S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ?

S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/7/2013 8:10:35 PM)
Now I don't know if the S. Carolina senate has acted but it would seem to me that this is the equivalent of passing a law against abortion. What say you ? Here How about we get our states to vote against the federal income tax ? It isn't too late for that if we can get this shit...hey ?

DomKen -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/7/2013 8:29:59 PM)
That gets tossed as soon as it gets to a judge if it ever even gets passed into law.

Just0Us0Two -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/7/2013 8:41:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Now I don't know if the S. Carolina senate has acted but it would seem to me that this is the equivalent of passing a law against abortion. What say you ? Here How about we get our states to vote against the federal income tax ? It isn't too late for that if we can get this shit...hey ? You're correct, it's not legal. It's basically state legislators making a statement. They know it will be overturned, but this way they can say they stood up to the Feds when they run for reelection. It's not much more then signing an on-line petition.

lovmuffin -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/7/2013 9:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers How about we get our states to vote against the federal income tax ? Now you're talkin[8D]

Nosathro -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/7/2013 11:20:13 PM)
and all of this is going to cost the taxpayer how much?

RottenJohnny -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/7/2013 11:47:11 PM)
FR South Carolina does have a history for opposing the federal government but their success rate isn't that stellar. [8\|]

SerWhiteTiger -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 12:43:51 AM)
I dunno. Show me where in the Constitution that it says this isn't allowed.

DesideriScuri -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 5:24:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger I dunno. Show me where in the Constitution that it says this isn't allowed. Their answer will be: quote: Article VI Section 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The rebuttal will likely be the 10th Amendment. This might be challenged and appealed all the way to the SCOTUS.

Yachtie -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 5:32:09 AM)
FR 10th Amendment. IMO, the argument would probably come down to just what General Welfare means. I'd like to see that get hotly debated. What, specifically, makes healthcare a federal issue? Can it not be argued that Mass proved otherwise? Even SCOTUS declaring it's not a fine for their purpose, but a tax, is there some exception to the uniform and/or apportioning of taxes? I don't think so, as it took the 16th to, ahem, get around that issue. ACA, whether as via exchanges or even single payer, has a problem here in the States. It's irrelevant whether other nations have such.

MrRodgers -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 6:01:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger I dunno. Show me where in the Constitution that it says this isn't allowed. Congresses (all elected officials) are all sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the US. The supreme court has ruled the ACA as constitutional law and therefore is subject to be enforced by the national govt. States legislators are also therefore enjoined to do the same and are not free to choose which ones they like or don't like.

MrRodgers -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 6:05:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger I dunno. Show me where in the Constitution that it says this isn't allowed. Their answer will be: quote: Article VI Section 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The rebuttal will likely be the 10th Amendment. This might be challenged and appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. Do you think S. Car. would take this that far ? If I was S. Car. voter, I'd be gett'n pretty pissed at all of the wasted motion not to mention money.

Yachtie -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 6:06:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger I dunno. Show me where in the Constitution that it says this isn't allowed. Congresses (all elected officials) are all sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the US. The supreme court has ruled the ACA as constitutional law and therefore is subject to be enforced by the national govt. States legislators are also therefore enjoined to do the same and are not free to choose which ones they like or don't like. There are still avenues of approach to the ACA. I doubt it's all done yet. SC's house is offering a challenge. Lets wait and see what its senate does.

DesideriScuri -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 6:51:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger I dunno. Show me where in the Constitution that it says this isn't allowed. Their answer will be: quote: Article VI Section 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The rebuttal will likely be the 10th Amendment. This might be challenged and appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. Do you think S. Car. would take this that far ? If I was S. Car. voter, I'd be gett'n pretty pissed at all of the wasted motion not to mention money. It will likely depend on how much it will cost, how much Obamacare is going to cost, and the like. If SC wasn't ready for backing their laws, they shouldn't have passed it.

Nosathro -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 7:58:17 AM)
Well if you this that is unconstitutional read this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/south-carolina-house-passes-bill-making-obamacare-/

MrRodgers -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 8:03:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Well if you this that is unconstitutional read this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/south-carolina-house-passes-bill-making-obamacare-/ Same link

vincentML -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 8:16:14 AM)
FR The first time South Carolina attempted Nullification they were slapped down by President Andrew Jackson. The second time they tried it the result was the loss of 750,000 men in the Civil War. They never learn.

Yachtie -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 10:21:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML FR The first time South Carolina attempted Nullification they were slapped down by President Andrew Jackson. The second time they tried it the result was the loss of 750,000 men in the Civil War. They never learn. Third time's a charm [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: S. Carolina...isn't this unconstitutional ? (10/8/2013 10:27:10 AM)
Yeah. We got any nuke testing to do?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.9951172