The GOP's little rule change they hoped you wouldn't notice

[steveh_131]

I get your point, but your premise only works when the judge KNOWS that their ruling is wrong. If a judge is acting in good faith, then that changes things.

Well, I did say 'corrupt'.

 

[copperhead-1911]

O.P. Don't try to tell us that the left has never tried anything like this.
It sucks when ANYONE circumvents the constitution, right, left, or independent.

The left does seem to do it more often and without the consent of the taxpayers

 

[Streak]

Afraid to answer the question?

If the supreme court decides what the constitution means, then the criminal judge, similarly, decides what the law means.

If he says it's not illegal, then it's not illegal. Even if I beat some old lady to death and take her car.

You can't have it both ways.

I can't answer the question. It's a worst-case scenario (that's frankly next to impossible to happen) hypothetical. You said every single judge at all levels is corrupt. At that point we'd reach an impasse where I'd propose that it doesn't matter what anyone's perception of legal/illegal is. The system is broken to a point that it can't correctly function and in a 3-tiered checks/balances system (such as ours) there's also most likely a breakdown in all parts at all levels of government.

It's an unfair question and it wouldn't prove your point because the entire system would have to be broken for this situation to occur.

 

[Streak]

The left does seem to do it more often and without the consent of the taxpayers

Do you have statistics on this or is this an opinion that's baseless and thus irrelevant for serious discussion?

 

[steveh_131]

I can't answer the question. It's a worst-case scenario (that's frankly next to impossible to happen) hypothetical. You said every single judge at all levels is corrupt. At that point we'd reach an impasse where I'd propose that it doesn't matter what anyone's perception of legal/illegal is. The system is broken to a point that it can't correctly function and in a 3-tiered checks/balances system (such as ours) there's also most likely a breakdown in all parts at all levels of government.

It's an unfair question and it wouldn't prove your point because the entire system would have to be broken for this situation to occur.

Yes, the entire system is broken. That is why it proves my point.

You illustrated it perfectly, thank you.

 

[Chewie]

These 9 people have law degrees, generally have held prestigious benches, and have many years of experience in the art of law. I understand law enough to know that I certainly can't hold a candle to these guys. Are you lawyer? I'm not. No law degree here.

I'm no lawyer either but I have seen totally inept CEO's who have achieved their position through whatever means. Just because a judge has held a prestigious bench does not guarantee anything (I hope it provides a guarantee of a certain level of knowledge). Everyone has an agenda, even a judge, a law degree supposedly guarantees a level of knowledge in a specific area but not true integrity.
Justifying an appointment by previous positions held rather than a performance style review is fraught with danger and faulty results. Many Supreme court appointees occur to meet agendas and nothing more.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[cobber]

After they re-wrote the law and called a penalty a tax & ignored that it didn't originate in the house.

Can you think of anything else that is unconstitutional that SCOTUS found constitutional, then reversed itself?

Separate but equal. Another big hit with the Democrat Party.

What level of judge? If this is a corrupt judge an appellate court will overturn this. If there was another circumstance that made this not theft then they will not.

Assuming the appellate court is not likewise corrupt, or corrupt in its own way. And that the judge's action is not demonstrably error.

 

[Pooty22]

I kind of think it's funny that you guys are arguing about the ACA. I made this thread to show that the House Republicans planned this shutdown and then changed the House rules so Boehner could be the only person to bring a vote to end it. And he's using that newly changed rule to continue it until he gets his way.

 

[Hoosier8]

SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the portions of a law based on the arguments brought before it. Since the fact that the ACA originated in the Senate was not part of the arguments, and it was ruled Constitutional based on the power of Congress to tax, it may be objected to on that basis. If you look at all the different ways plaintiffs have gone about trying to get abortion overturned or our Second Amendment rights restricted, you will see that one Supreme Court decision need not affect all of a law, just a part of it, as the recent SCOTUS decision which overturned parts of the Voting Rights law, I believe.

The bill originated in the House, where only bills like this can originate but using the trick (in our books) of using an existing House bill for something unrelated and filling it with Obamacare. Another procedural trick (in our books) was used to pass it but those are the arcane rules of the House and Senate.

 

[Hoosier8]

I read the Constitution and didn't find any mention of these procedural tricks Republicans are using to prevent ratified law from being enforced. I wish we could have politicians that respected the Constitution.

You won't. The Constitution clearly gives the house the power of the purse and both the House and Senate the ability to create their own rules. Nothing so far has been unconstitutional.

 

[Bummer]

He may not, but the SCOTUS did ...

I didn't ask about the Supreme Court. I asked about the Constitution. If you don't want to answer, feel free not to, but don't expect me to believe you care about the Constitution if you don't care what it actually says.

As soon as you show me where it says INGO partisans decide what is or is not Constitutional.

I asked you where the Constitution contained an actual grant of authority. I can understand you wanting to dodge the question, since no such grant actually exists.

A whole wide variety of stuff has been found Constitutional over the years that isn't explicitly mentioned,

In other words, stuff that isn't actually there. Got it. I stepped in some penumbra once. It took a while to scrape it back off my shoe.

as per the process described in the Cobstitution.

Actually the process you are attempting to refer to isn't in the Constitution. It was created by the Supreme Court itself.

Again, a lot of people only like the Constitution when it produces they outcome they want and I understand you guys, being self serving is hard to give up. But I prefer to follow it all the time.

How can you say you prefer to follow the Constitution all the time when you hide behind things that are not actually in the Constitution? Looks to me like you love the arbitrary exercise of power a whole lot more than you love the Constitution. I guess in that sense you know all about self serving.

 

[Streak]

Yes, the entire system is broken. That is why it proves my point.

You illustrated it perfectly, thank you.

Wrong. You gave a hypothetical situation and now you're trying to change that into me saying something I didn't say. You said an "EXAMPLE", if you don't know the meaning of a simple word, you have no business trying to discuss something as complex as politics. Please don't put words in my mouth, I don't do it to you and you certainly will not do it to me.

 

[Streak]

You won't. The Constitution clearly gives the house the power of the purse and both the House and Senate the ability to create their own rules. Nothing so far has been unconstitutional.

Kind of. It gives the House the power to originate Bills of Revenue, but it gives the Senate the ability to Amend those.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I didn't ask about the Supreme Court. I asked about the Constitution. If you don't want to answer, feel free not to, but don't expect me to believe you care about the Constitution if you don't care what it actually says.



I asked you where the Constitution contained an actual grant of authority. I can understand you wanting to dodge the question, since no such grant actually exists.



In other words, stuff that isn't actually there. Got it. I stepped in some penumbra once. It took a while to scrape it back off my shoe.



Actually the process you are attempting to refer to isn't in the Constitution. It was created by the Supreme Court itself.



How can you say you prefer to follow the Constitution all the time when you hide behind things that are not actually in the Constitution? Looks to me like you love the arbitrary exercise of power a whole lot more than you love the Constitution. I guess in that sense you know all about self serving.

The current administration was quite smart in referring to the ACA as a "tax" rather than a "penalty." Had the "penalty" language persisted, I would have expected the USSC to strike it down. IMPO, and even though I'm certainly no fan of the program, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 allows the ACA to become law.

With the text being:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Is this a tax? Well that's what they're calling it
Is it for the general welfare? That what it's supposed to be for
Is it uniform? Well, I guess not, but it is just as uniform as many other taxes

I think it's difficult to say that the ACA is UnConstitutional, especially in light the Second Militia Act of 1792 which conscripted and required every man between 18-54 to provide for themselves a musket, bayonet, and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. However, like the ACA, there were exemptions for certain occupations.

...and keep in mind that this was signed into law by George Washington, himself

 

[Bunnykid68]

The current administration was quite smart in referring to the ACA as a "tax" rather than a "penalty.".

Current admin didn't, they kept saying it was not a tax. The illustrious Justice Roberts said it was a tax.

 

[steveh_131]

Wrong. You gave a hypothetical situation and now you're trying to change that into me saying something I didn't say. You said an "EXAMPLE", if you don't know the meaning of a simple word, you have no business trying to discuss something as complex as politics. Please don't put words in my mouth, I don't do it to you and you certainly will not do it to me.

My hypothetical relied on a completely broken system, so you refused to answer.

Our system is equally broken. Yet you're glad to answer that one.

So? Is my carjacking scenario legal or illegal once the courts decide it is legal? Is carjacking legal because some idiots in robes says it is? Or is it illegal because the law says it is?

 

[Streak]

My hypothetical relied on a completely broken system, so you refused to answer.

Yes, I said your example was a poor example. I'm glad we both agree.

Our system is equally broken. Yet you're glad to answer that one.

That's your opinion and truly it doesn't matter.

So? Is my carjacking scenario legal or illegal once the courts decide it is legal? Is carjacking legal because some idiots in robes says it is? Or is it illegal because the law says it is?

Again, it's a poor question because the premise that you gave can't happen. It's a nonsensical "what if" and a serious debate doesn't dive into speculative "what ifs". It's a waste of time.

 

[Bummer]

The current administration was quite smart in referring to the ACA as a "tax" rather than a "penalty." Had the "penalty" language persisted, I would have expected the USSC to strike it down. IMPO, and even though I'm certainly no fan of the program, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 allows the ACA to become law.

With the text being:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Is this a tax? Well that's what they're calling it
Is it for the general welfare? That what it's supposed to be for
Is it uniform? Well, I guess not, but it is just as uniform as many other taxes

I think it's difficult to say that the ACA is UnConstitutional, especially in light the Second Militia Act of 1792 which conscripted and required every man between 18-54 to provide for themselves a musket, bayonet, and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. However, like the ACA, there were exemptions for certain occupations.

...and keep in mind that this was signed into law by George Washington, himself

From what I've read all the Justices agreed that this "tax" is a penalty. The majority said it wasn't enough of a penalty to matter. The dissenters said that any penalty is a penalty. Either way, they still didn't address the issue of the lack of Constitutional authority to order the public to purchase health insurance, which is what the ACA actually does. Do they have the authority to tax? Sure. Do they have the authority to demand that we all buy insurance? Not in the words of the Constitution as actually written and ratified.

The "General Welfare" clause was originally understood to be an explanation of the need for the authority granted to tax, and not a grant of authority in and of itself. It worked that way for something like 150 years, until the Supremes started changing the meanings of words and adding stuff that isn't there, all because nobody is willing to stop them. Had it been an unlimited grant of authority as it is used today, why would the men who wrote the Constitution have bothered to specify grants of authority as they did in the rest of Article I, Section 8? Since nothing is to be deemed superfluous, the statement that taxes were to promote the general welfare could not have been a grant of authority. Also note that Article I, Section 8 makes specific grants of authority spelling out the details of "provide for the common defense", further illustrating that the phrase "promote the general welfare" was not a grant of authority any more than "provide for the common defense" was.

Militias existed in every Colony and every pre-Constitutional State for 150 years prior to the writing of the Constitution. During that time members of government could come to your home to verify that you had sufficient military arms and accoutrements to fulfill your obligations to the Militia. If you failed in your obligation you could be fined, with the fines generally being used to buy the items required. The States under the Constitution created Militias and specified who was in them and what was required of them. In Article I, Section 8 the Congress is granted the authority to provide for the arming of the militia. The Militia act you reference merely fulfilled Congress' obligation to provide for the arming of the militia under the authority granted in Article I, Section 8. No such authority is granted to cause the public to purchase insurance.

Let me point out that Article III, Section 1 states that the Justices of the Supreme Court shall hold their offices during good behavior. Clearly that means they may not hold their offices during less than good behavior. Saying that no means yes and finding magical authority where none is granted is most certainly not good behavior. At least it wouldn't be if my children had tried it. Why should a Supreme Court Justice be held to a lesser standard than a child?

 

[Kutnupe14]

From what I've read all the Justices agreed that this "tax" is a penalty. The majority said it wasn't enough of a penalty to matter. The dissenters said that any penalty is a penalty. Either way, they still didn't address the issue of the lack of Constitutional authority to order the public to purchase health insurance, which is what the ACA actually does. Do they have the authority to tax? Sure. Do they have the authority to demand that we all buy insurance? Not in the words of the Constitution as actually written and ratified.

I can agree that the words do not grant the govt the ability to make persons purchase anything. However, the words do allow for a "taxation" for the general welfare. And I use "taxation" loosely.

The "General Welfare" clause was originally understood to be an explanation of the need for the authority granted to tax, and not a grant of authority in and of itself. It worked that way for something like 150 years, until the Supremes started changing the meanings of words and adding stuff that isn't there, all because nobody is willing to stop them. Had it been an unlimited grant of authority as it is used today, why would the men who wrote the Constitution have bothered to specify grants of authority as they did in the rest of Article I, Section 8? Since nothing is to be deemed superfluous, the statement that taxes were to promote the general welfare could not have been a grant of authority. Also note that Article I, Section 8 makes specific grants of authority spelling out the details of "provide for the common defense", further illustrating that the phrase "promote the general welfare" was not a grant of authority any more than "provide for the common defense" was.

You understand the root of the problem, and I agree completely. The problem is that from the very outset, precedents were set that contradicted the intention of the Constitution. These were contradictions, unfortunately, came from the pens and mouths of the very men that were there when the Constitution was first drafted. Subsequent courts, I imagine, when asked to interpret law, looked at these precedents and used them as guidelines.

Militias existed in every Colony and every pre-Constitutional State for 150 years prior to the writing of the Constitution. During that time members of government could come to your home to verify that you had sufficient military arms and accoutrements to fulfill your obligations to the Militia. If you failed in your obligation you could be fined, with the fines generally being used to buy the items required. The States under the Constitution created Militias and specified who was in them and what was required of them. In Article I, Section 8 the Congress is granted the authority to provide for the arming of the militia. The Militia act you reference merely fulfilled Congress' obligation to provide for the arming of the militia under the authority granted in Article I, Section 8. No such authority is granted to cause the public to purchase insurance.

The glaring problem is that this, while correct, runs afoul of natural rights. No man should be compeled, nor conscripted, to serve in a military capacity. This is a far more egregious attack on liberty than requiring one to obtain/purchase an item/service (in this case, a musket, flint, ball, ect). And yet, the Militia Act did BOTH of those things, and obviously passed. Interestingly enough, the cost of a musket during that time was approximately $13, the fine could be as high as $12 (as cited from NY), and if the fine was not paid, one could be imprisoned for debt. Now, I haven't researched if anyone ever challenged the Militia Act, and if it wasn't challenged, it still could be law while also technically being unConstitutional. However, if one looks to it as an example, I seems obvious (militia or no) that at least since 1792, the govt has been able to mandate what citizens should buy. Fair? Certainly not, ridiculous is more like it. I despise the ACA (but respect it's intentions) but I could say the exact same about the Militia Act.