predictions, please

[Murfy]

if its overturned-

does that hurt you buck?

 

[UncleBuck]

if its overturned-

does that hurt you buck?

your sorry ass done trolling itself over in T&T? wandering over here now like a lost puppy to follow me?

fuck off.

 

[londonfog]

Murfy it hurts us all. Everyone has somebody who can use something in the PPACA...unless you are wealthy, unmarried, parentless ,childless and with no siblings. Hell no friends even.

 

[Murfy]

you mean-

it can help me make friends? with buck!

i doubt it.

fuck that oil!

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Boehner can kiss my ass, when it's struck down, I'm gonna gloat and spike the football for weeks. When they back Arizona's immigration policy, I'm gonna gloat about that as well. Of course, it won't be anything like the gloating I'm gonna do when we send this progressive, statist shitbag packing in November. I'm already composing London's new signature.

 

[desert dude]

that's only your opinion.

source: objective versus subjective reality.

It's a commerce clause question. The supremes severely wounded the commerce clause in Wickard, which has led to great suffering for America, see Raisch for example. If the individual mandate stands that will be the final evisceration of the commerce clause. Now, you might like PPACA and think it is good policy but I can garantee that you won't like the further expansion of federal powers that comes along with complete disregard of the commerce clause, not to mention the dishonest actions by the feds that will result from a disregard of the constitution.

 

[desert dude]

Just in case you are unfamiliar with the commerce clause. Notice that it says "among the several states"; it grants congress no power to intrude into commerce within state boundaries, that is the domain of the states themselves.

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

 

[abandonconflict]

Just in case you are unfamiliar with the commerce clause. Notice that it says "among the several states"; it grants congress no power to intrude into commerce within state boundaries, that is the domain of the states themselves.

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

If it is so plainly unconstitutional, why do they need 5 and a half hours of oral arguments? Why do Sutton, Silberman and Fried say they can't find a valid argument against it?

Pushing your opinion as if you knew an honest interpretation of the constitution...

 

[desert dude]

If it is so plainly unconstitutional, why do they need 5 and a half hours of oral arguments? Why do Sutton, Silberman and Fried say they can't find a valid argument against it?

Pushing your opinion as if you knew an honest interpretation of the constitution...

I can read. Try it.

 

[abandonconflict]

I can read. Try it.

Oh now you want my opinion? That would be to quit trying to make this about partisan politics and let the scotus do what it does, that is what I say to you and the GOP congress. Leave it to them. I will say, we may find out afterall, why Madison included this ""lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States." in the same article and section as the commerce clause.

 

[desert dude]

Oh now you want my opinion? That would be to quit trying to make this about partisan politics and let the scotus do what it does, that is what I say to you and the GOP congress. Leave it to them. I will say, we may find out afterall, why Madison included this ""lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States." in the same article and section as the commerce clause.

Who is making this partisan? It is a constitutional issue, plain and simple. What Madison, or anybody else says does not negate what the commerce clause plainly says. If it wasn't for the wrongly decided Wickard decision PPACA never would have been attempted in the first place; it is plainly unconstitutional. Disregard of the constitution leads to bad consequences. You can thank FDR for Wickard, which led to the drug war and the even more atrocious Raisch decision. If the current supremes follow Raisch to its logical conclusion, then the individual mandate might be ruled constitutional and the erosion of the US as a country ruled by law will be extended.

Remember the iron law, "me today, you tomorrow".

 

[abandonconflict]

Who is making this partisan? It is a constitutional issue, plain and simple. What Madison, or anybody else says does not negate what the commerce clause plainly says. If it wasn't for the wrongly decided Wickard decision PPACA never would have been attempted in the first place; it is plainly unconstitutional. Disregard of the constitution leads to bad consequences. You can thank FDR for Wickard, which led to the drug war and the even more atrocious Raisch decision. If the current supremes follow Raisch to its logical conclusion, then the individual mandate might be ruled constitutional and the erosion of the US as a country ruled by law will be extended.

Remember the iron law, "me today, you tomorrow".

I see what you did there, you blamed FDR for the drug war, rofl you're a riot. Oops I spelled idiot wrong...

Please go on about how FDR created Anslinger from origami constitutions.

It is a tax, taxes are constitutional.

 

[abandonconflict]

I doubt you understand, I'll spit it out plainly, if you can't afford insurance, you don't have to buy it, if you can afford it, and decide not to buy it, you pay a tax. What you get for that tax, is the right to wait until you get sick to get insurance.

Pay your fucking taxes.

 

[desert dude]

I see what you did there, you blamed FDR for the drug war, rofl you're a riot. Oops I spelled idiot wrong...

Please go on about how FDR created Anslinger from origami constitutions.

It is a tax, taxes are constitutional.

The individual mandate is not a tax. It is the federal government forcing private citizens to buy something, i.e. to engage in commerce, and then to argue that not buying health insurance is commerce, i.e. "not commerce is commerce", hence the feds get to enforce the individual mandate because "not commerce is commerce". Just like they can force you to buy brocolli.

If this thing were funded by a tax it WOULD be constitutional. Bad policy maybe, but it would be legal.

 

[abandonconflict]

The individual mandate is not a tax. It is the federal government forcing private citizens to buy something, i.e. to engage in commerce, and then to argue that not buying health insurance is commerce, i.e. "not commerce is commerce", hence the feds get to enforce the individual mandate because "not commerce is commerce". Just like they can force you to buy brocolli.

If this thing were funded by a tax it WOULD be constitutional. Bad policy maybe, but it would be legal.

No, if you don't want to buy it pay a tax.

So uninformed.

 

[desert dude]

I doubt you understand, I'll spit it out plainly, if you can't afford insurance, you don't have to buy it, if you can afford it, and decide not to buy it, you pay a tax. What you get for that tax, is the right to wait until you get sick to get insurance.

Pay your fucking taxes.

No, under PPACA you pay a fine.

 

[abandonconflict]

No, under PPACA you pay a fine.

Oh, so you call the tax a fine in order to make it sound unconstitutional GG

 

[desert dude]

No, if you don't want to buy it pay a tax.

So uninformed.

Enjoy your brocolli.

 

[abandonconflict]

It doesn't matter for you anyway, tax dollars already pay for law enforcement officers' medical coverage.

 

[desert dude]

Oh, so you call the tax a fine in order to make it sound unconstitutional GG

No, PPACA defines the punishment for not buying health insurance as a fine. You were probably to busy drooling on your shoes when our esteemed president was explaining PPACA before it was passed but he said, "this is not a new tax". Get that? NOT. A. TAX...