AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 7, 2013 13:08:09 GMT -5
The Cloudfare server eats posts. What you write to be posted and what actually gets posted may not match. Always good to check your post just in case. FWIW. Oooh, fun! Well, thanks for the heads up on that.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 7, 2013 13:14:12 GMT -5
I haven't had the Cloudflare server eat any of my posts. If your links aren't posting, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP, check your post after you post it. If the link isn't there, edit the post and put it in.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2013 13:16:55 GMT -5
i am not sure how Obama is supposed to answer that question. the honest answer is yes. but you know what happens if he says that: he gets pulled over hot coals for it. even though it is the truth.
lose/lose
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Dec 7, 2013 13:18:43 GMT -5
"During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance. "
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 7, 2013 13:45:58 GMT -5
i am not sure how Obama is supposed to answer that question. the honest answer is yes. but you know what happens if he says that: he gets pulled over hot coals for it. even though it is the truth. lose/lose OF course it's the honest answer- of course it's the answer he's supposed to give. I don't expect him to lie. I expect that aspect of the law to be declared unConstitutional- because it is. Given the SCOTUS couldn't seem to come up with the correct answer, there's literally NOTHING the government cannot order you to do, and if you don't do it, fine you, and if you don't pay the fine, imprison you. Doesn't sound Constitutional to me- but fuck it, you got your damn ObamaCare and that's all that matters. And the worst part for the country is we can repeal the law, but how do you undo the precedent? I have an idea: amend the Constitution. Make it absolutely illegal for government to tax, or fine a person for not engaging in commerce.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,501
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 7, 2013 13:52:18 GMT -5
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Dec 7, 2013 13:57:56 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know, but frankly the misinformation queens are all over the drama triangle on the issue which makes it far less interesting.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,501
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 7, 2013 13:58:32 GMT -5
"Ten Things You Need to Know about the PPACA Ruling-Part Two Posted Monday, October 22, 2012 The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts further states that just because a type of inactivity is taxed does not make it illegal. Although the goal of the mandate to purchase insurance is to increase the number of U.S. citizens who have healthcare insurance, failure to purchase the insurance is not illegal. There are no stated or implied adverse legal consequences to not having health insurance. The only requirement if an individual does not buy it, that person must pay a fee to the Internal Revenue Service. If a person decides to pay the tax rather than buy insurance, the requirements of the Act have been met and the person has followed the law. Roberts said that it is expected that some 4 million people annually would choose to not buy insurance and pay the fee to the IRS. Congress did not expect that those 4 million people would be treated as outlaws." Insurance Makes Me Crazy
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,501
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 7, 2013 14:07:07 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know, but frankly the misinformation queens are all over the drama triangle on the issue which makes it far less interesting. Well the ìnterview with Tapper took place before the PPACA was passed and became law.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2013 14:08:51 GMT -5
i am not sure how Obama is supposed to answer that question. the honest answer is yes. but you know what happens if he says that: he gets pulled over hot coals for it. even though it is the truth. lose/lose OF course it's the honest answer- of course it's the answer he's supposed to give. I don't expect him to lie. I expect that aspect of the law to be declared unConstitutional- because it is. Given the SCOTUS couldn't seem to come up with the correct answer, there's literally NOTHING the government cannot order you to do, and if you don't do it, fine you, and if you don't pay the fine, imprison you. Doesn't sound Constitutional to me- but fuck it, you got your damn ObamaCare and that's all that matters. no, i got YOUR damn ObamaCare. mine contained a public option.And the worst part for the country is we can repeal the law, but how do you undo the precedent? I have an idea: amend the Constitution. Make it absolutely illegal for government to tax, or fine a person for not engaging in commerce. SCOTUS already decided on this one. no need to ammend.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,501
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 7, 2013 14:20:42 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 7, 2013 19:27:03 GMT -5
OF course it's the honest answer- of course it's the answer he's supposed to give. I don't expect him to lie. I expect that aspect of the law to be declared unConstitutional- because it is. Given the SCOTUS couldn't seem to come up with the correct answer, there's literally NOTHING the government cannot order you to do, and if you don't do it, fine you, and if you don't pay the fine, imprison you. Doesn't sound Constitutional to me- but fuck it, you got your damn ObamaCare and that's all that matters. no, i got YOUR damn ObamaCare. mine contained a public option.And the worst part for the country is we can repeal the law, but how do you undo the precedent? I have an idea: amend the Constitution. Make it absolutely illegal for government to tax, or fine a person for not engaging in commerce. SCOTUS already decided on this one. no need to ammend. That's why we have three (3) coequal branches of government, dj. SCOTUS is not the final word. If we fix nothing else we have to fix this. It's mandatory.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 7, 2013 19:31:32 GMT -5
Of course the federal government cannot suspend a license it hasn't issued. But ObamaCare is the law. If you fail to purchase insurance as mandated by law, then you must pay a penalty that SCOTUS ruled is a tax. ObamaCare is about 80% tax bill- it changes the tax code, and there are statutory penalties up to and including interest and penalties for not paying taxes. That's just an undeniable fact. Eventually, you must comply with the law- or it's not a law. What SNOPES says is really incredible, because what they're claiming is that there is no individual mandate. Except there is. EDIT: Holy crap, you might be right...if reports are accurate, the mandates are toothless. If you arrange your affairs so you have no tax refund due, there's no penalty. www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/07/09/obamacares-empty-mandates
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 7, 2013 19:41:20 GMT -5
There's still a penalty, they just have no easy way to collect. The government has a long memory though. 40 years from now we'll be hearing about starving retirees that are having decades old IRS penalties withdrawn from their SS checks. The VA already does this. If they find old overpayments, even decades old, they garnish your current bennies to get them.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,501
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 7, 2013 19:42:29 GMT -5
Of course the federal government cannot suspend a license it hasn't issued. But ObamaCare is the law. If you fail to purchase insurance as mandated by law, then you must pay a penalty that SCOTUS ruled is a tax. ObamaCare is about 80% tax bill- it changes the tax code, and there are statutory penalties up to and including interest and penalties for not paying taxes. That's just an undeniable fact. Eventually, you must comply with the law- or it's not a law. What SNOPES says is really incredible, because what they're claiming is that there is no individual mandate. Except there is. EDIT: Holy crap, you might be right...if reports are accurate, the mandates are toothless. If you arrange your affairs so you have no tax refund due, there's no penalty. www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/07/09/obamacares-empty-mandatesI would imagine the IRS can learn something from the SSA. Social Security goes after vet 41 years later
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2013 22:13:21 GMT -5
SCOTUS already decided on this one. no need to ammend. That's why we have three (3) coequal branches of government, dj. SCOTUS is not the final word. If we fix nothing else we have to fix this. It's mandatory. in terms of law, i am afraid they are. you don't have to like it. i don't have to like it. but we BOTH have to accept it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 8, 2013 10:22:45 GMT -5
That's why we have three (3) coequal branches of government, dj. SCOTUS is not the final word. If we fix nothing else we have to fix this. It's mandatory. in terms of law, i am afraid they are. you don't have to like it. i don't have to like it. but we BOTH have to accept it. Why would you believe this completely erroneous idea? Do you honestly believe America is ruled by a council of nine people, and that the Legislative, Executive, States, and the People have no say in how the Constitution will be interpreted or applied? OF COURSE we do. Everyone's favorite 'liberal' agrees: "Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are u nauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 "Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse." --Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809. "[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782. Q.XIII "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791. "Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Dec 8, 2013 11:27:24 GMT -5
The SCOTUS is the final interpretation of the Federal Constitution. You can drag up all kinds of moldy stuff that doesn't apply, but the fact remains that your interpretations of such moldy bits don't apply. You are assuming that the SCOTUS has not acted within it's scope of authority or acted out of it's jurisdiction. That isn't the case. Not by a landslide.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2013 13:09:00 GMT -5
in terms of law, i am afraid they are. you don't have to like it. i don't have to like it. but we BOTH have to accept it. Why would you believe this completely erroneous idea? Do you honestly believe America is ruled by a council of nine people, and that the Legislative, Executive, States, and the People have no say in how the Constitution will be interpreted or applied? OF COURSE we do. Everyone's favorite 'liberal' agrees: "Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are u nauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 "Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse." --Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809. "[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782. Q.XIII "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791. "Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. i believe that the SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is constitutional. i believe that ALL of the highlighted quotes apply to over-reaches on the part of CONGRESS, not the judicial branch. if you disagree, please explain why. but also explain how issues like forced detention and drugging of citizens would be resolved.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2013 13:10:02 GMT -5
The SCOTUS is the final interpretation of the Federal Constitution. You can drag up all kinds of moldy stuff that doesn't apply, but the fact remains that your interpretations of such moldy bits don't apply. You are assuming that the SCOTUS has not acted within it's scope of authority or acted out of it's jurisdiction. That isn't the case. Not by a landslide. it seems to me that every one of his citations actually SUPPORTS that position, celeb.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2013 11:29:05 GMT -5
Why would you believe this completely erroneous idea? Do you honestly believe America is ruled by a council of nine people, and that the Legislative, Executive, States, and the People have no say in how the Constitution will be interpreted or applied? OF COURSE we do. Everyone's favorite 'liberal' agrees: "Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are u nauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 "Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse." --Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809. "[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782. Q.XIII "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791. "Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. i believe that the SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is constitutional. i believe that ALL of the highlighted quotes apply to over-reaches on the part of CONGRESS, not the judicial branch. if you disagree, please explain why. but also explain how issues like forced detention and drugging of citizens would be resolved. People elect their representatives, and they support laws- then SCOTUS undoes them more often than not.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2013 11:32:12 GMT -5
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 9, 2013 11:35:49 GMT -5
I'd say the "General Government" refers to all branches, not just one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2013 12:53:46 GMT -5
i believe that the SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is constitutional. i believe that ALL of the highlighted quotes apply to over-reaches on the part of CONGRESS, not the judicial branch. if you disagree, please explain why. but also explain how issues like forced detention and drugging of citizens would be resolved. People elect their representatives, and they support laws- then SCOTUS undoes them more often than not. that is because "their representatives" suck at knowing what is constitutional. you yourself have said it often enough.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2013 13:00:24 GMT -5
People elect their representatives, and they support laws- then SCOTUS undoes them more often than not. that is because "their representatives" suck at knowing what is constitutional. you yourself have said it often enough. And what changes when they go from the state house to the US senate to the White House and appoint people to the Supreme Court? The idea that the SCOTUS is the infallible final word on the Constitution sounds more like a dogmatic religious notion than one rooted in a firm understanding of the American founding and separation of powers.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 9, 2013 13:00:38 GMT -5
I must have missed something. Did the SCOTUS hear or rule on whether it was constitutional for Obama to make changes he made to the ACA legislation? It seems the big question being asked now is if the constitution allows the president to call a press conference and modify a law passed by the congress in the ways he has.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 9, 2013 13:02:18 GMT -5
This is why Plessy v Ferguson is still the law of the land. I weep about it every time I pass by the colored school on my way to my whites-only workplace. Either that, or the Supreme Court isn't bound by stare decisis, or something.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2013 13:07:44 GMT -5
that is because "their representatives" suck at knowing what is constitutional. you yourself have said it often enough. And what changes when they go from the state house to the US senate to the White House and appoint people to the Supreme Court? nothing. but that has nothing to do with the argument, unless you think the nine justices are unqualified to judge law.The idea that the SCOTUS is the infallible final word on the Constitution red herring. i never claimed they were infallable. i claimed that they are the arbiter of the Constitution. but as FALLABLE as they are, i would take 10,000 of them over your average know-nothing representative. sounds more like a dogmatic religious notion ........ it does. and considering that you made it up out of whole cloth, that should provide you with ample fodder for introspection.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2013 13:15:30 GMT -5
I must have missed something. Did the SCOTUS hear or rule on whether it was constitutional for Obama to make changes he made to the ACA legislation? It seems the big question being asked now is if the constitution allows the president to call a press conference and modify a law passed by the congress in the ways he has. i am not even aware of any CHALLENGE to it. think about that for a while. let me know what you conclude.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 9, 2013 13:25:08 GMT -5
Thanks, I thought based on reading the previous posts that the SCOTUS heard a challenge and declared the current state of this law constitutional. To my knowledge that has not happened yet. It will IMHO be a sad day if it is challenged and declared constitutional!
|
|