some 20 states have launched legal action to overturn the healthcare law, mostly challenging the constitutionality of imposing what they consider unlawful taxes and requiring people to obtain healthcare coverage, a provision known as the "individual mandate."
Administration officials and most legal experts say the law will withstand the legal challenge, because the federal government has the ability to levy taxes and the Constitution puts federal government powers above those of states.
Other experts, and opponents of the bill, expect the issue will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But the case could take years to get to the high court, far longer than the immediate political battle over the bill.
Something similar happened to this country about 130 years or so ago Shane. States rights became such an issue that several states seceded from the Union. I don't see it getting to that extreme in this case but I beleive it will come very close. It's just not legal to penalize someone with an extra tax because they don't abide by the healthcare mandate. That's like saying there is a special beard tax or walking tax. It makes no sense to punish those who can't afford it. That one provision alone will definitely be changed if not stricken altogether. I also don't understand how Obama can say Fedzilla won't go after California's weed shops and that it's up to the state government to handle it but they are going to ignore those same rights and force the citizens of California to participate in this healthcare nightmare. Sounds exactly like a double standard to me.
Fines and taxes are two entirely different things. Under the Obamacare package beginning in 2014 you will be penalized on your tax return for not having what Fedzilla deems to be appropriate insurance coverage.
Fines and taxes are two entirely different things. Under the Obamacare package beginning in 2014 you will be penalized on your tax return for not having what Fedzilla deems to be appropriate insurance coverage.
yep, we get that in mass. when we get our w-2's to do our taxes, we also get a proof of insurance to file with our taxes. if we don't get the form, we get a tax penalty
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
Shut 'em down. The Obamacare bill WILL be repealed as several aspects of it are unconstitutional, thus the 23 states that have filed federal lawsuits to stop it.
What part of the constitution are you claiming it violates?
Obama will not be able to get anything done without enlisting the support of the Republicans, a fact he can't stand.
I think that the Republicans are creating the partisan gap in America just as much the Democrats are. I've seen little but attempts from the Democrats to reach across the aisle, but that's not how Washington works.
I still blame mass media for this partisanship that we are all suffering through. C'mon people, don't let Fox, CNN, Drudge, Huffington or anyone influence how you think.
Shut 'em down. The Obamacare bill WILL be repealed as several aspects of it are unconstitutional, thus the 23 states that have filed federal lawsuits to stop it.
What part of the constitution are you claiming it violates?
The taxes to be imposed as a punishment are unconstitutional. Change what it's called and how it's collected. Call it a fine and send an invoice, don't call it a tax and make the IRS collect it for you.
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
Shut 'em down. The Obamacare bill WILL be repealed as several aspects of it are unconstitutional, thus the 23 states that have filed federal lawsuits to stop it.
What part of the constitution are you claiming it violates?
The taxes to be imposed as a punishment are unconstitutional. Change what it's called and how it's collected. Call it a fine and send an invoice, don't call it a tax and make the IRS collect it for you.
No, I'm asking you what part of the constitution it violates, please tell me what amendment.
California did not legallize weed, and they also are cracking down on happy meal toys at micky D's
wine, I'm not a lawyer(but I play one on TV) so I am not going to be able to cite case law already established. Sorry.
I did, however, find this:
The legal arguments clearly show that the Constitution simply doesn't allow the federal government to demand a payment for not doing something.
The case was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of several individuals.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
It includes many points of legal violation, namely the government's plan to force individuals to buy health-care insurance and pay for abortions.
In many cases, abortion is tried to religion and the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, which are often used to argue the ‘separation of church and state’.
This is in direct violation of the First Amendment, which contains the Bill of Rights.
The legal case also notes that the National Health Care Reform Bill ultimately claims that the federal government has the power to force all Americans to engage in a commercial transaction in which they otherwise would not engage.
Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law and that by usurping the power reserved for the states and the people, Congress violated the Tenth Amendment.
If the counts do not uphold these constitutional violations, than the counts are clearly failing to uphold the legal authority of the constitution.
Something similar happened to this country about 130 years or so ago Shane. States rights became such an issue that several states seceded from the Union. I don't see it getting to that extreme in this case but I beleive it will come very close. It's just not legal to penalize someone with an extra tax because they don't abide by the healthcare mandate. That's like saying there is a special beard tax or walking tax. It makes no sense to punish those who can't afford it. That one provision alone will definitely be changed if not stricken altogether. I also don't understand how Obama can say Fedzilla won't go after California's weed shops and that it's up to the state government to handle it but they are going to ignore those same rights and force the citizens of California to participate in this healthcare nightmare. Sounds exactly like a double standard to me.
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
wine, I'm not a lawyer(but I play one on TV) so I am not going to be able to cite case law already established. Sorry.
I did, however, find this:
The legal arguments clearly show that the Constitution simply doesn't allow the federal government to demand a payment for not doing something.
The case was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of several individuals.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
It includes many points of legal violation, namely the government's plan to force individuals to buy health-care insurance and pay for abortions.
In many cases, abortion is tried to religion and the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, which are often used to argue the ‘separation of church and state’.
This is in direct violation of the First Amendment, which contains the Bill of Rights.
The legal case also notes that the National Health Care Reform Bill ultimately claims that the federal government has the power to force all Americans to engage in a commercial transaction in which they otherwise would not engage.
Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law and that by usurping the power reserved for the states and the people, Congress violated the Tenth Amendment.
If the counts do not uphold these constitutional violations, than the counts are clearly failing to uphold the legal authority of the constitution.
As long as abortion is legal, the first amendment issue has no standing. In the same way how its not a violation of the first amendment to marry. Just because other people have values that are in opposition to other people's values, does not mean that they are able to dictate to them their values under the first amendment. Granted, funding could be considered an issue, but since the decision is completely unrelated to religion, it's likely not arguable that it violates the first amendment. Look up Christian Legal Society vs. Hastings if you want to see more on this, because it's reminding me of it a lot of it.
Assuming that the above statement "doesn't allow the federal government to demand a payment for not doing something" is true, a lot of things the government does is wrong. The way this is worded makes it seem like my local police is violating the constitution for fining me for not moving my car when I park at a red curb. I'm not moving my car, so therefore I'm being fined for not doing something. If this is all a matter of wording, then that's easily fixed.
It also apparently has to do with making people pay for abortions, a transaction I'd never enter into as I don't have a vagina or uterus. That's Fedzilla dictating beliefs. Unconstitutional. The first ammendment definitely has standing in that regard.
It does seem that alot of this bill's problems are due to wording, so why then didn't the Democrats take their time and make sure it was all legal and dot the i's and cross the t's?
With almost half of the country not wanting this bill how could they not expect a vast amount of opposition? If past history is any indicator we'll still be arguing about this bill 20 years from now. The only winners are the lawyers.
6,000 votes. That’s all. A measly 6,000 votes solidified “no” over “yes” in Arizona’s prop 203. It failed by a margin of 50.25% against the proposition and 49.25% for it.
Prop 203 was an initiative to legalize marijuana for medical use for patients with severe pain. Opponents to the proposition believed 203 would just give marijuana users an excuse to legally use the substance.
Re-elected governor Jan Brewer was against prop 203, and she won in a landslide against democratic opponent Terry Goddard. The close margin of prop 203 shows that medical marijuana use is a bi-partisan issue. It doesn’t matter which team you play for, whether it be the GOP or Democrats, medical marijuana use is ever-so-close to being accepted in one of the reddest states around.
The slight margin of defeat makes me absolutely sick. We are letting 6,000 people make the decision that medical marijuana will not be used in the Arizona. I know that there are more than 6,000 people in Arizona who could have changed the outcome if they actually went out and voted on election day. Seriously, do you realize the impact you have made by not letting your voice be heard?
I’ve already talked to people who supported prop 203 but failed to vote on Tuesday. When I told them how minimal the margin between “yes” and “no” was they got that “deer in the headlights” look–sickened by their inability to get off the couch and into the polling office.
6,000 votes.
I figured the margin of defeat would be astronomical before the actual voting. I figured the numbers would be somewhere around 60% against with 40% in favor of the proposition. As I watched the live feed of votes being counted and saw that it was virtually a 50/50 split, I hoped and wished that everyone who cared about freedom of choice got out to vote that day.
I guess they didn’t, and it’s a damn shame.
In a time where job creation and the economical disaster influenced America’s voters, Arizona was overshadowed by the highly-controversial SB 1070–the bill to combat illegal immigration. We forgot about Arizona’s need for jobs. We became to obsessed with SB 1070, and we let it control the voting booths. Prop 203 would have opened up an entirely new job market for Arizona. We would have created a slew of new jobs for distributors, growers, etc. Though the possible 124 dispensaries would be for non-profit, it would still put people to work.
The results of prop 203 should be a wake up call to America, and specifically, Arizona voters. If you are in favor of medical marijuana and didn’t vote, shame on you. The excuse of “is one vote really going to make a difference?” is irrelevant. Think about that thought on a mass scale. If a little over 6,000 people would have foregone that thought on Tuesday, Arizona could be embarking on an entirely new and exciting adventure that could help curb the pointless “war on drugs,” while freeing up prison space occupied by “drug offenders” and saving tax payers their more-than-ever needed money.
Come next election, please get out and vote. Prop 203 is living proof that every vote counts.
Read The Full Story: Arizona’s Prop 203 Fails, 1 Point Margin of Defeat – Indyposted
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
It also apparently has to do with making people pay for abortions, a transaction I'd never enter into as I don't have a vagina or uterus. That's Fedzilla dictating beliefs. Unconstitutional. The first ammendment definitely has standing in that regard.
It does seem that alot of this bill's problems are due to wording, so why then didn't the Democrats take their time and make sure it was all legal and dot the i's and cross the t's?
Wording does seem to be an issue, but I believe the bill is completely legal.
Let me find some cases that ruled certain laws to be constitutional when they were considered to be first amendment violating. Since religion is not a factor in the law, it's non-violating.
Let me go back to school then I'll come back and find some cases.
Wine, the bill still forces someone else's religious beliefs on me as part of my premium will go to pay for abortions given by the federal government's doctors. That's the part that's gonna kill this bill right there.
Comments
Administration officials and most legal experts say the law will withstand the legal challenge, because the federal government has the ability to levy taxes and the Constitution puts federal government powers above those of states.
Other experts, and opponents of the bill, expect the issue will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But the case could take years to get to the high court, far longer than the immediate political battle over the bill.
I still blame mass media for this partisanship that we are all suffering through. C'mon people, don't let Fox, CNN, Drudge, Huffington or anyone influence how you think.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101103/hl_nm/us_mcdonalds_toys
I did, however, find this:
The legal arguments clearly show that the Constitution simply doesn't allow the federal government to demand a payment for not doing something.
The case was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of several individuals.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
It includes many points of legal violation, namely the government's plan to force individuals to buy health-care insurance and pay for abortions.
In many cases, abortion is tried to religion and the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, which are often used to argue the ‘separation of church and state’.
This is in direct violation of the First Amendment, which contains the Bill of Rights.
The legal case also notes that the National Health Care Reform Bill ultimately claims that the federal government has the power to force all Americans to engage in a commercial transaction in which they otherwise would not engage.
Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law and that by usurping the power reserved for the states and the people, Congress violated the Tenth Amendment.
If the counts do not uphold these constitutional violations, than the counts are clearly failing to uphold the legal authority of the constitution.
Assuming that the above statement "doesn't allow the federal government to demand a payment for not doing something" is true, a lot of things the government does is wrong. The way this is worded makes it seem like my local police is violating the constitution for fining me for not moving my car when I park at a red curb. I'm not moving my car, so therefore I'm being fined for not doing something. If this is all a matter of wording, then that's easily fixed.
It does seem that alot of this bill's problems are due to wording, so why then didn't the Democrats take their time and make sure it was all legal and dot the i's and cross the t's?
With almost half of the country not wanting this bill how could they not expect a vast amount of opposition? If past history is any indicator we'll still be arguing about this bill 20 years from now. The only winners are the lawyers.
6,000 votes. That’s all. A measly 6,000 votes solidified “no” over “yes” in Arizona’s prop 203. It failed by a margin of 50.25% against the proposition and 49.25% for it.
Prop 203 was an initiative to legalize marijuana for medical use for patients with severe pain. Opponents to the proposition believed 203 would just give marijuana users an excuse to legally use the substance.
Re-elected governor Jan Brewer was against prop 203, and she won in a landslide against democratic opponent Terry Goddard. The close margin of prop 203 shows that medical marijuana use is a bi-partisan issue. It doesn’t matter which team you play for, whether it be the GOP or Democrats, medical marijuana use is ever-so-close to being accepted in one of the reddest states around.
The slight margin of defeat makes me absolutely sick. We are letting 6,000 people make the decision that medical marijuana will not be used in the Arizona. I know that there are more than 6,000 people in Arizona who could have changed the outcome if they actually went out and voted on election day. Seriously, do you realize the impact you have made by not letting your voice be heard?
I’ve already talked to people who supported prop 203 but failed to vote on Tuesday. When I told them how minimal the margin between “yes” and “no” was they got that “deer in the headlights” look–sickened by their inability to get off the couch and into the polling office.
6,000 votes.
I figured the margin of defeat would be astronomical before the actual voting. I figured the numbers would be somewhere around 60% against with 40% in favor of the proposition. As I watched the live feed of votes being counted and saw that it was virtually a 50/50 split, I hoped and wished that everyone who cared about freedom of choice got out to vote that day.
I guess they didn’t, and it’s a damn shame.
In a time where job creation and the economical disaster influenced America’s voters, Arizona was overshadowed by the highly-controversial SB 1070–the bill to combat illegal immigration. We forgot about Arizona’s need for jobs. We became to obsessed with SB 1070, and we let it control the voting booths. Prop 203 would have opened up an entirely new job market for Arizona. We would have created a slew of new jobs for distributors, growers, etc. Though the possible 124 dispensaries would be for non-profit, it would still put people to work.
The results of prop 203 should be a wake up call to America, and specifically, Arizona voters. If you are in favor of medical marijuana and didn’t vote, shame on you. The excuse of “is one vote really going to make a difference?” is irrelevant. Think about that thought on a mass scale. If a little over 6,000 people would have foregone that thought on Tuesday, Arizona could be embarking on an entirely new and exciting adventure that could help curb the pointless “war on drugs,” while freeing up prison space occupied by “drug offenders” and saving tax payers their more-than-ever needed money.
Come next election, please get out and vote. Prop 203 is living proof that every vote counts.
Read The Full Story: Arizona’s Prop 203 Fails, 1 Point Margin of Defeat – Indyposted
Let me find some cases that ruled certain laws to be constitutional when they were considered to be first amendment violating. Since religion is not a factor in the law, it's non-violating.
Let me go back to school then I'll come back and find some cases.
It's not as if they are saying "You must go to church on the sabbath."
If I form my own church that says I don't have to pay taxes, then the government demanding that I pay taxes is violating my first amendment rights.
Find some line to where the first amendment can be used.
Now I'm off to go find cases...
Maybe not that much...