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.
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?
You are a little out of your depth talking about Constitutional law. Do a little research on your own and then respond so that it will be possible to have an intelligent debate on the issues.
There are some excellent treatises on Contitutional Law at your local law library. You may enjoy actually reading them. They are very interesting if not a little dry.
You need to understand the difference between constitutionality of federal vs. state laws. It is a difficult concept to grasp. I can understand why you have trouble with it.
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.
And the attorney for OBAMA administration fighting FOR Obamacare, called it a TAX, and explained it has to be legal under that premise.
And the attorney for OBAMA administration fighting FOR Obamacare, called it a TAX, and explained it has to be legal under that premise.
You're now deflecting. Roberts was the only justice to call it a tax.
As the ruling broke down part III-B was the ruling that it was a tax. Roberts stood alone for that proposition.
From the syllabus, last paragraph;
Quote:
3. Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
Roberts, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which Breyer and Kagan, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which Sotomayor, J., joined, and in which Breyer and Kagan, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Hotair...
Don't you think that Social Security was never challenged after it was enacted?
Don't be so silly. It was, many times, all the way in to the present.
Supreme Court decisions cut right to the core of all Constitutional disputes. Very, very few of the laws that were upheld by the Court have ever been overturned. Whether or not the law is popular, or even good or bad, does not matter. If a law is upheld as being Constitutional by the Court, it is, period.
Only the people can overturn such an upheld law, and the means of overturning all are limited and require much more agreement by the people than the passage of any law. The Constitution designed it to be this way, as a law is a serious and enduring thing, and must be considered with full seriousness. All other decisions, whether they come from the Administrative or Congressional branches, are less serious than a law, by the outline of our Constitution.
That would be absolutely fine with me as long as they paid out what has already been promised. Social Security is just another example of the big ole government thinking people are too stupid to take care of themselves. I could invest my money better than politicians.
Hotair...
Don't you think that Social Security was never challenged after it was enacted?
Don't be so silly. It was, many times, all the way in to the present.
Supreme Court decisions cut right to the core of all Constitutional disputes. Very, very few of the laws that were upheld by the Court have ever been overturned. Whether or not the law is popular, or even good or bad, does not matter. If a law is upheld as being Constitutional by the Court, it is, period.
Only the people can overturn such an upheld law, and the means of overturning all are limited and require much more agreement by the people than the passage of any law. The Constitution designed it to be this way, as a law is a serious and enduring thing, and must be considered with full seriousness. All other decisions, whether they come from the Administrative or Congressional branches, are less serious than a law, by the outline of our Constitution.
Sure SS was challenged in 1937 and it was found to be constitutional in a narrow 5-4 vote only because of the Pressure from FDR.
What you are talking about regarding legal precedent and previous SCOTUS decisions not being overturned very often is a legal concept called Stare decisis (is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior SCOTUS decisions). YOu would be correct based on history, but this is a new day as you will see below.
In the past this Stare decisis was routinely followed; however, the current conservative court is an activist court. Scalia has always said that Rowe v Wade is wrong and he would overturn it. Thomas does not believe in Stare Decisis. The current conservative court does not follow Stare Decisis as Evidenced by the Citizens United Case. In Citizens United Case, SCOTUS overturned its previous decision on McCain Feingold decision that they had found Constitutional 20 years ago and upheld it as constitutional again only eight years ago. Now they say it is unconstitutional because the composition of the court has shifted more conservative and activist...
All they need is one or two more conservative judges who don't follow Stare Decisis and SS could go the way of McCain-Feingold and campaign finance reform. It does not matter that McCain-Feingold was bipartisan and very popular....
ACA (obamacare) and Social Security were found to be constitutional based on the same reason. The power to tax for the general welfare. Social Security had the same obstacles to overcome as ACA and it was only by pressure from FDR that Social Security was found to be Constitutional.
ACA barely passed by a 5-4 vote. There are two justices that will likely retire if not die within the next four years...Ginsburg and Breyer, both of whom voted in favor of ACA.
If Romney is elected and appoints a judge like scalia, alito and thomas, which he said that he would do, they will likely strike down ACA as well as Social Security as they are based on the same power of congress. Justice Roberts is brilliant and realized that to find ACA unconstitutional you opened the door to find Social Security unconstitutional, which would undermine the viability of the Supreme Court.
If Romney wins, expect Social Security to be found unconstitutional. I can't imagine any other result if it is found to be unconstitutional other than the checks would have to stop going out and the tax would be found unconstitutional and stopped as well.
Your legal analysis skills suck. Keep your day job.
No, technically social security is not voluntary. You may choose not to receive benefits, but you cannot choose not to pay. Please cite me something on your proposition. There are some instances where an employee does not have to pay, but it is not because they opted out. Where do you guys come up with this stuff.
Your legal analysis skills suck. Keep your day job.
Your debating skills suck. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation. Please feel free to apply your legal analysis. So far I have made my posts simple enough for even your to understand. You missed this post.
Sure SS was challenged in 1937 and it was found to be constitutional in a narrow 5-4 vote only because of the Pressure from FDR.
What you are talking about regarding legal precedent and previous SCOTUS decisions not being overturned very often is a legal concept called Stare decisis (is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior SCOTUS decisions). YOu would be correct based on history, but this is a new day as you will see below.
In the past this Stare decisis was routinely followed; however, the current conservative court is an activist court. Scalia has always said that Rowe v Wade is wrong and he would overturn it. Thomas does not believe in Stare Decisis. The current conservative court does not follow Stare Decisis as Evidenced by the Citizens United Case. In Citizens United Case, SCOTUS overturned its previous decision on McCain Feingold decision that they had found Constitutional 20 years ago and upheld it as constitutional again only eight years ago. Now they say it is unconstitutional because the composition of the court has shifted more conservative and activist...
All they need is one or two more conservative judges who don't follow Stare Decisis and SS could go the way of McCain-Feingold and campaign finance reform. It does not matter that McCain-Feingold was bipartisan and very popular....
So you tell me...what were you saying again.
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.
