twa Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Excuse me? It's up to the government to prove that it has the authority to pass laws that apply to all citizens? You mean "we've been doing it for the entire history of our nation" doesn't count? And the entire history is filled with over reaches that have been thrown out s unsupported or in conflict with the Constitution ans Bill of Rights. Yes the govt has to prove both it and any other aspect if challenged. Is this a great country or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 and no, just because it involves money it doesnt automatically count as economic activity. In fact taxation removes money from the economy in most cases. rrrriiiigggghhhhtttt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 rrrriiiigggghhhhtttt. correct, glad you acknowledge it now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I came across this chart from my research (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010: Reforming the Health Care Reform for the New Decade) and thought it was pretty interesting. I think it kind of shows the political shift to the right and kind of helps predict why this bill is being challenged. [ATTACH]45159[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 And the entire history is filled with over reaches that have been thrown out s unsupported or in conflict with the Constitution ans Bill of Rights.Yes the govt has to prove both it and any other aspect if challenged. Is this a great country or what? Actually, no. The party challenging it has the burden of proof/persuasion, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Lawyers, can't kill em and... Kinda depends on what you consider challenged don't it? Who has the burden of proof and the need to appeal this challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Kinda depends on what you consider challenged don't it? Roughly a third of the posts in Tailgate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Only a third? A failed challenge ,nor cases thrown out for standing count for crap. Who gots burden of proof now my friend?:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Only a third? A failed challenge ,nor cases thrown out for standing count for crap. Who gots burden of proof now my friend?:evilg: Clever. But this appeal isn't what you were talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Want more cleverness? What happens if the govt does not defend any challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Failure to file your income taxes. (a tax on the economic activity of earning)Failure to yield. Or to use turn signals. (when undertaking the activity of driving) Criminal negligence. (when participating an activity) Aren't you an attorney? Did you read the link to the DC bar summary earlier in the thread? If not, you should. If so, why are you arguing points made by message board posters as if they're the exact legal case being made by 26 states? Why can't y'all just say "It's a bad law"? That was stated a million times during the debate. Why all the pretzel twisting, tail chasing, reality ignoring effort to come up with some way to claim that it's a completely new, never been done before, attack on the Constitution? Because this is now in the courts, and the matter of constitutionality is the matter at hand. The debate over repeal and replace is the right venue for debates on the merits of the best health reform moving forward. How come you can't disagree with the law, without having to invent some fictional claim of unconstitutionality? If you're honest, you'll admit that the matter of consititutionality is unsettled and appropriate in the courts. ---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 10:21 PM ---------- what if it's not a mandate to participate in an economic activity, but the chance to participate in an activity to exempt your self from one particular tax? (I think you are taxed a few thousand for not getting health insurance) Obama campaigned on not raising taxes for people under $150, $200 and $250,000 at various points. He couldn't sell the mandate as a tax, and it's specifically excluded from the enumeration of taxes in the bill. The question of whether it actually is a tax is part of the case in the courts. If it's determined not to be a tax, the bill is on shakier constitutional grounds. If it is determined to be a tax, Obama has just raised taxes on the middle class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Aren't you an attorney? Did you read the link to the DC bar summary earlier in the thread? If not, you should. If so, why are you arguing points made by message board posters as if they're the exact legal case being made by 26 states? Larry is not an attorney, but he did stay last night at a Holiday Inn Express. If you're honest, you'll admit that the matter of consititutionality is unsettled and appropriate in the courts. I agree, though I only think it is even a close call because the courts have moved so far right in the last couple of decades, and conservatives have become judicial activists. Lots of legal issues are tossups now that never were before. After the Citizen United corporate financing case, I have no confidence that any existing precedents remain out of reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Larry is not an attorney, but he did stay last night at a Holiday Inn Express. I agree, though I only think it is even a close call because the courts have moved so far right in the last couple of decades, and conservatives have become judicial activists. Lots of legal issues are tossups now that never were before. After the Citizen United corporate financing case, I have no confidence that any existing precedents remain out of reach. For some reason I thought he was an attorney. Oh well. I could argue your second point exactly the same way you did. The only reason this is considered to possibly be constitutional is because the courts were activist for the last 70 years of the 20th century, taking us far away from our founding principals. But that's sort of the crux of a different argument, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 For some reason I thought he was an attorney. Oh well.I could argue your second point exactly the same way you did. The only reason this is considered to possibly be constitutional is because the courts were activist for the last 70 years of the 20th century, taking us far away from our founding principals. But that's sort of the crux of a different argument, I guess. That certainly is the argument to make. As someone who does constititutonal law for a living, I don't happen to agree with it, but I also recognize that it is a fundamentally political argument that can never be proved or disproved. C'est la vie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Alaska's Gov now wont be enacting the law.. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALASKA_GOVERNOR_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=RIPAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Alaska governor refusing to enact health care law By BECKY BOHRER Associated Press I JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday that he will not implement the federal health care overhaul passed by Congress last year after a judge in Florida struck down the law as unconstitutional. It's not immediately clear what practical impact the unusual, rather bold move would have on Alaskans, an estimated 14 percent of whom are uninsured year-round. A major expansion of the federal law is still pending, and a legal expert and health care consumer advocate say any refusal by the states to participate in the law is an invitation to the federal government to step in and implement it for them - a point Parnell disputes. The Republican governor, who sought the advice of his attorney general amid concerns implementing the law would violate his oath of office, told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce the state would pursue lawful, market-based solutions to making insurance affordable and accessible to Alaskans. He said the Florida judge's ruling is the law of the land, as it pertains to Alaska, barring implementation of the federal law here. He said the state will not pursue "unlawful activity" to implement a regime deemed unconstitutional. more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 He said the Florida judge's ruling is the law of the land, as it pertains to Alaska, Let me guess. He thinks he can see Florida from Alaska? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Let me guess. He thinks he can see Florida from Alaska? :ols::silly: Awesome!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Alaska's Gov now wont be enacting the law..http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALASKA_GOVERNOR_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=RIPAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Alaska governor refusing to enact health care law By BECKY BOHRER Associated Press I JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday that he will not implement the federal health care overhaul passed by Congress last year after a judge in Florida struck down the law as unconstitutional. It's not immediately clear what practical impact the unusual, rather bold move would have on Alaskans, an estimated 14 percent of whom are uninsured year-round. A major expansion of the federal law is still pending, and a legal expert and health care consumer advocate say any refusal by the states to participate in the law is an invitation to the federal government to step in and implement it for them - a point Parnell disputes. The Republican governor, who sought the advice of his attorney general amid concerns implementing the law would violate his oath of office, told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce the state would pursue lawful, market-based solutions to making insurance affordable and accessible to Alaskans. He said the Florida judge's ruling is the law of the land, as it pertains to Alaska, barring implementation of the federal law here. He said the state will not pursue "unlawful activity" to implement a regime deemed unconstitutional. more at link He might be right to do this. As I recall (too lazy to check) the way the judge in Florida issued his order, it strikes down the whole law. Until that order is stayed by the Appeals Court, it arguably affects the whole country, not just Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 He might be right to do this. As I recall (too lazy to check) the way the judge in Florida issued his order, it strikes down the whole law. Until that order is stayed by the Appeals Court, it arguably affects the whole country, not just Florida. huh, I didnt realize that. How do the cases that were upheld impact it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 huh, I didnt realize that. How do the cases that were upheld impact it? Well, they DIDN'T strike down the law, so they didn't affect the law and the law went on the same way. No harm no foul. However, when the law is struck down by a different judge and he issues injunctive relief against its enforcement, then that is the way things stand until a higher court stays the lower court order. Again, I'm kind of winging this one because I haven't researched this decision. But I certainly know how injunctions and appellate stays work (that is part of what I do for my court). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Well, they DIDN'T strike down the law, so they didn't affect the law and the law went on the same way. No harm no foul. However, when the law is struck down by a different judge and he issues injunctive relief against its enforcement, then that is the way things stand until a higher court stays the lower court order.Again, I'm kind of winging this one because I haven't researched this decision. But I certainly know how injunctions and appellate stays work (that is part of what I do for my court). see, this is why I like it here. I learn things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 You know, if Obamacare is so great, then why is the administration handing out ANY waivers? If it's good for one of us, it's good for all of us, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 see, this is why I like it here. I learn things We aim to please except when we aim to irritate ---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 06:08 PM ---------- You know, if Obamacare is so great, then why is the administration handing out ANY waivers?If it's good for one of us, it's good for all of us, no? Please don't :pooh: up every thread in the Tailgate. kkthx in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 see, this is why I like it here. I learn things Me, too. I thought Appeals Court and lower rulings only applied to their jurisdiction, and only SC rulings affected the whole country. That's why I made that crack about the distance between Alaska and Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 We aim to pleaseexcept when we aim to irritate ---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 06:08 PM ---------- Please don't :pooh: up every thread in the Tailgate. kkthx in advance Thanks for basically admitting obamacare is a farce and those who supported it were foolish....thx.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.