Supreme Court would reverse the previous Court's position that it was unconstitutional.

Has Congress altered the language of the ACA? If not, it's a fine pursuant to Congressional authority. SCOTUS cannot alter that.

That's all fine and good. The fact remains, however, that the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional only by considering it a tax.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I'm not sure why, but the link I provided above changes when posted... even when simply typing the text. It replaces the loc dot gov with asterisks.

It is http://thomas. loc . gov /cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:/ (remove the spaces)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


The only way the individual mandate could be upheld as constitutional, was for it to be considered a tax. If you believe that you're smarter than our Supreme Court Justices and feel your arguments that it is truly a fine would prevail, then you would likely be responsible for the downfall of the ACA. It cannot survive without the individual mandate.

Even if its a Tax its unconstitutional because all revenue producing laws must originate from the house not the senate.

Contrary to popular belief, Senators aren't completely stupid. They know that all revenue-related bills must originate with the House. That's why they took a pre-existing revenue-related bill already passed by the House (The Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009) and mutated it. As with any other legislation passed by the House and sent to the Senate, with changes, it went back to the House where, after much pain and gnashing of teeth, it was passed with a 219-212 vote.

So... they followed the letter of the law, even if questionable regarding the spirit of the law. I don't think the unconstitutionality of their actions is a slam-dunk.

Edited to add:

I'm not sure why, but the link I provided above changes when posted... even when simply typing the text. It replaces the loc dot gov with asterisks.

It is http://thomas. loc . gov /cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:/ (remove the spaces)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance
But the supreme court changing it from a fine to a tax... means that a bill..... requesting revenue... didnt start in the house...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


As crazy as you view right wingers, I'd never thought I'd see an NSA collecting billions of hits of metadata every day - on AMERICANS.

quote:


As crazy as you view rightwingers, I'm disgusted to have president that lied and whose political calculus cold bloodedly consigned 4 americans to death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


But if you are a right to life catholic - you are now required to purchase insurance that funds abortion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Yeah, well frankly just as crazy as you view the right wingers, I never thought I'd see the day that we'd be taxed for not doing buying something.

Actually, DK has usually been a very stable individual in many of the threads I have observed over time. And btw, your not taxed, your FINED for not getting health coverage under the ACA. Have you actually READ the Affordable Care Act yet? I've asked you just about fifteen times now and never gotten a straight answer from you. The US Supreme Court interprets the action of not getting a health plan as a tax; but this is the same group that says Corporations are people too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As crazy as you view the right wingers, I never thought my government would require me to buy insurance thats against my religious principles.

And what religious principles are those?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As crazy as you view right wingers, I'd never thought I'd see an NSA collecting billions of hits of metadata every day - on AMERICANS.

Actually you have never seen such a thing. Other people have stated in simple terms for you to understand. Do you know what the NSA actually does? Here is a LINK to help you with that last question. I'm willing to bet if the whole story came out during a Republican President's term, not a single conservative would be bitching about it. I do not like what the NSA has done, but unlike you, I understand the reasoning for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As crazy as you view rightwingers, I'm disgusted to have president that lied and whose political calculus cold bloodedly consigned 4 americans to death.

An yet your 'OK' with the previous president that had dozens of US Americans killed and twice that in injuries of the 13 Embassy attacks that took place during 2002-2007. Oh yeah, I'm not counting the hundreds of other people that were injured or killed during those same attacks, even those they are just as important as the four individuals that die in Benghazi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As crazy as you view right wingers, I never imagined a president that would demonize americans that believe in a balanced budget.

The President has never demonized anyone wishing for a balanced budget. The same however can not be said of the multitude of conservatives in this country. A balanced budget is one in which dollars coming in equal those going out. Of course, you have never stopped to consider just how much a $100 Billion in US Government spending buys in US Jobs, have you? An that we spend some odd of 32 units of $100 Billion each year. That's about 750,000-950,000 jobs depending on the industry(s) affected by a particular set amount of $100 Billion unit spending. And the jobs are not all $144K/year but much, much lower. And that the lion's share of the unit goes towards the private sector. The least amount towards government jobs. And the third group that get the money? Those jobs that are 'down stream' from the first two groups.

Let me just say this, its very complicated material that your mindlessly juggling around. I would be all for cutting spending as you do, if I was ignorant of the material I know about what goes into one of those $100 Billion units. It really is not in the best interests of the nation. So a balanced budget (and this is the super, ultra, extremely, simple answer here) would take the form of making some budget cuts and increasing taxes (namely removing the Bush era tax cuts). No one likes this option, as its the middle ground approach that is taking things into careful consideration. I believe I could explain the whole thing to you in person. Would take me about an hour to do. Not because your stupid, but the material is so fraking complicated!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Or a President that takes blatantly unconstitutional actions - such as interim appointments while the Senate is in Session.

Or a President that holds criminals against their will, without a lawyer, or see their family while imprisoned? An that they are tortured the whole time and defined as 'enemy combatants' because being held in a US Court would have been unconstitutional, or identifiying them under their correct heading of POW would have forced the administration to follow many, many treaties? Yeah, the Republican President did that with impunity. That President also used the Patriot Act to spy on the whole of America, and yet you hold him to no level of accountability or responsibility.

President Obama is a constitutional scholar. He graduated from Harvard University with a J.D. at the top of his class. Do you have any idea how well one needs to know the underpinning of law and the level of competition at Harvard University to get a magna cum laude for a J.D.? No, you don't. If you did, you would treat the man with a bit more respect and consideration than you do at current.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I never thought the loonie left would go so far as to destroy our energy infrastructure.

You really do not understand the infrastructure for energy currently in this country, do you? Much of the hardware across the nation is using 1950's and 1960's systems; hardly 'modern' equipment. There are tens of millions of patches crisscrossing the entire nation from one ocean to the other and from Canada to Mexico. The problems that abound range from 'mild lose of energy' to staggering projects needed to restore a piece of land damaged by faulty equipment. While your memory of US History is unsurprisingly limited, one of the mechanisms in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) called for using funding to repair and replace the nation's aged energy infrastructure. It was going to happen, but many Republican controlled states used the money instead to offset their dwindling budgets to give the appearance that the recession had not effected their state or cities. Its all right there in the history books at most creditable universities.

Most conservatives have been against the idea of updating the nation's energy infrastructure to 2013 on the silly belief that it would help US Labor Unions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Or that a major banking scandal - and the administration in power would cull virtually every economic player from the firms involved.

I seem to recall my own Senator putting regulations and tools to prevent what the financial sector did from happening again. Elizabeth Warren, you might have heard of her. Yeah, she's been finding an uphill battle from conservative Republican/Tea Party folks ever since she got to Congress. Your also going to blame the President for events that took place BEFORE he was even sworn into office? Or that he should be responsible for the actions of all the conservatives and Republican/Tea Party folks that tried to make him a one term president? Yeah, he got that second term, but your sacrificing the nation's economic freedom is a devastating blow to us as a nation. Funny how you cant owe up to that, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
So you don't like the right. We get it. We don't like you either.

I do not have any problems with the right. We disagree on things at times, but at the end of the day, we sit down and watch fireworks on the 4th of July. We sing carols during the winter holidays. Share drinks to welcome in the New Year. And attend many of the holidays for the veterans. When shit hits the fan we all work together to get things accomplished. They agree with me on something's and I agree with them on others; its called 'the art of the compromise'. Now extremist right wingers I feel have damaged this nation in a number of different ways. They are often ignorant, foolish, loud mouth, over weight, racists, clueless and in dire need of therapy. You want to take issue with someone fraking up the nation? Take it out on them!

I'm going to ignore most of the insulting, ignorant crap in your message.
But then I find I have nothing left to respond to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Yeah, well frankly just as crazy as you view the right wingers, I never thought I'd see the day that we'd be taxed for not doing buying something.

Actually, DK has usually been a very stable individual in many of the threads I have observed over time. And btw, your not taxed, your FINED for not getting health coverage under the ACA. Have you actually READ the Affordable Care Act yet? I've asked you just about fifteen times now and never gotten a straight answer from you. The US Supreme Court interprets the action of not getting a health plan as a tax; but this is the same group that says Corporations are people too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As crazy as you view the right wingers, I never thought my government would require me to buy insurance thats against my religious principles.

And what religious principles are those?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As crazy as you view right wingers, I'd never thought I'd see an NSA collecting billions of hits of metadata every day - on AMERICANS.

Actually you have never seen such a thing. Other people have stated in simple terms for you to understand. Do you know what the NSA actually does? Here is a LINK to help you with that last question. I'm willing to bet if the whole story came out during a Republican President's term, not a single conservative would be bitching about it. I do not like what the NSA has done, but unlike you, I understand the reasoning for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As crazy as you view rightwingers, I'm disgusted to have president that lied and whose political calculus cold bloodedly consigned 4 americans to death.

An yet your 'OK' with the previous president that had dozens of US Americans killed and twice that in injuries of the 13 Embassy attacks that took place during 2002-2007. Oh yeah, I'm not counting the hundreds of other people that were injured or killed during those same attacks, even those they are just as important as the four individuals that die in Benghazi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As crazy as you view right wingers, I never imagined a president that would demonize americans that believe in a balanced budget.

The President has never demonized anyone wishing for a balanced budget. The same however can not be said of the multitude of conservatives in this country. A balanced budget is one in which dollars coming in equal those going out. Of course, you have never stopped to consider just how much a $100 Billion in US Government spending buys in US Jobs, have you? An that we spend some odd of 32 units of $100 Billion each year. That's about 750,000-950,000 jobs depending on the industry(s) affected by a particular set amount of $100 Billion unit spending. And the jobs are not all $144K/year but much, much lower. And that the lion's share of the unit goes towards the private sector. The least amount towards government jobs. And the third group that get the money? Those jobs that are 'down stream' from the first two groups.

Let me just say this, its very complicated material that your mindlessly juggling around. I would be all for cutting spending as you do, if I was ignorant of the material I know about what goes into one of those $100 Billion units. It really is not in the best interests of the nation. So a balanced budget (and this is the super, ultra, extremely, simple answer here) would take the form of making some budget cuts and increasing taxes (namely removing the Bush era tax cuts). No one likes this option, as its the middle ground approach that is taking things into careful consideration. I believe I could explain the whole thing to you in person. Would take me about an hour to do. Not because your stupid, but the material is so fraking complicated!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Or a President that takes blatantly unconstitutional actions - such as interim appointments while the Senate is in Session.

Or a President that holds criminals against their will, without a lawyer, or see their family while imprisoned? An that they are tortured the whole time and defined as 'enemy combatants' because being held in a US Court would have been unconstitutional, or identifiying them under their correct heading of POW would have forced the administration to follow many, many treaties? Yeah, the Republican President did that with impunity. That President also used the Patriot Act to spy on the whole of America, and yet you hold him to no level of accountability or responsibility.

President Obama is a constitutional scholar. He graduated from Harvard University with a J.D. at the top of his class. Do you have any idea how well one needs to know the underpinning of law and the level of competition at Harvard University to get a magna cum laude for a J.D.? No, you don't. If you did, you would treat the man with a bit more respect and consideration than you do at current.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I never thought the loonie left would go so far as to destroy our energy infrastructure.

You really do not understand the infrastructure for energy currently in this country, do you? Much of the hardware across the nation is using 1950's and 1960's systems; hardly 'modern' equipment. There are tens of millions of patches crisscrossing the entire nation from one ocean to the other and from Canada to Mexico. The problems that abound range from 'mild lose of energy' to staggering projects needed to restore a piece of land damaged by faulty equipment. While your memory of US History is unsurprisingly limited, one of the mechanisms in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) called for using funding to repair and replace the nation's aged energy infrastructure. It was going to happen, but many Republican controlled states used the money instead to offset their dwindling budgets to give the appearance that the recession had not effected their state or cities. Its all right there in the history books at most creditable universities.

Most conservatives have been against the idea of updating the nation's energy infrastructure to 2013 on the silly belief that it would help US Labor Unions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Or that a major banking scandal - and the administration in power would cull virtually every economic player from the firms involved.

I seem to recall my own Senator putting regulations and tools to prevent what the financial sector did from happening again. Elizabeth Warren, you might have heard of her. Yeah, she's been finding an uphill battle from conservative Republican/Tea Party folks ever since she got to Congress. Your also going to blame the President for events that took place BEFORE he was even sworn into office? Or that he should be responsible for the actions of all the conservatives and Republican/Tea Party folks that tried to make him a one term president? Yeah, he got that second term, but your sacrificing the nation's economic freedom is a devastating blow to us as a nation. Funny how you cant owe up to that, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
So you don't like the right. We get it. We don't like you either.

I do not have any problems with the right. We disagree on things at times, but at the end of the day, we sit down and watch fireworks on the 4th of July. We sing carols during the winter holidays. Share drinks to welcome in the New Year. And attend many of the holidays for the veterans. When shit hits the fan we all work together to get things accomplished. They agree with me on something's and I agree with them on others; its called 'the art of the compromise'. Now extremist right wingers I feel have damaged this nation in a number of different ways. They are often ignorant, foolish, loud mouth, over weight, racists, clueless and in dire need of therapy. You want to take issue with someone fraking up the nation? Take it out on them!

I'm going to ignore most of the insulting, ignorant crap in your message.
But then I find I have nothing left to respond to.

So you can't respond to any of the factual points he made? What a surprise.

quote:

President Obama is a constitutional scholar. He graduated from Harvard University with a J.D. at the top of his class. Do you have any idea how well one needs to know the underpinning of law and the level of competition at Harvard University to get a magna cum laude for a J.D.? No, you don't. If you did, you would treat the man with a bit more respect and consideration than you do at current.

quote:


So, while impressive, it means by definition he is not at the top of his class.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Theres no shortage of nuts on either side.