Previous 11 - 20 Next
Come on, if the Prez is gonna throw in an unconstitutional power grab, we gotta counter with the same. Otherwise it isn't "fair"
The Republicans should counter with a proposal for a return of all federal expenditures to 2007 levels, a removal of all baseline increases, a complete elimination of funding for the department of education and the national endowment for the arts, and the president's surrender of the right to appoint Federal judges, cabinet members, and ambassadors. Then tell everyone that your not dead set on the national endowment for the arts if you can get a good enough deal from the Democrats.
The right to self-defense is the sovereign right of every individual. Since the Supreme Court has found that police officers and the government are under NO obligation to defend me from lethal attacks, I will not relinquish my right to self defense. When the government is willing to take responsibility for defending every citizen from every violent attack, and accept total liability for every murder as wrongful death due to negligence, then we can talk about removing the people's right to defend themselves with all necessary force. My first question then will be, "How am I guaranteed that you won't attack me?" Armed citizens prevent abusive cops.
In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:29 PM
This point is key: Roberts (and 4 other Justices don't forget!) CREATED a tax. *ONLY* Congress has the authority to tax, NOT the Supreme Court of the United States. It would be one thing for the Court to simply declare this was a tax, not a penalty, but Roberts went so far as to explain in his decision why this did not meet any existing definition of a tax, then found it to be a tax anyway. The Court not only declared a tax where there is none, they created an entire new category of tax in order to do it. Previous new categories of taxes (the income tax) required an amendment to the Constitution to be valid. This Supreme Court has simply declared one by judicial fiat.
In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:29 PM
This point is key: Roberts (and 4 other Justices don't forget!) CREATED a tax. *ONLY* Congress has the authority to tax, NOT the Supreme Court of the United States. It would be one thing for the Court to simply declare this was a tax, not a penalty, but Roberts went so far as to explain in his decision why this did not meet any existing definition of a tax, then found it to be a tax anyway. The Court not only declared a tax where there is none, they created an entire new category of tax in order to do it. Previous new categories of taxes (the income tax) required an amendment to the Constitution to be valid. This Supreme Court has simply declared one by judicial fiat.
In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:13 PM
It doesn't matter what the arguments in Court were. The job of Justices is to weigh the law as it is WRITTEN and SIGNED against the Constitution of the United States. Instead, they deemed the law to say something that was not written, and having so deemed it, found it good. If I write 2+2=2491.35, and then argue before the Supreme Court that what I really wrote was 2+2=4, it would be as insane for them to declare I had written it correctly as it was to find the mandate was a tax. What mattered was what was in the law, not the governments arguments about what was in the law.
In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 9:56 PM
er, that should read stripe, not strip
In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 9:56 PM
The real problem is, even if you could convince the Senate to get off their duffs and actually impeach, you would still have to deal with the fact that Obama would simply appoint more judges along the same strip as Kagen and Sotomayor. There would be no benefit, and much harm, in impeachments given the present conditions.
In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 9:44 PM
It does not matter what the President calls it, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision can ONLY be upheld if it is a tax. It then upheld the ruling. This is a de facto declaration of a tax by the Court. To borrow a phrase from Nancy Pelosi, it was *deemed* a tax. Ironically, Nancy Pelosi, House sponsor of the bill, had authority to declare it a tax but did not. She is on public record as stating that this provision is NOT a tax. It is her stated opinion that this provision drew its authority through the commerce clause.
In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 9:18 PM
In this ruling, 5 Supreme Court Justices declared that the individual mandate penalty could ONLY be constitutional under Congress' authority to tax. Never mind that there is no type of tax specified in the Constitution to which this provision might actually conform. Then these 5 Justices did something wholly illegal. They declared that, since the provision would only be constitutional as a tax, that it in fact is a tax. Only Congress, NOT the Supreme Court, has the power to declare a tax. By declaring this provision a tax, when it did not originate in the House of Representatives as a tax, the Supreme Court has assumed the authority to lay a tax for itself, in direct contradiction of the Constitution they swore to uphold.
Previous 11 - 20 Next