It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Healthcare Ruling: Individual Mandate Ruled CONSTITUTIONAL, entire law upheld.

page: 74
74
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93


i also know a whole bunch of Scientologists who absolutely refuse to engage doctors, all of them, so again, where exactly is this great need for doctors ??

hmmm, come to think of it, i wonder how they'll (Scientologists) be exempted from this penalty?


I think using Scientologist is not such a good idea for using as an example. Them people are nuts.

There is a religious exemption for religion in the A.C.A.

If you are a part of a religion opposed to acceptance of benefits from a health insurance policy you will not be penalized for not having insurance.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Classified Info
 

I think using Scientologist is not such a good idea for using as an example. Them people are nuts.
be that as it may, they are a popular and plentiful group 'round these parts.


There is a religious exemption for religion in the A.C.A.

If you are a part of a religion opposed to acceptance of benefits from a health insurance policy you will not be penalized for not having insurance.
yes, i understand this, however, are you realizing that ^^^^ this makes the whole "tax" invalid ??



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


The SCOTUS has rendered their decision so I think that makes it about as valid as you can get.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

The one thing I don't see any of the opponents of this bill arguing against is that the bill will decrease health insurance costs that will make it affordable for everyone to get insurance. They are just mad that everyone has to participate.



You seem to not understand - I don't care what insurance costs, because I'm not going to be buying it.

When is it going to start decreasing the costs? They seem to have gone way up since it's inception, from what I hear.

I guess once you have a captive market, you can charge them whatever you want them to pay, eh?


edit on 2012/6/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
reply to post by Honor93
 


The SCOTUS has rendered their decision so I think that makes it about as valid as you can get.

not really but if you think so, who am i to change your opinion ??

doesn't it bother you that Justice Kagan broke her promise to recuse herself for conflict of interest?
if it is challenged on that merit alone and her vote is rendered null & void, the whole mess remains "unconstitutional" as the court has already deemed.

the simple fact that it has been classified as a "tax" makes it invalid as it was presented in the opposite. we are not subject to taxation without representation and that IS exactly what this has become.

i gotta wonder ... who is going to be the scapegoat/fallguy in Congress to publicly admit ...
"we knew it was a tax all along" ?
because, without that, there is no representation of the people in this legislation.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt

edit on 30-6-2012 by Honor93 because: more typos



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

It has always been roughly 50/50 for those who supported/opposed. Recently that opposed percent has gone up due to Republican propaganda about the mandate being Unconstitutional. Well the SCOTUS decided that for them...so I suspect the percent of those that oppose this will go down.



No.

SCOTUS ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional. What they have ruled to be constitutional is the levying of a new tax. The mandate was forcing purchase via the interstate commerce clause. Now there is no mandate to purchse, but a big stick tax to beat us with if we choose not to. we can still make that choice - there is no provision to enforce the mandate under interstate commerce.

If it goes back to being a "not tax" but a mandate instead as it was first billed and insisted to be the case by Dear Leader himself in order to sell it, then it becomes unconstitutional again.

Bait and switch, anyone?


edit on 2012/6/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


No.

SCOTUS ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional. What they have ruled to be constitutional is the levying of a new tax. The mandate was forcing purchase via the interstate commerce clause. Now there is no mandate to purchse, but a big stick tax to beat us with if we choose not to. we can still make that choice - there is no provision to enforce the mandate under interstate commerce.

If it goes back to being a "not tax" but a mandate instead as it was first billed and insisted to be the case by Dear Leader himself in order to sell it, then it becomes unconstitutional again.

Bait and switch, anyone?


edit on 2012/6/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)





Spot on, for even the most vocal Obama supporter,or someone who "thinks" this is actually a Healthcare bill.


You cant paint this picture ANY better,then how you wrote it, nenothtu...


I for one, will NOT be supporting this.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



doesn't it bother you that Justice Kagan broke her promise to recuse herself for conflict of interest?


Please go find a source that says Kagan promised to recuse herself.

And if Thomas didn't...there is no reason for Kagan to.


the simple fact that it has been classified as a "tax" makes it invalid as it was presented in the opposite. we are not subject to taxation without representation and that IS exactly what this has become.




You are trying so hard...it's cute.

You are so wrong...but it's cute.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



No.

SCOTUS ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional. What they have ruled to be constitutional is the levying of a new tax. The mandate was forcing purchase via the interstate commerce clause. Now there is no mandate to purchse, but a big stick tax to beat us with if we choose not to. we can still make that choice - there is no provision to enforce the mandate under interstate commerce.

If it goes back to being a "not tax" but a mandate instead as it was first billed and insisted to be the case by Dear Leader himself in order to sell it, then it becomes unconstitutional again.


The penalty was always administered as a tax to be enforced by the IRS...it's in the bill...always has been...that is why the administration argued that point.

The mandate is still in effect...if you don't buy insurance, you are penalized with this tax. It doesn't matter if it isn't covered under the commerce clause...it is covered as a tax.

Bottom line...the entire law is upheld...it wasn't re-classified as a tax, it always was a tax...the bill isn't re-classified as a revenue bill, you still need a super majority to repeal it entirely.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by R3KR
America is becoming like Greece.
We are so fkd if we do not vote obama out in Nov!


The day Reagan warned us about has finally arrived.


Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."


Freedom is officially dead!

Thanks Obama!

Thanks SCOTUS!

Thanks Congress!




No, freedom isn't yet dead, it's only ailing. You have only to claim it to resuscitate it. Tell 'em to shove their "tax" or "penalty" or whatever it is they are calling it that day.

Just say "NO. Shove it. I ain't paying it".

If enough people will do that, what are they gonna do? jail us all? Take away our birthdays? make us write bad checks?

Just what the hell are they gonna do? Other than watch their precious attempt as fascism swirl down the drain....



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Better read that SCOTUS decision again - you're wrong.

A "tax" is a tax. According to the decision, the ability of congress to levy taxes is constitutional. The ability to mandate compliance is not.

Read it again, and tell me what the real penalty is for refusal to comply. How much jail time? How much if your property can they set a lien against if you tell them to shove it?

Where are the teeth?

There is no "mandate", there is a new tax with no provision for the enforcement thereof.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
oye vei little drummer boy ... didn't i suggest you do your own homework, previously?

here, cause i'm in a good mood ... although, it's from back in March.
this has been an ongoing controversy since her appointment.
- www.judicialwatch.org... troversy/

In the letter, Mr. Fitton notes, “The failure of the Justice department to produce requested records in a timely manner, the dribbling out of requested records over time, the redaction and withholding of other records, and the refusal to respond to requests for records and information from several members of Congress have contributed to the substantial impression that additional details about your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA are being withheld from the American people. However, [as] the Court ultimately rules on the various legal challenges to the PPACA, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate if the Court’s decision were overshadowed by controversy over your participation in the matter. It would leave a cloud hanging over the Court’s decision and could undermine public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Court as an institution.”

should you choose to surf through some of the info provided last year, i'm sure you'll find a few msm snips where she was interviewed and agreed recusal may be necessary.

so, what does Thomas have to do with Kagan recusing herself ?
is it a monkey-see, monkey-do arrangement over there or what?

edit to add: what about Justice Thomas ?? imho, he should have recused himself on the grounds of spousal affiliation but if the public were to push for both votes to be voided, wouldn't that leave the balance of the decision as 4/3 oppose ??
(didn't Thomas concur (vote yes) ?)

are you sure you want to continue developing a stronger basis for repeal ??
edit on 30-6-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The penalty was always administered as a tax to be enforced by the IRS...it's in the bill...always has been...that is why the administration argued that point.

They only argued the tax point when the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clause arguments started coming under increasing pressure. The administration spent a LOT of time refuting the concern that this was a tax, and Obama went on ABC in 2009 and stated this bill is not a tax. Apparently, had they all read it first before they passed it they would have seen the 22+ taxes included in the bill.



Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The mandate is still in effect...if you don't buy insurance, you are penalized with this tax. It doesn't matter if it isn't covered under the commerce clause...it is covered as a tax.

Correct and to clarify the comments the person you were responding to. The individual mandate was valid only in the sense of the bill working as a tax, where Congress has the authority.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Bottom line...the entire law is upheld...it wasn't re-classified as a tax, it always was a tax...the bill isn't re-classified as a revenue bill, you still need a super majority to repeal it entirely.

The entire law was not upheld. The medicare / medicaid requirement for the states was restricted by the courts ruling. The federal government cannot withhold funding from states who refuse to comply with the law.

Secondly the law IS reclassified as a tax as its the only way its legal and constitutional per the ruling. The reason the Democrats aare trying to downplay it is because its an election year, more taxes are not welcome when we have a 16 trillion dollar debt that the government has failed to address (all parties), and it is directly contrary to what Obama stated it was.

To solidify the bill as a tax -

Source


................Despite the court ruling, there is still a chance that Republicans in Congress can repeal much of the law next year even if they don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Because Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the mandate to purchase health insurance—one of the key provisions of the law—was a tax, Republicans can use a procedure called "budget reconciliation" to pass a repeal bill that requires only a simple majority to pass. But this scenario relies on the Republicans' ability to win the White House, keep the majority in the House and gain enough seats in the Senate.............


If the bill is not a "tax" then please justify its legality under the SCOTUS ruling, who stated the bill is lawful as a "tax". Secondly, petr the above procedure, there is no super majority needed to do anything to the bill.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Please go find a source that says Kagan promised to recuse herself.


Justice Department Resists Releasing Records That Could Shed Light on Whether Justice Kagan Needs to Recuse Herself from Health Care Case - Feb 14th 2011


Federal law mandates that a Supreme Court justice must recuse herself from a case if she previously expressed an opinion about its merits while in government service.

At the time that President Obama signed his health-care reform law, Kagan was serving as President Obama’s solicitor general and President Obama had not yet nominated her to the Supreme Court.

Kagan’s job as solicitor general was to defend the administration’s position in federal court cases. On March 23, 2010, the day Obama signed his health-care reform law—and seven weeks before Obama would nominate Kagan to the Supreme Court--Florida and Virginia filed suit against the law in federal court challenging its constitutionality. Also on that day, 12 states joined Florida in its suit against the law.

Kagan was Obama’s solicitor general at a time when Obama’s most significant legislative accomplishment was being constitutionally challenged in a federal court system at whose pinnacle she now sits--on the very panel that must ultimately settle the challenges.

In a questionnaire that she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to her confirmation hearings, Kagan said she would abide by the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455, a federal law governing the recusal of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.

“If confirmed, I would recuse in all matters for which I was counsel of record,” Kagan told the committee in the questionnaire. “I would also look to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (although it is not formally binding on members of the Supreme Court of the United States), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 28 U.S.C. 455, and any other relevant prescriptions. I would also consult with my colleagues in any case where recusal might be advisable.”



Reference Material for below - 28 USC 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

The part above where its stated it is not applicable to the Supreme Court is incorrect -

Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §24 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §20, 36 Stat. 1090).

Section 24 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., applied only to district judges. The revised section is made applicable to all justices and judges of the United States.



Continued from article link at top...

The text of 28 U.S.C. 455 states: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

The law goes on to define a “proceeding” to include the “pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.”

Prof. Ronald Rotunda of the Chapman University School of Law, a legal ethics expert, told the Senate Judiciary Committee during Kagan’s confirmation hearings that 28 U.S.C. 455 requires Kagan to recuse herself from any case that she so much as expressed a verbal opinion about when serving as solicitor general.




Click link at top for remainder of story.


IF Kagan had recused herself and the ruling remains the same, resulting in a tie of 4-4, then the Federal Appeals Court ruling that was challenged which resulted in the case going to the US Supreme Court would be the final say on the law. In this case it would be declared unconstitutional in total with the notation redoing the law with and severing the mandate. If the mandate were removed, the law would comply with the Constitution per the Federal Appeals Court rulling out of the 11th circuit (FL).

While there were more than just the 11th circuit that issued a ruling (conflicting with other appeal circuits) it is the case the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari for, meaning in the event of recusal and tie, that appeals ruling would be the final say.

References -
Senate Confirmation Hearing - Elena Kagan - transcripts

Her entire statement -

Ms. KAGAN. Senator Leahy, I think certainly as I said in that
questionnaire answer that I would recuse myself from any case in
which I have been counsel of record at any stage of the proceedings,
in which I have signed any kind of brief. And I think that
there are probably about ten cases—I have not counted them up
particularly, but I think that there are probably about ten cases
that are on the docket next year in which that is true, in which
I have been counsel of record on a petition for certiorari or some
other kind of pleading. So that is a flat rule.

In addition to that, I said to you on the questionnaire that I
would recuse myself in any case in which I have played any kind
of substantial role in the process. I think that that would include—
I am going to be a little bit hesitant about this because one of the
things I would want to do is talk to my colleagues up there and
make sure that this is what they think is appropriate, too. But I
think that that would include any case in which I have officially
formally approved something. So one of the things that the Solicitor
General does is approve appeals or approve amicus briefs to be
filed in lower courts or approve interventions.

edit on 30-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


those who hate only obama OR bush or believe in any form of the false two-party system in america make me sad. clearly this is just a handout to insurance companies. the truth is insurance companies should stay out of the healthcare field entirely in universal healthcare - they arent doctors.

the truth is that a single agenda runs through both parties - the elitist agenda, which has total continuity across both democratic and republican administrations. for example, the wars and the economy. safe to say 'obamacare' is the dem-elitist version of a bill that the republican-elitists would have introduced in extremely similar form, with slightly different rhetoric to fool the idjits who actually believe there is still a two party system representing the american people in american.

liberals are my friends. conservatives are my friends. libertarians are my friends. the elitist globalist banking cartel ripoff haters are not my friends, and they arent our people. we need to stop bickering and stand for all of us against these despots. THE WORST THING TO DO IS PRETEND THERE ARE TWO POLITICAL PARTIES IDEOLOGICALLY AT WAR. foolish indeed. it empowers your ugly overlords.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Spot on, for even the most vocal Obama supporter,or someone who "thinks" this is actually a Healthcare bill.


You cant paint this picture ANY better,then how you wrote it, nenothtu...


I for one, will NOT be supporting this.



There's another thing that bothers me, but it's purely philosophical.

If we are to have "equal representation under the law", then all must be subject to the tax, irrespective of what they decide to purchase. If that is the case, then some will be paying their "tax" to the IRS, and others will be paying their "tax" to a private corporation in the form of insurance premiums.

Since when are private companies allowed to tax us?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
People thought it was great when the goverment went after smokers. With 1/3 of the country being over weight they're comin for you next. Prepair for mass taxes on anything unhealthy. I expect we'll see $4 bottles of coka cola soon and $15 big macs. But hey atleast I can finally get that ingrown townail removed.
edit on 30-6-2012 by wantsome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

doesn't it bother you that Justice Kagan broke her promise to recuse herself for conflict of interest?


No it does not bother me at all because Judge Kagan never promised to recuse herself. Opponents of the bill have made calls for her to recuse herself. Proponents of the law have made the same calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself because his wife was actively trying to repeal the law. Chief Justice Roberts asked both sides to call off their demands late last year.




we are not subject to taxation without representation and that IS exactly what this has become....
because, without that, there is no representation of the people in this legislation.


It was passed on March 23, 2010 by a vote of 219 -- 212.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
No it does not bother me at all because Judge Kagan never promised to recuse herself.


Yes, she did -

4 posts above yours is the info where she stated it.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
The OP of this thread seems to be cheering and dancing for both a poorly written bill and poor decision by SCOTUS. Why? I have no clue. I think it's because it's an "Obama doing". But evidenced by the zealots under the former Administration (Bushistas) every Administration has their wild eyed zealots which clap and cheer nonsensical, and worse, damaging legislation.

For all those else who would like to be rational and look into truth about Obamacare's main points of interest, here is a well written and sourced article on Fire Dog Lake ( A LIBERAL website).

fdlaction.firedoglake.com...



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join