The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Will Obama care be challenged in the Supreme Court?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:11 PM Author: splenetic poppy keepsake machete preventive strike I mean if they are forcing people to get health insurance coverage under penalty of law, such a law would be unconstitutional on its face. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635293) |
 |
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:13 PM Author: electric internet-worthy therapy 1LFAIL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635310) |
|
Date: December 13th, 2010 1:45 PM Author: glittery athletic conference i'll just leave this here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:58 AM Author: stirring doobsian foreskin To answer the title question, probably. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13636029) |
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:12 PM Author: Wonderful out-of-control center LOL, ty for this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635304) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:13 PM Author: splenetic poppy keepsake machete preventive strike I'm barely reading the news. Just following it on hearsay... am I missing something? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635309) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:16 PM Author: Talented kitchen milk "Just following it on 'hearsay.'"
STFU faggot |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:17 PM Author: splenetic poppy keepsake machete preventive strike ok (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635323) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:15 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap not the whole bill. just the mandatory insurance requirement. seems like a solid argument that congress has no authority to act and it may violate the first amendment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635317) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:16 PM Author: Talented kitchen milk Please enlighten us. What is this "solid argument" for why it violates the 1st A? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635320) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:17 PM Author: splenetic poppy keepsake machete preventive strike hi (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635324) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:18 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap freedom of association. congress is forcing me to enter into contracts with private entities i don't wish to be associated with. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635333) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:19 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator They'd just claim you need to "buy the public option" (without noting it's much more expensive) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635350) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:21 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap ok, but the public option is not in the bill.
also, congress is still without power to have such a requirement. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:22 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Are you certain that the public option isn't in the bill? I'm not... I haven't seen the supposedly "revised" bill. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:23 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap well, it's not in the senate bill, and it won't get cloture if it gets put into the bill in conference. so no, if anything passes, it won't have a public option. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635384) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:25 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Unless it goes back to the house and is revised again and resubmitted than passes anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635403) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:29 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap i just told you, a public option will not be able to gain cloture in the senate. it is opposed by lieberman, landrieu and nelson, at least. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635435) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:19 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker You mean like when your state requires you to have auto insurance? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635352) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:21 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap do you not understand the difference between the limited and enumerated powers of the federal government and the state's plenary powers as limited by the federal constitution? fucking n00b. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635370) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:25 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker Well let me see - yes, yes I do.
The federal government has something called the commerce power. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:27 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Commerce power has nothing to do with this... or next to nothing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635421) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:30 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker How so? Things with a much more tenuous impact on interstate commerce have been regulated with the commerce power. Do you really thing that a congress full of lawyers and a former HLS law review EIC president didn't even bother to, like, figure out what clause of the constitution to use to justify this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635443) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:33 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator When you can create and manipulate laws, would you worry about the power of your illiterate and populist people to control you?
I sure the fuck wouldn't. Also interstate commerce has nothing to do with forcing individuals to buy into your policy (just by living) or face imprisonment. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:30 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap yes, do go on. complete the analysis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635440) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:31 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker Health insurance and the healthcare industry are interstate commerce. The end. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635446) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:34 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap this is pathetic. fail. did you even take con law?
explain to me how the class of people who choose not to buy health insurance affect interstate commerce. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:37 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker Jesus fucking christ, did YOU take con law? Have you ever heard of Wickard v. Filburn? Gonzales v. Raich? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635517) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:41 PM Author: Insane yellow menage legend amusing tendentiousness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635550) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:44 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap yes. in wickard v. filburn the farmer was told he couldn't grow wheat even for personal consumption b/c the aggregate amount of his activity and people like him would substantially affect wheat prices nationwide.
in gonzales v. raich a marijuana grower was told he couldn't grow weed because, although illegal, weed sales significantly affected interstate commerce.
notice that, in both cases, congress regulated some activity. in the case of the health insurance, congress would be regulating a LACK of activity. it would be tantamount to forcing farmers to grow wheat in order to bring wheat prices down, or forcing all citizens to purchase fruits in order to accomplish some other governmental goal.
do you see the difference? |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:51 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker You're reading into the commerce clause some kind of right to not be forced to do stuff. It isn't there. There's nothing about the commerce clause or any other clause in the constitution that says "Congress can only tell people NOT to do stuff, not tell them to DO stuff" (see taxes, selective service, etc.). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635634) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:01 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap and your reading of the commerce clause gives congress unlimited power to force citizens to do anything. your two examples are inapposite. income taxes are permissible based on the 16th amendment. selective service is permissible based on congress's power to raise and maintain an army and navy. neither have anything to do with the commerce clause.
in point of fact, you will not be able to cite me a single example of a statute in which congress has used the commerce clause to force people to do anything.
can the supreme court adopt your reading? yes, sure it can. but i really, really doubt it will. if congress can force people to purchase something because it affects interstate commerce, what prevents them from forcing people to lose weight? obesity affects interstate commerce. what prevents congress from forcing you to eat an apple a day? apples travel in interstate commerce. there's no way the supreme court can allow that. it would lead to dictatorial power, and incidentally, it would be making itself useless as a check on govt power. no way. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:08 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker Your examples are exactly the sort of thing that the Supreme Court WOULD strike down following Morrison because the effects on interstate commerce are too tenuous.
The federal government makes all kinds of affirmative mandates - via EPA regulations, for example. If you want one for individuals - how about jury duty? |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:19 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap EPA regulations come from congressional laws like the clean air and water acts, which are allowed by the commerce clause because they regulate industrial activity, which is interstate commerce.
jury duty is enshrined in the constitution, e.g., the sixth amendment, which is why it's allowed. it has nothing to do with the commerce clause. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:24 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker You said this: "you will not be able to cite me a single example of a statute in which congress has used the commerce clause to force people to do anything."
I cited EPA regulations, which come from congressional statutes.
You responded "well that's interstate commerce." Yeah it's interstate commerce, that's my fucking point. That's why I used it as an example of something creating affirmative duties under the commerce clause. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:27 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap no, you're misreading what i wrote. the clean air and water acts don't say you have to do something. rather, they say, IF you choose to do something, you must do it in accordance with the law.
would it be clearer if i said you cannot cite a single statute in which the commerce clause is used to force people to do something, as opposed to regulating an activity they are already doing? |
|
Date: December 25th, 2009 2:42 AM Author: khaki marvelous patrolman obamamom you won just chill out man. put the gun down. we're all gonna be okay. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13642819) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:30 AM Author: Beady-eyed insanely creepy doctorate epa regulations prevent people from polluting, or affect activities such as building factories. as for jury duty, the bill of rights guarantees trial by jury in criminal and civil cases. requiring people to serve on juries is within congress' authority under the necessary and proper clause. next. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635860) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:44 PM Author: Nofapping grizzly whorehouse You obviously havent taken con law yet. Scotus has found some pretty amazing things to affect interstate commerce. See VAWA for example. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635572) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:45 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap violence against women act? that was found to be unconstitutional. fail. next. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635584) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:47 PM Author: Nofapping grizzly whorehouse Not entirely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635599) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:49 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap no, not entirely, but in the context of the commerce clause the court said that there could not be a federal right of action for violence against women. various other funding was left in place. next. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635619) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:22 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator The state only requires this if you own a car and wish to drive it.
Last time I checked obama wishes to force you to buy insurance if you're alive. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:24 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap and only if you wish to drive it on public roads, which are owned by the government. if you have a 500 acre ranch you can drive a car on there with no insurance and with no driver's license. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635394) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:35 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker It's not the best analogy, admittedly. But both the state and federal government can require you to do a lot of things. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635501) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:36 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Sure they can, our populism loves to be a bunch of passive, nancy, idiotic fucks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635510) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:54 PM Author: Odious Big-titted School Cafeteria PLEASE PROVIDE A BETTER ANALOGY, WHATEVER THE FUCK ANY ANALOGY HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING HERE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635660) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:57 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker Congress can force you to pay taxes and register for selective service under the relevant respective powers of the constitution. Why don't you think the commerce power could also empower affirmative requirements?
|
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:02 AM Author: Odious Big-titted School Cafeteria WOW. THAT IS EVEN WORSE ANALOGY. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635704) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:02 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator /facepalms are you fucking shitting me?
Pay taxes = you must make and report your income... if you don't they can't MAKE you pay taxes... There is a pre-assumption of some kind of VOLUNTARY participation in the system (no matter how stupidly impossible it would be to live without participation of some kind)
Selective service is voluntary with all KINDS of ways to get around it... not to mention it's free and does not represent a "cost to live"... in fact it's just the opposite. If you were forced to do something, you would be paid by the government to do it. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:04 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap this is wrong. they can MAKE you pay your taxes by sending you to jail if you don't. look up the 16th amendment.
selective service is allowed based on congress's need to be able to maintain an army and navy.
|
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:05 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator They can't make you pay your taxes on $0 gross income, sorry.
Reread what I wrote. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:06 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap so you're saying congress can't force you to report your income? oh ok, good. you try that and let me know how it works out for ya. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635740) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:10 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Did I say that? no... I did say that Congress cannot force you to pay money you don't have currently... or even money you do have in savings for obligations you do not have.
However, the healthcare bill is a "cost of life" fine. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:20 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap ok, but your explanation relies on an individual's not knowing what an income tax is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635804) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:21 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator What in the mother fuck are you talking about holy god.
I said that taxation requires participation... this fine does not. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:24 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap oh, i see what you're saying. convoluted, but i get it. you could just say it's the difference between an income tax and a capitation tax. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635834) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:09 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker They can't force you to buy health insurance either, they can just penalize you if you don't, just like with taxes. And the penalties also wouldn't apply to someone who makes $0 income. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635759) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:10 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Yes they do
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/2262-healthcare-bil-pay-for-a-plan-or-go-to-jail |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:19 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker That article is so full of incorrect information about the bill I don't know where to start. For example this:
"As reported by the Congressional Budget Office, the lowest annual cost of an approved family non-group policy would be approximately $15,000. That is to say, as currently written in the bill under consideration, if a family’s health insurance plan doesn’t cost at least $15,000 a year, then you are breaking the law and will be held accountable."
is basically made up, and I know that in part because of the very CBO letter that I believe YOU linked upthread.
But as for the jail part, going to jail would be for not paying the tax if you DON'T buy health insurance, and you can already go to jail for tax evasion. The article you link misleadingly describes this as the tax code "as amended by the healthcare bill" to make it sound like the healthcare bill somehow makes it easier to go to jail for tax evasion. It further mistakes the word "misdemeanor" for "minor violation" and then assumes that a jail sentence would be applied in the case of any typical non-payor, when in fact jail time in tax evasion is generally reserved for very severe, high level cases of tax evasion. Nothing about this is changed by the healthcare bill, but because the bill amends some parts of the tax code, the article misleadingly makes it sound like the bill creates some kind of new jail sentence for not buying your piddling family premium. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:21 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Yes... the letter on the CBO's website is bull shit.
You have the be the dumbest fuck on this forum. You sound like Alia. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:23 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap well the gov't can't force you to do anything, really, it can only punish you if you don't. that's a silly argument.
besides, even if the health care fine is a tax, it's a capitation tax, which means it can only be levied equally across the states and in accordance with the census. see article 1, section 9 of the constitution. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:28 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker How the fuck is it a capitation tax? It's not a fixed amount per person. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635852) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:33 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap what do you mean it isn't? the act says, "either buy health insurance, or pay X amount to the gov't"
the X is the same for everyone. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:40 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker No, it's a percent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635911) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:57 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap even so, it doesn't matter. it's still a direct tax upon the person, as opposed to a tax on his/her income.
as such, it's a capitation tax and must be levied evenly based on a state's population. that won't work, even if it's tried. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 1:03 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker How is a tax that's a percent of your income not a tax on your income? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13636063) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:03 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap because of the 16th amendment and its power to raise and maintain an army and navy. NEXT! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635710) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:10 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker And they can do the same with health insurance because of the commerce power. NEXT! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635764) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:28 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap no, they can't. see our exchange above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635854) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:19 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Forcing people to pay for something as a "cost to be alive" that they often could not reasonably afford seems like a clear "overstepping" of authority in our system of government... especially since it would lead to prison.
This really doesn't have much to do with the 1st amendment though, but neither did abortion or many other things we regularly claim is a 1st amendment right.
|
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:19 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap that's not a constitutional argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635348) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:20 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator I don't see how that is unconstitutional honestly, I do think it's fucking ridiculous and could be overturned for numerous legal reasons. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635360) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:22 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap ok... tell me. why, specifically, is it constitutional. which provision allows congress to force you to buy insurance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635377) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:24 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator You know this isn't how the SCOTUS works. If it did work this way medicare and other garbage would have been tossed as well.
The constitution doesn't allocate the federal government to supply or control any sort of entitlement programs. In fact the constitution attempts to limit allocating anything to one group at the detriment of another.
The SCOTUS only cares about its political ideals. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:28 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap this is nonsense. someone will challenge the mandatory insurance requirement on the grounds that congress is without power to require it. under SCOTUS commerce clause analysis, congress can regulate interstate commerce in one of three ways:
channels of interstate commerce, i.e., roads, railroads, rivers, etc.
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, i.e., planes, trains and automobiles,
and substantial effect on interstate commerce. this is the one congress is using. the argument against it will be that the class of people without health insurance are not substantially affecting interstate commerce. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:31 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator I'm not saying it isn't sound, but a lot of amazingly sound constitutional arguments aren't even heard by the SCOTUS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635447) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:53 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker The class of people without insurance ARE substantially affecting interstate commerce - for example, their reliance on free emergency room treatment drives up costs for everyone else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635647) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:57 PM Author: Odious Big-titted School Cafeteria WTF (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635674) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:59 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator This has to be the stupidest legal argument I've ever read. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635684) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:07 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap it's not stupid. the gov't tried it in morrison, but failed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635743) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:11 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator The government tries a lot of stupid shit... all the fucking time. Trying it doesn't make it any less retarded. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:22 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker It's not Morrison, it's Wickard and Raich. It's actually a LOT like Wickard in a way - commercial activity of one group affects overall commerce.
You can dislike the state of commerce clause jurisprudence all you want - lots of reasonable people do. But don't let that blind you to the fact that the healthcare situation fits pretty nicely within it, and is nothing like the VAWA. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:31 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap "commercial activity of one group affects overall commerce"
really? how are babies born within the past 2 hours ago affecting overall commerce? nevertheless, they must be insured.
it doesn't fit within it at all. you're confusing the regulation of an activity with the forced doing of an activity you don't want to do in the first place. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:06 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap that's an indirect effect and you have to pile inference upon inference to make it stick. in US v. Morrison the court refused to do that when the gov't tried to argue that raped and battered women refrained from purchasing things.
try again. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:25 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker Unlike battered women, the use of medical services and purchasing of insurance is itself interstate commercial activity. You're arguing what you feel, I'm arguing what actually jibes with current commerce clause jurisprudence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635836) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:36 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap this doesn't fit within commerce clause jurisprudence. no one is arguing the fact that use of medical services and purchasing insurance is commercial activity. what i'm saying is that the power to REGULATE interstate commerce is not the same as the power to FORCE interstate commerce.
do you really not get this? |
|
Date: December 25th, 2009 2:47 AM Author: khaki marvelous patrolman A mandatory rule deals with the same liberty interests as a prohibition, and assuming no fundamental rights are invoked, it gets trucked by the Commerce Clause.
Raich is the law. It is followed whenever the activity relates to a commercial market. When the activity itself is "not commerce," like wife-beating and gun possession, Lopez and Morrison apply. An insurance purchase is commerce. |
|
Date: December 25th, 2009 11:42 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap what prevents congress from requiring the purchase of a new television set? a tv purchase is commerce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13643658) |
|
Date: December 25th, 2009 11:48 AM Author: red mischievous market laser beams killing analog transmission is pretty much that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13643671) |
|
Date: December 25th, 2009 2:38 PM Author: khaki marvelous patrolman Elections (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13644239) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:20 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker you mean coherent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635362) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:21 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator There was nothing difficult to understand about what I said. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635368) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:38 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker "This really doesn't have much to do with the 1st amendment though, but neither did abortion or many other things we regularly claim is a 1st amendment right. "
Flame for sure. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:40 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Sorry about your tiny TTT brain dude.
Lemme guess, BC grad? |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:56 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker Flame or you just didn't mean to type "1st Amendment" maybe? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635669) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:58 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator No... I def meant first amendment (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635681) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:30 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker And... in what case was the First Amendment used as a basis for allowing abortion? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635861) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:17 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Despite the unconstitutionality of this, it won't probably be looked at by the SCOTUS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635325) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:18 PM Author: Wonderful out-of-control center how about MOTUS? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635337) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:18 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap you don't think it can get 4 votes for review? scalia, thomas, roberts, alito. they can probably get kennedy to agree. game over. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635338) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:19 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator probably not... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635343) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:20 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap oh ok. you make a good point. tyft. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635353) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:21 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator If this happened it would be when Obama reached into the high 30% approval levels in the next year once Citibank and places start having to "face facts" about their fiscal doom (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635365) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:24 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap wgiyaf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635400) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:25 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator I don't think anyone knows what that means. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635406) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:26 PM Author: splenetic poppy keepsake machete preventive strike it's the moron's acronym for yfwgi (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635418) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:21 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker ITT: ... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635366) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:22 PM Author: Wonderful out-of-control center faggots? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635378) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:26 PM Author: splenetic poppy keepsake machete preventive strike stop being mean to yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635411) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:26 PM Author: transparent locale If you choose to make over X amount (those who do not will be fully subsidized) and do not pay for health insurance, the "penalty" will simply be a tax. OMGz are taxes illegal too? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635413) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:28 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator That X amount is 50% below the poverty line (and starts at $700/yr if you make $17k/yr) Below that X amount if you are not on medicare then you must still buy insurance. There could be a rather sound argument that at this poverty level, $17k/yr, it's next to impossible to even survive. Any further obligations forced upon people like that could be seen as enslavement by the state. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:30 PM Author: transparent locale If you choose to make $1 in the U.S. economy you are subject to any taxation the federal govt wishes to impose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635444) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:32 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator There are people who don't report any income and yet would be required to pay upwards of $3000 for insurance per year.
For instance, this year I will report $0 gross income because of ITE. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:04 AM Author: transparent locale thus you are subsidized... what is so hard to understand? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635715) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:12 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator You aren't subsidized...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/2262-healthcare-bil-pay-for-a-plan-or-go-to-jail |
|
Date: December 25th, 2009 12:28 PM Author: Frisky reading party Big difference between "not reporting any income" (we know what that means) and earning zero income. The former will likely have to pay for health insurance while the latter will likely qualify for Medicaid in his state. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13643765) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:59 AM Author: stirring doobsian foreskin "you are subject to any taxation the federal govt wishes to impose."
Really? ANY? Are you sure?
|
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:32 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker [i]That X amount is 50% below the poverty line (and starts at $700/yr if you make $17k/yr) [/i]
lolwhut? Link please? |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:34 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10691/hr3962SubsidiesRangelLtr.pdf
Page 4 Look at the premiums a $41k/yr person would have to pay $7000/yr for insurance. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:48 PM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker Nowhere in that document does it say anything about someone making 50% of the FPL paying, in fact it points out that people making below 150% of the FPL would generally be eligible for medicaid. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635613) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:51 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Ummmmmm... I'm not eligible for medicaid and I made $0 this year.
Also I'd like to point out you're an idiot and can't read charts
you make $14k/yr you pay $700/yr AFTER subsidies for insurance. I hope that helps you stupid fuck |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:00 AM Author: Odious Big-titted School Cafeteria TYTY
I was following his posts in this thread with a mixture of disgust and amusement. He is an imbecile. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:02 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker 14k/yr is not 50% of the poverty line. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635701) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:03 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator you're right... it's less than 50% (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635709) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:32 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker um, nope
http://liheap.ncat.org/profiles/povertytables/FY2010/popstate.htm |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:29 PM Author: splenetic poppy keepsake machete preventive strike Oh yeah, that's setting a great precedent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635434) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:31 PM Author: electric internet-worthy therapy The faggot OP doesn't realize we're already taxed to pay for a program we can't opt out of: Medicare. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635452) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:31 PM Author: transparent locale yea, this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635455) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:32 PM Author: splenetic poppy keepsake machete preventive strike You're profoundly retarded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635466) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:34 PM Author: electric internet-worthy therapy U MAD? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635484) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:36 PM Author: splenetic poppy keepsake machete preventive strike medicare =/= forcing people to buy health insurance from a private company (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635508) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:35 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator You can opt out of medicare... hth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635497) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:32 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap yes, and if you do not pay the tax, you will go to jail, which really means it's a fine.
in any case, the tax is also unconstitutional because it is not a tax on income, but rather on some specific activity, and is thus a capitation tax, which must be equally apportioned among the states. the scheme won't work if it's equally apportioned. |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:49 PM Author: transparent locale how is it not a tax on income? you dont have to pay it if you make below the cutoff (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635623) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:54 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Yes... you do (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635655) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:05 AM Author: transparent locale link or stfu (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635723) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:09 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator "In a letter dated November 5, the Joint Committee on Taxation informed Congressman Camp that there is a broad range of civil and criminal penalties applicable to any American who fails to purchase a health insurance policy that passes legislative muster, or as euphemistically styled in the bill itself: “acceptable health insurance coverage.”"
H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” The “additional tax” amounts to (a) the national average of a family premium as determined by the Secretary of Treasure in cooperation with the legislatively-created Health Choices Commissioner (essentially a “Health Care Czar” empowered as the arbiter for what is or is not acceptable health care coverage for your family), or (b) 2.5% of the person’s adjusted gross income.
Did you read that? If you make below that "certain amount" they just take 2.5% of your raw gross income instead of the fine... if you don't pay that of course, you go to jail.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/2262-healthcare-bil-pay-for-a-plan-or-go-to-jail |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:39 AM Author: cracking public bath weed whacker 1) If you make below a certain income you won't be subject to this regime in the first place
2) You don't automatically go to jail just for not paying the 2.5% - even the bullshit article you linked doesn't say that as distorted as it is. You risk facing penalties for tax evasion. Actual jail time for tax evasion is extremely rare. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:09 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap you don't understand the difference between an income tax and a tax on activity? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635753) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:39 PM Author: Bat shit crazy twinkling uncleanness stag film this is just some nonsense to keep the controversy going so the Dems continue to look bad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635538) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:42 PM Author: red mischievous market laser beams they look bad all by themselves.
they just ignore the latest cbo |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:43 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator They are doing plenty to make themselves look bad.
http://reason.com/assets/mc/_ATTIC/ngillespie3/budgetdeficits2017.jpg
The CBO is probably way underestimating this since Obama already beat out the 2009 estimates by about $300 billion
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/SiS4CK773bI/AAAAAAAACaw/0FnGk8W5EUU/s400/GR2009032100104.gif
Closest estimates and he already beat 2009 again by about $100 billion over these numbers |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:47 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap the CBO also cleared up the medicare 500 billion fix, telling the dems the only way it can say that it cuts the deficit is by double counting the same amount of money. therefore, obamacare is a budget buster. look for the republicans to make this argument in 2010. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635601) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:49 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Obama spends more on a stimulus bill that created fewer jobs (even by Biden's numbers) than the entire War on Terror cost and employed since 2001.
WTMF
Those numbers aren't even including TARP losses or inflationary devaluation of the dollar |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:37 AM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap no i think the war on terror has cost more, but you're not far off. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635901) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:42 AM Author: Gaped office cuckold "Obama spends more on a stimulus bill that created fewer jobs (even by Biden's numbers) than the entire War on Terror cost and employed since 2001."
incredible |
|
Date: December 25th, 2009 2:51 AM Author: khaki marvelous patrolman War --> jobs
My mother asked my father about his wish as he blew out his birthday candles. "World peace. No - <Defense Contractor>'s stock to double. I know I can't have both." |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:52 PM Author: Bat shit crazy twinkling uncleanness stag film It doesn't change the fact that this is just smoke and mirrors. The end of this debate is almost upon us and Republicans won't have the ammunition in six months they've had since June. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635641) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2009 11:53 PM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator Um... they won't have the ammunition when the deficit balloons so large and taxes increase so much that they can't even service our debt?
How about when inflation devalues the dollar 14% in 2 years? Or perhaps when Citibank and the like start defaulting on their TARP? |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:03 AM Author: Bat shit crazy twinkling uncleanness stag film those are all hypotheticals. they only go so far with the american public. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635708) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:03 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator They will be a reality in 2010. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635712) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:04 AM Author: Bat shit crazy twinkling uncleanness stag film sure thing, chief. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635722) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:12 AM Author: ruby vigorous hall masturbator 7.9% inflation in 2009... the fed reserve is gonna keep interest rates at 0% until at least fall of 2010... I think 14% in 2 years is actually a very very big understatement of what could happen.
They're already talking about VATs and trying to push through a wide breadth tax increase right now in the House... there was a rather large (7%) tax increase on most middle class families in the healthcare bill. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:11 AM Author: red mischievous market laser beams cash out of their pockets they understand. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635766) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 12:36 AM Author: Wonderful out-of-control center ARE COUNTRY. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13635898) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 2:09 AM Author: maize low-t sanctuary the penn law review ran a debate on this question:
http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/debate.php?did=23 |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 10:07 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap this was pretty good. balkin's commerce clause analysis is off, however. according to him, people who don't buy insurance use over the counter medicines and pay cash to go see doctors, and therefore do affect interstate commerce. that's true. however, what if congress decided that every american had to have a new, american-made car every 3 years? those who don't buy cars affect interstate commerce by using public transportation and hitching rides with friends and family. so they also affect interstate commerce. does this mean congress can force them to purchase cars? i say no. i don't see how the supreme court allows this. if it does, there's almost nothing that the government can't force you to do, so long as it involves money. then again, it could also force you to have children because population growth affects interstate commerce. like i said, no way.
as far as the tax analysis, it's not really my forte, but i'd say the supreme court doesn't allow congress to get away with it either. obama expressly stated it's a fine and not a tax. moreover, if it was a tax on income, congress could call it that. but it didn't. it called it a "shared responsibility amount" or some shit. therefore, it doesn't have to pay the political consequences of hiking taxes. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 10:29 PM Author: carmine digit ratio see ashcroft v reich (bullshit expansive reading of commerce clause) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13641146) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 10:41 PM Author: motley mad-dog skullcap that's more popularly known as gonzales v. raich.
i discussed that case previously. it regulated an activity, in that case, marijuana growth. but it didn't tell anyone to do anything he/she didn't want to do. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 10:42 PM Author: Wonderful out-of-control center what an annoying post this was. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13641226) |
|
Date: December 25th, 2009 3:22 PM Author: Amethyst elite library generalized bond Can the American people, acting through their democratically elected representatives, require adults to purchase health insurance for themselves and their families as part of a comprehensive health care program?
Yes, we can.
I WANT TO SHOOT THIS GUY IN THE HEAD. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 10:07 PM Author: Wonderful out-of-control center shut the fuck up faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13641004) |
|
Date: December 25th, 2009 2:49 PM Author: khaki marvelous patrolman THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172797&forum_id=2#13644292) |