Social Security will be found unconstitutional if Romney elected. (campaign, democrat, Attorney)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Justice Samuel Alito spoke critically of Obamacare, complaining that it “forces young, healthy people to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.” Exactly the same could be said today about Social Security.
Yup! Romney wants to have Social Security unconstitutional. He also wants to use the Grand Canyon as the nations garbage dump. The garbage will be brought in by high speed rail.
And he will convert Mrs. Obama's garden to a target range and use puppies and kittens as targets.
I never said Romney wants to end Social Security. What I said is that if Romney is elected Social Security could be found unconstitutional. All that is required is that Romney appoint one or two right wing justices.
Randy Barnett a harvard graduate and law professor is one of those who believe the new deal legislation such as social security are unconstitutional. He is just one example of a Romney appointment that could tip the scales.
Yup! Romney wants to have Social Security unconstitutional. He also wants to use the Grand Canyon as the nations garbage dump. The garbage will be brought in by high speed rail.
And he will convert Mrs. Obama's garden to a target range and use puppies and kittens as targets.
Woah there fella, those better be coal burning high speed trains cause Romney would have nothing less.
Here is what Chief Justice Roberts said in the decision. You can read the whole decision on line if you like. It is not hard to find.
The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional,because it can reasonably be read as a tax. -- Chief Justice John Roberts
The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express an opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people. -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.-- Chief Justice John Roberts
You are also incorrect about what is passed is passed. The Supreme Court can overturn any prior rulings made by the Supreme Court.
Actually I DO know what I was talking about.. LOL, I just wanted to see how fast it would be before someone Admitted that Obamacare DOES impose new taxes, and one of them was for not having Health insurance.
In truth, the defence for Obamacare was, it is a tax, and therefore legal, even though Obama himself announced to the American people it was a penalty, not a tax, and therefore is a liar.
BTW, I also know that the Supreme court can in fact overturn previous decisions, BUT, they have to in fact be accepted by the supreme court to be heard, along with several other hurdles. The overturning of a Supreme Court decision, is neither simple, nor easy.
Thank you however, for the first to notice my post and respond appropriately to it.
Actually I DO know what I was talking about.. LOL, I just wanted to see how fast it would be before someone Admitted that Obamacare DOES impose new taxes, and one of them was for not having Health insurance.
In truth, the defence for Obamacare was, it is a tax, and therefore legal, even though Obama himself announced to the American people it was a penalty, not a tax, and therefore is a liar.
BTW, I also know that the Supreme court can in fact overturn previous decisions, BUT, they have to in fact be accepted by the supreme court to be heard, along with several other hurdles. The overturning of a Supreme Court decision, is neither simple, nor easy.
Thank you however, for the first to notice my post and respond appropriately to it.
These were the same people who argued non stop with me telling me how wrong I was when I called Obamacare a tax..
I would expect that to happen and is one reason I am working against his election. Wall Street has been trying since the system began to have those funds available for thier fun and games.
Actually I DO know what I was talking about.. LOL, I just wanted to see how fast it would be before someone Admitted that Obamacare DOES impose new taxes, and one of them was for not having Health insurance.
In truth, the defence for Obamacare was, it is a tax, and therefore legal, even though Obama himself announced to the American people it was a penalty, not a tax, and therefore is a liar.
BTW, I also know that the Supreme court can in fact overturn previous decisions, BUT, they have to in fact be accepted by the supreme court to be heard, along with several other hurdles. The overturning of a Supreme Court decision, is neither simple, nor easy.
Thank you however, for the first to notice my post and respond appropriately to it.
I am not admitting or denying ACA is a tax or a fine. It is not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is that Roberts the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court justified ACA as being Constitutional based on the law being a tax, which puts it in the same ball park as Social Security. Four of the nine ruled against ACA. IF ACA and SS have the same justification for being constitutional and 4 Supreme Court Justices voted against it, all that is required is one more more conservative justice to overturn it.
Would it not make sense that if they had one more vote on the Supreme Court they could overturn both ACA and SS, and it really is that simple.
Of course, the case would have to make it the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court decides which cases make it to their court. Once there, it is simply up to the members of the court to rule on the Constitutionality of a law. It is that simple.
I would expect that to happen and is one reason I am working against his election. Wall Street has been trying since the system began to have those funds available for thier fun and games.
Yeah, because its so much better to give it to government so they can give it to Wall Streeters directly, cutting out the middle man, you..
I am not admitting or denying ACA is a tax or a fine. It is not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is that Roberts the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court justified ACA as being Constitutional based on the law being a tax, which puts it in the same ball park as Social Security. Four of the nine ruled against ACA. IF ACA and SS have the same justification for being constitutional and 4 Supreme Court Justices voted against it, all that is required is one more more conservative justice to overturn it.
Would it not make sense that if they had one more vote on the Supreme Court they could overturn both ACA and SS, and it really is that simple.
Of course, the case would have to make it the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court decides which cases make it to their court. Once there, it is simply up to the members of the court to rule on the Constitutionality of a law. It is that simple.
Thats like saying they will banish all police and schools because they are taxpayer funded as well..
Really? The fear in Democrats in becoming rather humorous considering Obama has his re-election in the bag, right?
Actually, you don't know what your taking about. Roberts was the only justice to call the penalty a tax. NO OTHER justices joined him in that opinion. Just because four other justices found the law constitutional FOR OTHER REASONS doesnt make Roberts opinion on the tax issue the prevailing view of the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
Actually I DO know what I was talking about.. LOL, I just wanted to see how fast it would be before someone Admitted that Obamacare DOES impose new taxes, and one of them was for not having Health insurance.
In truth, the defence for Obamacare was, it is a tax, and therefore legal, even though Obama himself announced to the American people it was a penalty, not a tax, and therefore is a liar.
BTW, I also know that the Supreme court can in fact overturn previous decisions, BUT, they have to in fact be accepted by the supreme court to be heard, along with several other hurdles. The overturning of a Supreme Court decision, is neither simple, nor easy.
Thank you however, for the first to notice my post and respond appropriately to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
