steveh_131
Grandmaster
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'.
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.
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.
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.
The left does seem to do it more often and without the consent of the taxpayers
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
He may not, but the SCOTUS did ...
As soon as you show me where it says INGO partisans decide what is or is not Constitutional.
A whole wide variety of stuff has been found Constitutional over the years that isn't explicitly mentioned,
as per the process described in the Cobstitution.
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.
Yes, the entire system is broken. That is why it proves my point.
You illustrated it perfectly, thank you.
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.
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.".
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?
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.