|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 30 2012 02:16 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 01:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 01:50 Kukaracha wrote:On June 30 2012 01:48 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 01:30 rogzardo wrote:On June 30 2012 01:18 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote:
We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person. You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?) Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border? Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money. I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems. Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever! As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that. I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution. Is it bad to force people not to kill other people? Should that decision be left at one's discretion? I know that this concept is foreign to some of you non-Americans who don't have a federalist system like we have in the US, but it's not the role of the federal government to exercise a general police power (ie the power to do things like forbidding the killing of others). That job is left to state governments. Wait, what about the FBI and federal marshals and things like that?
Their jurisdictions are limited to specific federal laws, regulations, and institutions. While there are some federal crimes, the federal criminal code is very underdeveloped compared to state counterparts. Again, the reason why is that these matters are generally reserved for the states.
Also, the "police power" does not refer strictly to criminal activity.
|
Just to give some perspective: federal courts and law enforcement usually only deal with criminal law when it involves economic crimes such drug-trafficking, counterfieting, fraud, or large scale conspiracies.
State courts are the venue for pretty much all basic crimes such as murder, normal thefts, disorderly conduct, traffic citations, family law, estate law, etc. State legislatures have immense power in the US.
|
On June 30 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:03 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 01:56 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:48 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 01:30 rogzardo wrote:On June 30 2012 01:18 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote:
We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person. You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?) Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border? Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money. I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems. Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever! As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that. I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution. Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military? There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further. Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary? The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right.
Sorry, but you are not connecting the dots...
There is no real difference between forcing a person to buy a product or taxing that person to generate money to buy the same product.
|
To analogize the federalism argument in the US to Europe, it would be something like this:
The left wants the EU to have the power to control as much as possible so that it can create equality and fairness across the continent.
The right wants the individual European countries to retain their powers since local communities are unique, different, and one-size-fits-all governments can cause problems
This is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. Dems want to increase federal power and Reps want to tone it down. States in the US are almost like mini-countries-- they just don't have international sovereignty (that is give to the federal government in the constitution).
|
On June 30 2012 02:25 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 02:03 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 01:56 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:48 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 01:30 rogzardo wrote:On June 30 2012 01:18 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote:
We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person. You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?) Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border? Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money. I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems. Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever! As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that. I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution. Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military? There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further. Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary? The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right. Sorry, but you are not connecting the dots... There is no real difference between forcing a person to buy a product or taxing that person to generate money to buy the same product.
...
and that is why he's saying SCOTUS was not right in their decision.
|
|
|
On June 30 2012 02:17 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 30 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 02:03 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 01:56 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:48 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 01:30 rogzardo wrote:On June 30 2012 01:18 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote:
We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person. You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?) Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border? Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money. I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems. Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever! As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that. I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution. Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military? There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further. Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary? The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right. The argument use to be "not legal". Now it's "not right". HAHAHA. To be fair to him... Roberts logic is bad and I think it's a bad decision. I twas incorrect and therefore "not right" even if it's still the law. It should have been decided on commerce clause. There is a reason pretty much every lawyer dismissed the taxing power argument.
I'm just laughing at the fact that he now has to change the argument from "not legal" to "not right". Roberts' logic was rather unexpected, but it does make some sense, if you read his opinion, particularly the part that provides precedent that the court should exhaust every possible way to find the law constitutional.
There's a theory going around that he changed his vote at the last minute and I agree: http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-hints-that-roberts-switched-his-vote/
Have a read of Ginsburg's "dissent", it is absolutely blistering and it demolishes Roberts' opinion on the Commerce Clause. And it does appear to be written as the original dissent.
|
On June 30 2012 02:41 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:17 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 02:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 30 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 02:03 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 01:56 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:48 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 01:30 rogzardo wrote:On June 30 2012 01:18 Malarkey817 wrote:
[quote]
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems. Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever! As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that. I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution. Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military? There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further. Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary? The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right. The argument use to be "not legal". Now it's "not right". HAHAHA. To be fair to him... Roberts logic is bad and I think it's a bad decision. I twas incorrect and therefore "not right" even if it's still the law. It should have been decided on commerce clause. There is a reason pretty much every lawyer dismissed the taxing power argument. I'm just laughing at the fact that he now has to change the argument from "not legal" to "not right". Roberts' logic was rather unexpected, but it does make some sense, if you read his opinion, particularly the part that provides precedent that the court should exhaust every possible way to find the law constitutional. There's a theory going around that he changed his vote at the last minute and I agree: http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-hints-that-roberts-switched-his-vote/Have a read of Ginsburg's "dissent", it is absolutely blistering and it demolishes Roberts' opinion on the Commerce Clause. And it does appear to be written as the original dissent.
interesting, will read it again -- didn't catch that (or the fact the dissent was unsigned)
|
United States708 Posts
4 votes for Commerce Clause
4 votes against Commerce Clause
Roberts looks for any way to make this Constitutional. Comes up with it's OK as a Tax.
Ginsburg and the liberals Dissent.
Scalia and the conservatives Dissent.
That's the f'd up point.
1 person out of 9 agrees on the method.
|
Just as an aside, most of the legal commentary that I have seen and heard about the decision has been absolutely appalling. It's been so bad and so inaccurate that I've wondered whether these people have actually read the decision. For example, I was watching two women last night, both of whom clerked on the US Supreme Court, and each was missing and omitting key aspects of the decision. Long story short, don't necessarily trust what you're hearing from media figures about the decision.
|
On June 30 2012 02:48 RCMDVA wrote:
4 votes for Commerce Clause
4 votes against Commerce Clause
Roberts looks for any way to make this Constitutional. Comes up with it's OK as a Tax.
Ginsburg and the liberals Dissent.
Scalia and the conservatives Dissent.
That's the f'd up point.
1 person out of 9 agrees on the method.
5 votes against the Commerce Clause. Roberts voted against it.
|
On June 30 2012 02:49 xDaunt wrote:
Just as an aside, most of the legal commentary that I have seen and heard about the decision has been absolutely appalling. It's been so bad and so inaccurate that I've wondered whether these people have actually read the decision. For example, I was watching two women last night, both of whom clerked on the US Supreme Court, and each was missing and omitting key aspects of the decision. Long story short, don't necessary trust what you're hearing from media figures about the decision.
To be frank, if any of us had put faith into your brand of good "legal commentary" we'd have been far more surprised by the courts decision yesterday. If legal analysis out there is bad, tell us why please, instead of simply asserting so.
|
On June 30 2012 02:32 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:25 hzflank wrote:On June 30 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 02:03 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 01:56 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:48 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 01:30 rogzardo wrote:On June 30 2012 01:18 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote:
We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person. You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?) Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border? Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money. I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems. Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever! As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that. I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution. Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military? There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further. Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary? The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right. Sorry, but you are not connecting the dots... There is no real difference between forcing a person to buy a product or taxing that person to generate money to buy the same product. ... and that is why he's saying SCOTUS was not right in their decision.
Would you spell it out for me?
I am under the impression that the federal government is allowed to instruct states on how to tax their citizens.
|
On June 30 2012 02:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:49 xDaunt wrote:
Just as an aside, most of the legal commentary that I have seen and heard about the decision has been absolutely appalling. It's been so bad and so inaccurate that I've wondered whether these people have actually read the decision. For example, I was watching two women last night, both of whom clerked on the US Supreme Court, and each was missing and omitting key aspects of the decision. Long story short, don't necessary trust what you're hearing from media figures about the decision. To be frank, if any of us had put faith into your brand of good "legal commentary" we'd have been far more surprised by the courts decision yesterday. If legal analysis out there is bad, tell us why please, instead of simply asserting so.
I've pointed out numerous times why and where legal commentary has been bad. Again, I'm sorta amused by all of you who think that I was wrong about the case because it's clear that you don't really understand how these decisions work. My prediction was that the law would not survive under the commerce clause, thus it would be struck down. As it turns, I was right except with regards to the law being struck down. The Court did not uphold the law under the commerce clause. What I did not expect is that the Court would consider the mandate to be a "tax," which basically no one argued or took seriously -- not the parties and not the commentators. Everyone thought that this case was going to be decided under the commerce clause (including me), which is why everyone is surprised about how the law survived.
So anyway, it's your choice. You can either learn something from this discussion or be a partisan hack for the sake of being one.
|
Getting back to the definition of 'income' in the statute. I haven't read it, but I heard it was 'household income', so it includes the people you live with, not just your own income. So that, 2% of income amount isn't 2% of your income, it's 2% of your household's income. Now, I'm not sure how it's defined in this law, but in other areas, household income can include others you live with without familial relation, such as boyfriend / girlfriend, roommates, etc. Also, since the IRS is now collecting much more information through this law, I would not be surprised if other unexpected items are considered income which aren't taxable, generally. For example, gifts received, or who knows what else to increase the amount of revenue collected without having it look like a % increase or $$ amount increase. Kind of like when localities need to raise property taxes, but can't pass a rate increase, they simply increase the values the properties are assessed at. Then it's up to the homeowners to fight it. Also, since nobody has read it, (I'm not saying they are doing this, but) they "could" impute the fair market value of your living quarters, and if your rent is below that amount, they could consider that difference as income.
It's important to actual understand a law before deeming it as good or bad, and we all know nobody, including Congress, had read it before passage. Not to mention, administrative regulations can tweak the law without Congressional approval. So this is what we have.
|
On June 30 2012 02:48 RCMDVA wrote:
4 votes for Commerce Clause
4 votes against Commerce Clause
Roberts looks for any way to make this Constitutional. Comes up with it's OK as a Tax.
Ginsburg and the liberals Dissent.
Scalia and the conservatives Dissent.
That's the f'd up point.
1 person out of 9 agrees on the method.
No, it was 5-4 for the taxing power, the two dissents were both concur in part, dissent in part. the ginsburg dissent was in relation to the commerce clause 5-4 decision, while the other dissent was in regards to the taxing power 5-4 decision.
this is pretty common in SCOTUS decisions.
|
On June 30 2012 02:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:52 farvacola wrote:On June 30 2012 02:49 xDaunt wrote:
Just as an aside, most of the legal commentary that I have seen and heard about the decision has been absolutely appalling. It's been so bad and so inaccurate that I've wondered whether these people have actually read the decision. For example, I was watching two women last night, both of whom clerked on the US Supreme Court, and each was missing and omitting key aspects of the decision. Long story short, don't necessary trust what you're hearing from media figures about the decision. To be frank, if any of us had put faith into your brand of good "legal commentary" we'd have been far more surprised by the courts decision yesterday. If legal analysis out there is bad, tell us why please, instead of simply asserting so. I've pointed out numerous times why and where legal commentary has been bad. Again, I'm sorta amused by all of you who think that I was wrong about the case because it's clear that you don't really understand how these decisions work. My prediction was that the law would not survive under the commerce clause, thus it would be struck down. As it turns, I was right except with regards to the law being struck down. The Court did not uphold the law under the commerce clause. What I did not expect is that the Court would consider the mandate to be a "tax," which basically no one argued or took seriously -- not the parties and not the commentators. Everyone thought that this case was going to be decided under the commerce clause (including me), which is why everyone is surprised about how the law survived. So anyway, it's your choice. You can either learn something from this discussion or be a partisan hack for the sake of being one.
So a total ignorance of the judicial prerogative to exhaust every vein of constitutionality before ruling on a given law or act is what then? A collective failure on the part of legal minds in the US or an expectation that the court would rule as partisanly as Roberts had subtly declared years ago? And while I may have partisan inclinations, at least I don't hide them behind a pseudo-affluent brand of constitutionalism. Here's you just a few pages back.
"And that's the most distressing part about the Democrat/liberal position on Obamacare and the individual mandate. Having the Court strike it down is a true, unequivocal win for freedom"
Whelp, freedom lost, and pots and kettles everywhere are preparing to strike.
|
On June 30 2012 02:53 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:32 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 02:25 hzflank wrote:On June 30 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 02:03 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 01:56 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:48 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 01:30 rogzardo wrote:On June 30 2012 01:18 Malarkey817 wrote:
[quote]
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems. Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever! As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that. I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution. Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military? There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further. Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary? The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right. Sorry, but you are not connecting the dots... There is no real difference between forcing a person to buy a product or taxing that person to generate money to buy the same product. ... and that is why he's saying SCOTUS was not right in their decision. Would you spell it out for me? I am under the impression that the federal government is allowed to instruct states on how to tax their citizens.
They are allowed to tax, but the way the law is written, it's basically a fine in substance -- a penalty -- which SCOTUS said quite clearly is not allowable. So the court is allowing the government to do exactly the opposite of what it said the government couldn't do --- penalize someone for not following a mandate. It's circular logic imo.
|
On June 30 2012 03:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 02:52 farvacola wrote:On June 30 2012 02:49 xDaunt wrote:
Just as an aside, most of the legal commentary that I have seen and heard about the decision has been absolutely appalling. It's been so bad and so inaccurate that I've wondered whether these people have actually read the decision. For example, I was watching two women last night, both of whom clerked on the US Supreme Court, and each was missing and omitting key aspects of the decision. Long story short, don't necessary trust what you're hearing from media figures about the decision. To be frank, if any of us had put faith into your brand of good "legal commentary" we'd have been far more surprised by the courts decision yesterday. If legal analysis out there is bad, tell us why please, instead of simply asserting so. I've pointed out numerous times why and where legal commentary has been bad. Again, I'm sorta amused by all of you who think that I was wrong about the case because it's clear that you don't really understand how these decisions work. My prediction was that the law would not survive under the commerce clause, thus it would be struck down. As it turns, I was right except with regards to the law being struck down. The Court did not uphold the law under the commerce clause. What I did not expect is that the Court would consider the mandate to be a "tax," which basically no one argued or took seriously -- not the parties and not the commentators. Everyone thought that this case was going to be decided under the commerce clause (including me), which is why everyone is surprised about how the law survived. So anyway, it's your choice. You can either learn something from this discussion or be a partisan hack for the sake of being one. So a total ignorance of the judicial prerogative to exhaust every vein of constitutionality before ruling on a given law or act is what then? A collective failure on the part of legal minds in the US or an expectation that the court would rule as partisanly as Roberts had declared years ago? And while I may have partisan inclinations, at least I don't hide them behind a pseudo-affluent brand of constitutionalism. Here's you just a few pages back. "And that's the most distressing part about the Democrat/liberal position on Obamacare and the individual mandate. Having the Court strike it down is a true, unequivocal win for freedom" Whelp, freedom lost, and pots and kettles everywhere are preparing to strike.
You are completely missing the point. This opinion is way off the beaten track for legal reasoning regarding similar laws. Sure, they justified it with other rulings, but it's clear that everyone thinks this should have been a commerce clause issue because of HOW the law functions. Virelli was berated iirc for even presenting the argument that it should fall under the taxing power.
|
On June 30 2012 03:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 02:48 RCMDVA wrote:
4 votes for Commerce Clause
4 votes against Commerce Clause
Roberts looks for any way to make this Constitutional. Comes up with it's OK as a Tax.
Ginsburg and the liberals Dissent.
Scalia and the conservatives Dissent.
That's the f'd up point.
1 person out of 9 agrees on the method.
No, it was 5-4 for the taxing power, the two dissents were both concur in part, dissent in part. the ginsburg dissent was in relation to the commerce clause 5-4 decision, while the other dissent was in regards to the taxing power 5-4 decision. this is pretty common in SCOTUS decisions.
You are correct. It's funny watching some people try to parse this in every way possible, and come up short.
On June 30 2012 02:59 xDaunt wrote:
So anyway, it's your choice. You can either learn something from this discussion or be a partisan hack for the sake of being one.
And obviously, you've made yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
