Yes: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html
Yes, please refer to Anwar al-Awlaki
What will be the outcome of Supreme Court and Obamacare or ACA?
- Thread starter texan
- Start date
moreluck
golden ticket member
Gee, I didn't know he pres. was allowed to threaten the Supreme Court......
Obama Launches Pre-Emptive Strike On Supreme Court, Says They Will Be Guilty of “Judicial Activism” If They Strike Down Obamacare…
Obama Launches Pre-Emptive Strike On Supreme Court, Says They Will Be Guilty of “Judicial Activism” If They Strike Down Obamacare…
brett636
Well-Known Member
You are confusing the penalty as set in Obamacare with a tax. It isn't, and was stated so during the Supreme Court arguments. Congress has the power to levy taxes as per the constitution, but by definition a tax is defined as an act of congress with the intention of raising revenue(while in reality not all taxes raise revenue, its the intention that counts here). The penalty ideally would not raise any revenue if everyone would simply get health insurance, and while we know this just will not happen its not the intention meaning the penalty is not a tax. So if this stands what other penalties can Congress enact for the individual not acting in their prescribed manner? How about the next time someone buys a meal at a restaurant they must buy a side of steamed broccoli otherwise Congress will force that resturant to charge twice the price for the meal? How about Congress enact that I must buy my burial plot by a certain age or pay a penalty since at some point I will need to be buried.
This is one of the many things that gets frightening when the government decides it gets a hand in an individual's healthcare, because once the government has a financial interest it can then expand its regulatory powers to coerce and or regulate that individuals activities. Even if those activities are considered normal and customary for a free individual. Government getting its hand into how healthcare is run and administered only means less freedom for the individual.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Thats funny, because when judges do practice Judicial activism it is usually in his favor and I don't hear him condemning that. If the court does strike down the law they are simply acting in the manner in which the court was designed. The law was not constitutional because it forced an individual to buy health insurance, and the severability clause(clause which states if part of the bill is deemed unconstitutional it doesn't mean the entire bill is) which was present in an earlier version of the bill was not present in the version that was signed into law. The judges are not lawmakers as they were not intended to be, so the law has to be struck down in its entirety or not at all.
moreluck
golden ticket member
You would think that the pres. wouldn't want to piss off the court with his cocky comments. I would also think that if he was a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, that he would make sure his law is constitutional. Maybe he was a faux professor!!
Anyone ever hear from a student of his ????
Anyone ever hear from a student of his ????
Brett
Your point is well taken about taxes but I am still confused about penalties. If a person is one day late interest and penalties add up exponetially. In fact, the interest and penalties are often far more agregious than the tax. The two are separate. The penalties and interest are the government's response to the entity not paying the tax on time. That is the entity did not act accordin to congress' time table for tax payment. We know that congress has the power to levy taxes, but where does the power originate from to collect the penalties and interest? Seems to me that congress can penalize for not taking action.
Your point is well taken about taxes but I am still confused about penalties. If a person is one day late interest and penalties add up exponetially. In fact, the interest and penalties are often far more agregious than the tax. The two are separate. The penalties and interest are the government's response to the entity not paying the tax on time. That is the entity did not act accordin to congress' time table for tax payment. We know that congress has the power to levy taxes, but where does the power originate from to collect the penalties and interest? Seems to me that congress can penalize for not taking action.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
He did not teach at Harvard, the only known thing the he did was not pay his parking tickets .
Nice Neil Bortz rant, but what I am facinated by, is how you and the others in the C9 believe that goverment should not be involved in making health care decisions for americans, yet, you same folks will support the EMPLOYER making health care decisions for employees?
How does that reconcile? Are you telling us that the employers know more about health care than the goverment? Are the employers all trained doctors?
You would rather prevent the goverment from making health care affordable for everyone and yet, give the power to an employer to make health care decisions for employees?
IF you had a Jehovahs Witness for a boss, and you needed a serious surgery that required a blood transfusion and that boss said that "it was against my religion to allow that" , you mean to tell us that you would be perfectly fine accepting this fate based upon the decision of a Jehovahs Witness? You would rather DIE because your surgery was not allowed by your Jehovahs witness boss but if the goverment made a decision to give you coverage you would be outraged?
This makes no sense.
Help me out here..
Peace
TOS
How can it be constitutional to require other Americans to pay for health care of the uninsured when they go to the emergency room? Is that not the federal government requiring me to purchase something I would not otherwise purchase? And if they can mandate that I do so, why can they not mandate those without insurance to be insured?
brett636
Well-Known Member
I'm certain you are familiar with the only two guarantees in life, and those are death and taxes. The penalties are you referring too are penalties assessed for not taking action regarding an obligation to pay taxes to the government. I would argue the government has too much power in this arena, but none the less they do have the power to assess penalties and interest in the event that you are not paying the taxes you owe. I don't believe anyone is arguing the government can not assess penalties for current obligations to the government like paying taxes. Again the difference here is the government is assessing a penalty for not contracting for services with a private company for their services. The best analogy I can come up with is when you are doing your taxes you can get them completed however you want, whether its with a tax preparation firm, CPA, software, or doing it on your own with pen and paper forms. If the same logic were to apply the government would charge you more in taxes for NOT using their endorsed tax preparation firms which is an overstep of the commerce clause by forcing someone into commerce that they otherwise may not want or need.
My employer doesn't interject into my healthcare decisions, and neither does the insurance company. Sure the insurance company can refuse to pay for something, but that doesn't mean I can't pay for it and go after the insurance company later if I feel I have been wronged.
Again, this is an apples and oranges comparison. In your example the federal government is using tax money it recieves to pay for someone else's lack of insurance, and that is considered constitutional because the government recieves tax revenues and uses that money for things like what you just mentioned. Just like it would make a stronger constitutional argument for the government to begin a new tax and use that money to pay for the uninsured healthcare or to start a single payer healthcare plan. Its completely different for the government to just say you must have health insurance to the individual because at that point they can say you must buy a burial plot, or you must buy certain foods at the grocery store or restaurant. Its one thing for the government to take your money in the form of taxes and spend it in ways you may or may not agree with. Its completely another for the government to begin dictating how you are to spend the dollars they "allowed" you to keep.
I have to admit, brett, you make a compelling point. I lean toward saying the law will be found unconstitutional but that leaves me thinking that it is the Constitution and not the ACA that represents the "bad law" in this case. Americans cannot expect the constitution to protect something as basic as health in 2012, but they can expect corporations, unions, and very rich individuals to do everything in their power to buy elections, politicians, and favors. The Robert's court is sick.
moreluck
golden ticket member
If I were the president, I would send a one page reply repeating the question and then a single word answer, "Yes". Follow it by a sentence like this: " It is apparent by your question that my assertion that you are "not elected officials" is correct because if you were, you would know a political campaign speach when you heard it."
moreluck
golden ticket member
It's the Justice Dept. that has the little detention assignment.
Same letter just change a couple pronouns.
Barack Obama did not teach at Harvard. Your hatred is blinding you. He has done nothing more than Bush II did, except being Black and Democratic.
When was the last time Supreme Court Justices boycotted a State Of The Union Address?
I thought the Justices were supposed to be above partisan politics, not stooges for the party that put them there for life.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Now we can look into exactly who wrote this healthcare law.
Was it an elected person(s) ?
No , it was done by staffers...If you recall N.P. stating that we have to pass it to find out what's in it remark.
So now unelected judges are going to make a decision about a law written by unelected staffers but bhos has declared it constitutional.
Was it an elected person(s) ?
No , it was done by staffers...If you recall N.P. stating that we have to pass it to find out what's in it remark.
So now unelected judges are going to make a decision about a law written by unelected staffers but bhos has declared it constitutional.
Don't be so damn naive. Lobbyist wrote the law and made sure that the insurance industry would get big fat checks out of the deal.
