Quit spewing disinformation. Their is NO credit score required....et al

reply to post by BardingTheBard


I never said anything about fixing it later. But like the NDAA, the Patriot Act, Citizens United and all those other fascist laws; there is nothing we can do.

You have an idea? Let's hear it.

GrantedBail
reply to post by sonnny1

 

The ACA is the law of the land. I don't like it either. But it is foolish to think that it can be overturned. It has already been challenged Constitutionally in the Supreme Court. It is a done deal. Now, we move from here.

That's what the British thought when they levied Taxes on its Colonies.

The people said enough is enough.



And.... People are still fighting this. Legally.

Regardless on the reasons why they are, they do have a great point.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media paid it little attention; but back in November, the U.S. Supreme Court shocked many in the legal community by granting Liberty Counsel’s motion for a rehearing on its multi-pronged challenge to Obamacare. The high court ordered the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear arguments. This is extremely rare and means, almost certainly, that Chief Justice Roberts will get another bite at the rotten apple – this time, with a whole new quiver of legal arrows.

Finally, Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that Obamacare is invalid because, since it’s a tax – as the Supreme Court already ruled in June – it violates the Constitution’s Origination Clause. To pass constitutional muster, tax bills must originate in the House, not the Senate.



The Constitution is unambiguous on this matter: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Const. art. I §7, cl. 1.

As Liberty Counsel’s brief notes, “Though denominated with a House bill number, the Act actually originated in the Senate, and therefore violates the Origination Clause.”

“And to boot,” continued Staver, “the entire law is invalid because tax bills must originate in the House, and Obamacare originated in the Senate.”

Killing The Obamacare Zombie: Hope Lives!

The fight is still being waged.

reply to post by GrantedBail

I don't have a solution because the real problem is so far higher than this one thing, this is just one pearl in a warehouse full of pearl necklaces.

However I'm not going to ever, so long as we still have some degree of freedom left to speak here, give my "oh well" compliance.

You say you don't like it... but you essentially voted for it just now.

reply to post by sonnny1


Wrong. It is the law of the land:

In accepting the tax argument, the court relied on the “well-established” principle that “if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.”

The court then noted that the government’s argument—that the mandate represented a tax on people who choose not to buy health insurance—“makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.”

In deciding to accept the government’s tax argument, the court wrote that “the question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one.”

How can the court call the mandate a tax if the law itself didn’t call it that?

The court is not bound to interpret laws exactly as they are written, but uses what it calls a “functional approach”—considering the substance of a law in addition to its formal language.

Under this approach, the court ruled that the penalty the law imposes on people who don’t buy health insurance “looks like a tax in many respects,” and that it is permissible under the court’s previous case law for several reasons: the amount of money due is “far less than the price of insurance” and it is collected by the IRS under normal means of taxation.

The court acknowledged that the mandate “is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage,” and noted that “taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new”—for example, the taxing of cigarettes to discourage smoking.

Finally, the court reasoned, the mandate does not make the failure to buy health insurance unlawful. Beyond the payment to the IRS, the court explains, “neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance.”

Source

reply to post by BardingTheBard


I hate it. It is a piece of garbage. But it is what it is after the right-wingers decimated anything that would look like health care.

I have a bunch of complaints. Don't even get me started. But the lies and bs need to stop.

reply to post by GrantedBail

Heh. I feel you there. But there are almost no examples of governments at any point in history that weren't lying to their people. The narrow periods of honesty were more like "half honesty" which is a HUGE improvement but still were cloaked in a great deal of distortion.

I hate to say it, but perhaps it's worth brushing up on those old myths in order to put everything that is going on in context. Kali and whatever other labels we want to give to a certain mindset that is dominant and running this world is not known for honesty or fairness.

GrantedBail
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Wrong. It is the law of the land:

And?

Like another poster said, it sounds like you have given up. You can Surrender, but many are not.




Obviously you didn't read ANY of what was said.

These are more facts for you to consider.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, it is now undeniable that Obamacare was tax legislation. It was also, by its own proclamation, a bill for raising revenue. Democrats maintained that the Senate proposal would reduce the federal budget deficit by $130 billion. More to the point, the bill contained 17 explicit “Revenue Provisions” — none of which was remotely related to the House bill to which the Senate proposal was attached. Therefore, Obamacare is revenue-raising tax legislation, originated in the Senate in violation of the Constitution.

Obamacare’s Unconstitutional Origins Tax legislation has to originate in the House; the health-care law didn’t.


And like one guy said, and I agree with.


"You are under the common understanding that Roberts re-wrote the law. In my point of view, and others, who are more knowledgeable and from whom I got the idea in the first place, Roberts didn't make law, he defined a mandate as a tax, and therefore any revenue grabs by the federal government are taxes. The Progressives cannot now or in the future claim that fees, royalties, mandates, or any other word be used for government revenue except the word tax.
If you get the money, it is through a tax no matter how you try to hide it.
Since this is true, Roberts didn't re-write anything and left at least 2 avenues open for a re-visit to the question other than by the ballot.
I think Roberts was 4 moves ahead of the progressives, those both in the government and on the supreme court.
If the origination question arises there really is no defense. End of Obamacare."

reply to post by sonnny1


Here is the actual text of the decision:

Link

Do you understand the legislative process?? Constitutional challenges are taken to the Supreme Court.

This is the same bs my sister was arguing earlier this evening. You have been deluded by people and institutions.

What is your next move??



PS Seriously?? A link from the National Review?? Why didn't you just send me the Heritage Foundation website.

You people have been scammed.

GrantedBail


PS Seriously?? A link from the National Review?? Why didn't you just send me the Heritage Foundation website.

You people have been scammed.

I can give you other links, but im sure you would find fault with those too.



Really. I think you want this law. Same "excuses" this current Administration gives us.

Its the Law!

For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.[7] The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows: [W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. — Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).

Another Link you will say is invalid

But its the Law! Its here to stay!

It cant be overturned!

reply to post by sonnny1


Actually, I am in the middle of reading the SC opinion. You should try it sometime. It is not that I agree but refuse to proclaim that the ACA isn't a law.

Read the opinion by one of your faves, John Roberts. He goes through the articles of the constitution and then pukes up all the reasons why it doesn't violate taxation edicts. It is pretty disgusting how they lead you the way of exonerating anything that may be unconstitutional.

It was a fix. But quit telling people that they can unwind the deal. We have bigger fish to fry

reply to post by GrantedBail

TLDR: No human law can bind a human. Only another human who values the law. Our politicians and law enforcement violate The Constitution constantly because we let them. The Constitution can't protect itself.

----

Human laws serve humans, not the other way around.

There is nothing sacred or sacrosanct about any human law. There isn't even anything sacred or sacrosanct about The Constitution. It only holds validity so long as people continue to understand it, believe in it, and work to maintain respect for it. The moment people cease supporting it (which is what we're living now)... it ceases to be a "law".

We've all been conditioned from birth to believe we are subservient to the "law of the land". We are not. The laws of governments serve us (unless we hand over our consent) and there is nothing preventing us from doing whatever we like EXCEPT other people who are *choosing* to continue to lend their weight behind supporting the law of the land. Sometimes for good and with the agreement of the community, sometimes for tyranny and destruction.

No amount of legal language, ink on papers, and fancy sounding words will make it to where humans can't undo human made laws. It is only fellow humans, with bigger guns, who force other humans to adhere to the fancy words. Change the people with the guns... and the human laws can be converted to use as toilet paper. Or new ones can be added authorizing public executions.

That's why it still is our responsibility ultimately... no matter how big and scary the beast has become.

GrantedBail
reply to post by sonnny1

 

The ACA is the law of the land. I don't like it either. But it is foolish to think that it can be overturned. It has already been challenged Constitutionally in the Supreme Court. It is a done deal. Now, we move from here.

I get such a kick when people state this.

So abortion should have remained illegal?
So slavery should have remained legal?
So gay marriage should have remained illegal?
So prohibition should have remained legal?

Progressives. (roll eyes)

reply to post by BardingTheBard

Interesting concern for maturity.

"shut their mouths"

Also known as cease and desist with bias rhetoric, imagine.

People debate. Get over it.

Really? I thought we were talking about political rhetoric and pandering, point me to the debate which is based with facts, actual, relevant information. Or is your current understanding of a debate, what happens on Fox News, MSNBC when political candidates are handed loaded questions they chose to answer?

Once someone else can tell you what to believe you'll then know what you believe.

Gotcha.

I believe I asked for an independent, non biased review of information backed by statistics and data collection. Of course, if you are looking for the latest republican/democrat talking points, by all means.

beezzer

GrantedBail
reply to post by sonnny1

 

The ACA is the law of the land. I don't like it either. But it is foolish to think that it can be overturned. It has already been challenged Constitutionally in the Supreme Court. It is a done deal. Now, we move from here.

I get such a kick when people state this.

So abortion should have remained illegal?
So slavery should have remained legal?
So gay marriage should have remained illegal?
So prohibition should have remained legal?

Progressives. (roll eyes)

So segregation should be repealed?
So slavery should be reinstated?
So gay marriage should be repealed?
So... etc, etc, etc.

The argument you are posing is a fallacy because the same could be made as the opposite with no real change to your premise.

boncho
Also known as cease and desist with bias rhetoric, imagine.

I will not imagine. I'm libertarian at heart... which is why I'll never suggest you shut your mouth no matter what you choose to issue from it.

It's my responsibility to learn to filter whatever rhetoric you send forth.

boncho
Or is your current understanding of a debate, what happens on Fox News, MSNBC when political candidates are handed loaded questions they chose to answer?

I'm sure you would be content to believe so.

I'm sorry you are having difficulty finding useful information.

boncho
I believe I asked for an independent, non biased review of information backed by statistics and data collection. Of course, if you are looking for the latest republican/democrat talking points, by all means.

Yes... so let's see. The way you as a citizen are to suggest we evaluate government programs... is to go ahead and have them implemented... wait a year... and see how they turned out. Because we know that once a government program gets a breath of life it will keep itself in check and the citizens will get meaningful information. Like our unemployment statistics.

People were able to give non-biased information backed by statistics and data regarding central banking in the 1700's... and yet we still got our 4th one in 1913 and are stuck living the very thing people were warning about prior to implementation. No trial period was necessary.

But nah... there isn't anything you know like... history... to reference when evaluating plans.

boncho

beezzer

GrantedBail
reply to post by sonnny1

 

The ACA is the law of the land. I don't like it either. But it is foolish to think that it can be overturned. It has already been challenged Constitutionally in the Supreme Court. It is a done deal. Now, we move from here.

I get such a kick when people state this.

So abortion should have remained illegal?
So slavery should have remained legal?
So gay marriage should have remained illegal?
So prohibition should have remained legal?

Progressives. (roll eyes)

So segregation should be repealed?
So slavery should be reinstated?
So gay marriage should be repealed?
So... etc, etc, etc.

The argument you are posing is a fallacy because the same could be made as the opposite with no real change to your premise.

Wrong. Supporting something because "the law is the law" is what I'm trying to point out. Countless times in history have laws been over-turned, repealed, changed, negated.

Accepting a law because it is a law is the fallacy.

beezzer

boncho

beezzer

GrantedBail
reply to post by sonnny1

 

The ACA is the law of the land. I don't like it either. But it is foolish to think that it can be overturned. It has already been challenged Constitutionally in the Supreme Court. It is a done deal. Now, we move from here.

I get such a kick when people state this.

So abortion should have remained illegal?
So slavery should have remained legal?
So gay marriage should have remained illegal?
So prohibition should have remained legal?

Progressives. (roll eyes)

So segregation should be repealed?
So slavery should be reinstated?
So gay marriage should be repealed?
So... etc, etc, etc.

The argument you are posing is a fallacy because the same could be made as the opposite with no real change to your premise.

Wrong. Supporting something because "the law is the law" is what I'm trying to point out. Countless times in history have laws been over-turned, repealed, changed, negated.

Accepting a law because it is a law is the fallacy.

edit on 11-10-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Well in this case it was a law that was voted in democratically no? So you are suggesting repealing a law that was voted in, correct me if I'm wrong.

As I said, it would be more in tune with my examples rather than the ones you posted.

boncho
Well in this case it was a law that was voted in democratically no?

No.

There is nothing democratic or republican (not the party) about how laws are passed in the United States anymore.

reply to post by BardingTheBard

I will not imagine. I'm libertarian at heart... which is why I'll never suggest you shut your mouth no matter what you choose to issue from it.

It's my responsibility to learn to filter whatever rhetoric you send forth.

Something I like about Canada, see, there is this law, that media organizations which claim to be news sources, they are not allowed to lie to the public. America lost that court case, you can look it up. So yes, I say shut your mouths all the time, to politicians, and to lying media that are pushing bias, agenda based BS.

I'm sure you would be content to believe so.

I'm sorry you are having difficulty finding useful information.

And you are not presenting any, as I said, a sea of rhetoric.

Yes... so let's see. The way you as a citizen are to suggest we evaluate government programs... is to go ahead and have them implemented... wait a year... and see how they turned out. Because we know that once a government program gets a breath of life it will keep itself in check and the citizens will get meaningful information. Like our unemployment statistics.

Tell me the list of unconstitutional laws you repealed over the last ten years Joe Citizen? How is the patriot act and the NDAA working out for you? How did the Iraq war which was based on documented redactions (See:lies) from CIA missinformation.

Oh but you are ready to make a stand with ACA to save the world, you go you.

Consider this banter terminated. You have no argument other than your ego was damaged a little by my comment, and I tire of petty bickering very easily.

Good luck with telling people to stop spewing disinformation on this site. A thread can go like this...

First post: Link to article that's easily proven to be wrong, but says "GUBERMINT BAD!!!!!01010!!1-0101!!!one!!!"

Second post: "This article isn't correct and here are a thousand reasons why as well as sources to that information"

Third post: "I always knew da goverment was bad, because that's how they feel to me. That muslim that's in office feels bad, so the government is bad, i just know it"

Fourth post: "Hi-five OP. This doesn't surprise me. Stars and Flags for you"

Fifth post: "While i'm skeptical, the majority in this thread say that the OP is correct, so i'll go with them.. S&F!!!"

Sixth post: "S&F to all that agree with the OP"

Seventh post: "Hey, this thread was proven wrong on the 2nd post... did you all read it?"

Eight post: "OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST!!!!! THREAD DERAILED!!!!"

Ninth post: "S&F to all that agree that Obama is the antichrist."

Tenth post: "You can't forget the rest of the democrats too!! S&F for the OP"

.....

WTF IS GOING ON HERE?! Humanity has lost it's ability to have a logical perspective, and everyone is so invested in emotional beliefs to the point that it's pointless to argue against what someone believes. Facts don't mean anything, only beliefs.

This post brought to you by the GOP on ATS.