JMS Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 Ok. Through with the commerce clause section. The world has changed 0 percent. No precedent has been overturned. No expansion of the clause has been made. Roberts is not exactly a revolutionary. I need a drink Expansion? I don't understand that term' date=' hasn't the commerse clause been used broadly since 1937 to justify everything from regulating safety rules in the work place, to civil rights, to parts of the New Deal. Conservative position isn't to tread water and leave its interpretation wide open, it's to have it narrowly reinterpreted in order to only apply to good which cross state boundries like it used to be interpreted prior to 1937 and FDR's threat to pack the court. So the status quoe is exactly what conservatives find objectionable. ( That's a question ). JMS, that case you cite is sort of in line with Wickard. Even if your actions don't directly impact interstate commerce, you are still engaged in an activity. And that activity could have a rippled effect into the stream of commerce. It's also kind of a ****ty decision where Scalia cites a case he hates to win an argument. He sucks. Yeah that's how I interpret it too. does that conflict with what you read in this decision? which I refferenced below. This actually was upheld for the exact opposite reasons I thought it was. I thought the Court would rule that Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause and that this was not a tax. The ruling holds that Congress has no authority under the Commerce Clause (which strikes me as pretty important in the long run) but this IS a tax. Is there a conflict here to your mind with Gonzoles which says congress can regulate people not directly involved in commerse.? The issue here is whether you can be sitting there doing nothing and Congress can force you into the stream of commerce. The answer is no. On this part. So I guess that is what I don't understand, not having read the decision yet. The Executive's arguement was if you don't have insurance you are still in the healthcare market because if you get sick or injured you will seek payment, thus they can regulate you ( mandate you get insurance). The opposing position was if you don't have insurance you aren't in the market and congress can't touch you under the commerse clause. So given what you said above, it sounds like the court agreed with the Executive that somebody without insurance was in the market ( ie Gonzolez?) while reaffirming the opositions point of view that if you truely weren't in the market congress can't touch you under the commerse clause... And upholding Obamacare Did I get that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Take it from someone who was T-boned by a guy without car insurance that it's a huge pain in the ass to deal with a situation like that. You can't live without health insurance. Sooner or later, you'll have a need for it. It's not really comparable to drivers insurance. As I stated earlier, the even better argument is that everyone already has entered the health care market. I'm waiting for some person to come to me and tell me they have never used the health care system, ever. Never gone to the doctor, hospital, bought a medication and born in the words without any doctors, nurses or midwifes present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 i am confused, is this a tax or not? Tax, acording to the supreme court.. although Obama has a quote saying it's not a tax, didn't catch when he said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Tax, acording to the supreme court.. although Obama has a quote saying it's not a tax, didn't catch when he said that. They've used "fine" and "tax" interchangeably, based on which one suited their needs at any given time. It was deemed constitutional because the SCOTUS condisidered it a tax. $250k my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Expansion? I don't understand that term, hasn't the commerse clause been used broadly since 1937 to justify everything from regulating safety rules in the work place, to civil rights, to parts of the New Deal. Conservative position isn't to tread water and leave its interpretation wide open, it's to have it narrowly reinterpreted in order to only apply to good which cross state boundries like it used to be interpreted prior to 1937 and FDR's threat to pack the court. So the status quoe is exactly what conservatives find objectionable. ( That's a question ). Compelling economic activity would be an expansion. That did not happen. So...status quo....whatever that currently is. Yeah that's how I interpret it too. does that conflict with what you read in this decision? which I refferenced below. No. It does not conflict. That decision was a real reach, but the person was engaged in an activity. Voluntary engagement in commerce has always been the key. So I guess that is what I don't understand, not having read the decision yet. The Executive's arguement was if you don't have insurance you are still in the healthcare market because if you get sick or injured you will seek payment, thus they can regulate you ( mandate you get insurance). The opposing position was if you don't have insurance you aren't in the market and congress can't touch you under the commerse clause. So given what you said above, it sounds like the court agreed with the Executive that somebody without insurance was in the market ( ie Gonzolez?) while reaffirming the opositions point of view that if you truely weren't in the market congress can't touch you under the commerse clause... And upholding Obamacare No, the court did not agree with the adminstration that everyone is already in the market. I believe the distinction here is that the market is the "health insurance market" not the "health care market." See the difference? And - having talked to you before - I know you are going to get obsessed with the Commerce Clause argument. Move away from it. The Act was upheld as a tax. That's where the meat of the discussion is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baylor Alum Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Tax, acording to the supreme court.. although Obama has a quote saying it's not a tax, didn't catch when he said that. But it's not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act analysis. So it it was not a tax before it was a tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkFan8 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'm happy. This is pretty big for me, considering I just found out that I likely have a pretty serious pre-existing condition that would have made getting health insurance when I lapse at 27 extremely difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 CNN is doing so bad they'll do anything to get people to talk about them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Found this part of Robert's opinion interesting. Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for thecommon Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Put simply, Congress may tax and spend. This grant gives the FederalGovernment considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid,or otherwise control. See, e.g., License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 471 (1867). And in exercising its spending power,Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions. See, e.g., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 686 (1999). These offers may well induce the States to adopt policies thatthe Federal Government itself could not impose. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 205–206 (1987) (conditioning federal highway funds on States raising their drinking age to 21). Edited June 28, 2012 by thebluefood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 i am confused, is this a tax or not? In the eyes of the law, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 According to 5 justices, yes. Its a tax. So the govt lawyers were wrong in arguing it was not and Obama lied about not raising taxes Guess you had to wait to find out it was a tax along with how much they underestimated the costs and people are still unhappy with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'm happy. This is pretty big for me, considering I just found out that I likely have a pretty serious pre-existing condition that would have made getting health insurance when I lapse at 27 extremely difficult. curious why you are planning on lapseing at 27? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I already hate the fact that drivers in North Carolina have to get car insurance before they can get behind the wheel. It's the primary reason why I don't have a car right now; but at least I have the option of not purchasing a car and riding the bus without having to worry about a penalty or a tax. This doesn't seem to be the case with the Affordable Health Care Act. A. Driving is a state issue so this has nothing to do with that. B. Allowing uninsured drivers on the road would be a disaster. I live in Texas - which is filled to the brim with uninsured drivers. It's a nightmare to deal with. I'm reaching the point where I think uninsured drivers who cause accidents should be charged with felonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baylor Alum Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 So the govt lawyers were wrong in arguing it was notand Obama lied about not raising taxes Guess you had to wait to find out it was a tax along with how much they underestimated the costs and people are still unhappy with it. The solicitor general actually did argue that it was a tax as a fall back position if the Court went against the government on the Commerce Clause argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 So the govt lawyers were wrong in arguing it was not They argued it both ways. Which is neat. and Obama lied about not raising taxes He can say it's not a tax, because he still views it as a penalty under the Commerce Clause. Law is fun. Guess you had to wait to find out it was a tax along with how much they underestimated the costs and people are still unhappy with it. Elections have consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 They've used "fine" and "tax" interchangeably, based on which one suited their needs at any given time.It was deemed constitutional because the SCOTUS condisidered it a tax. $250k my ass. Seems like you are one of the people this would really help out - it's just baffling to me how you are so completely dead set against this. Whatever, as someone that has a pretty serious pre-existing condition it's good to know that I might actually be able to receive health coverage if I ever go unemployed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 i am confused, is this a tax or not? Yes and unless its repealed, this is going to be the largest Tax hike ever in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 LKB I agree about uninsured drivers....strangely just requiring it or a fine doesn't work think health care will work out better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 http://twitter.com/LukeRussert/statuses/218378456763858944 Obama: "It should be pretty clear that I didn't do this because it's good politics. I did it because it's good for the country." I AGREE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styx491 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 'bama laying down the law, literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 He can say it's not a tax' date=' because he still views it as a penalty under the Commerce Clause. Law is fun. .[/quote'] Well, he certainly has no trouble ignoring what the law is....what's one more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 LKB I agree about uninsured drivers....strangely just requiring it or a fine doesn't workthink health care will work out better? They are completely different things. An uninsured driver causes me immediate, massive economic loss. Uninsured patients collectively cause us long-term, massive economic losses. ---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 11:24 AM ---------- Well, he certainly has no trouble ignoring what the law is....what's one more So...once again...you have no opinion. You're just here to say random stuff. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Well, he certainly has no trouble ignoring what the law is....what's one more You post so much yet contribute so little to discussions. Edited June 28, 2012 by Heisenberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 So clear this up for me... if you are paying for insurance, will you have to pay taxes directly related to this Act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 My opinion is (and was) it is a tax...and that is the only way it would be constitutional so your opinion is Obama will ignore the courts ruling and still consider it NOT a tax because it is convenient ....gotcha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now