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.
You might not realize this, but that's not actually the way it works. If someone goes to court to ask the court to do something, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to establish the grounds for the relief requested. I'm pretty sure that even in the Bush Supreme Court, showing up and waving around your pocket copy of the Constitution isn't enough.
Perhaps we could start out by having you set forth (cite) the provision of the Constitution that you claim the new law violates. Then maybe we could discuss it.
Um, that is the way it works.. A lawyer sights first laws, and then case laws and previous case examples to a judge so that they can rule on the case using previous judges rulings. I've been in/out of criminal courts, civil courts for franchise law volations, lead plaintiff in numerous class action lawsuits, and even federal courts in regards to trademark infringements. Stop pretending that isnt how it is because some here with less experience on the issue might take you seriously and pretend you are accurate.
Repeat after me "I'm not a laywer, but I play one on CD".. ANYONE with a history on the law knows that previous case rulings indeed come into play during lawsuits..
Attorney General Greg Abbott was reelected as the 50th Attorney General of Texas on November 7, 2006. Prior to his election as attorney general, Greg Abbott served as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court and as a State District Judge in Harris County.
Quote:
Greg Abbott - Just got off the AG conference call. We agreed that a multi-state lawsuit would send the strongest signal. We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights.
Abbott was just on Asman's show on Fox Biz. The states mentioned earlier along with Texas are prepared to file suit in Florida court to stop the HCR.
They are waiting for the ink to hit the paper and will then immediately file... in Florida.
So what you're saying, deathmonkey, is Texas would actually have a NET GAIN of 5% if they were to secede and maintain a similar tax structure that they currently pay for federal taxes?
Sign me up. I miss living in the Republic of Texas.
--
Gamesta
What I'm saying is that Texas would have a net loss of 100% unless they started taxing their citizens and the businesses in their borders. The federal government would have a net loss of 5% of the tax revenue from Texas residents.
You might not realize this, but that's not actually the way it works. If someone goes to court to ask the court to do something, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to establish the grounds for the relief requested. I'm pretty sure that even in the Bush Supreme Court, showing up and waving around your pocket copy of the Constitution isn't enough.
Perhaps we could start out by having you set forth (cite) the provision of the Constitution that you claim the new law violates. Then maybe we could discuss it.
Here's a couple: there's no authority granted to the feds to require people buy health insurance. Secondly, Article I Section 7 requires any bill involving revenue to first be passed by the House. This bill was passed by the Senate before the House. I'm certain expert lawyers will come up with more reasons.
Ithnik that sates have the big hold on this bill. It relys on placing many more inlower income brackets into medicare which the staes fund part of. In the law there are provisons to fund the sate increases in the first few years but eventaully the states must raise those funds when it stops. To get thsoe first funds they must accpt the contiued funding at sate levels. That si why Louisna and other got deals to pay that funding after the period . But sates can elct to not take the funding and keep their contribution at what thie legislature saysIts the same with unemployemnt bills just passed that obliagte states to more txes to fund in the future cahnges require to get the funds. Its called unfunded mandates.Its forces sates to eventually raise funds( taxes and fees) to get the first funding.
Um, that is the way it works.. A lawyer sights first laws, and then case laws and previous case examples to a judge so that they can rule on the case using previous judges rulings. I've been in/out of criminal courts, civil courts for franchise law volations, lead plaintiff in numerous class action lawsuits, and even federal courts in regards to trademark infringements. Stop pretending that isnt how it is because some here with less experience on the issue might take you seriously and pretend you are accurate.
Repeat after me "I'm not a laywer, but I play one on CD".. ANYONE with a history on the law knows that previous case rulings indeed come into play during lawsuits..
Actually the other guy's right, it really is incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish what's standing which amounts to grounds for the request for relief. They also have to establish the court's jurisdiction. Standing can be established by laws on the books or legal precedence, but standing must be established before legal arguments will be considered. If the plaintiff fails to establish standing the judge will dismiss the case. This was all very prominent in the many frivolous cases against Obama's citizenship which were all thrown out for lack of standing. So the other guy is also correct to ask for you to cite the provisions of the constitution that the new law allegedly violates for discussion, it would be how the courts would want to establish standing, for one thing, and for another it would help to establish just how well you yourself understand the situation.
Here's a couple: there's no authority granted to the feds to require people buy health insurance. Secondly, Article I Section 7 requires any bill involving revenue to first be passed by the House. This bill was passed by the Senate before the House. I'm certain expert lawyers will come up with more reasons.
They do have the authority to levy taxes, though. The law does not actually require that people purchase health insurance. It only establishes a tax that will serve as a disincentive on not purchasing health insurance.
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.
