IRS Fines Millions for Not Having Obamacare

a reply to: xuenchen

The policies are valid you are right, but the subsides goes to the insurance companies, they can issue the policies and make money out of the subsidies, more money into their dirty pockets.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

Perhaps you can point to "freedom of association" in the Constitution?

I would love to explore the rest of your ... treatise, but I think that'd be off-topic.

a reply to: jimmyx

You are right and I give you that, both Republicans and Democrats has done anything to help the working class, because both elite parties are catering to the same groups and getting pay off by the same groups.

The OP is based on an article from something called "Right Wing News."

How is this thread not "partisan" from the first post?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The OP is based on an article from something called "Right Wing News."

How is this thread not "partisan" from the first post?

The topic is partisan where applicable.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: marg6043

Yeah, you might not want to exclude the Republicans from the "raping" of the poor and the middle class.

I mean, if you're interested in the truth or anything.

I starred this, because it is dead on the bullseye.

Both parties are raping the working class

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The OP is based on an article from something called "Right Wing News."

How is this thread not "partisan" from the first post?

The topic is partisan where applicable.

I guess the thread author has spoken!

In that case, could we avoid citing each other for "partisan" input in an "applicably" partisan thread?

Thanks.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Trick Question. Though rooted in the due process clause of the 14th amendment, and a derivative of the 1st amendment's guarantee of free speech, assemblly, and petition: 'freedom of association' is a [relatively] new 'legal' construct arising out of civil rights cases in the late 50s early 60s. Notably; NAACP v. Alabama ex Rel. Patterson (1958), Bates v. City of Little Rock (1960), NAACP v. Button (1963).

Yes, probably very far off this topic of discussion.

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trick Question. Though rooted in the due process clause of the 14th amendment, and a derivative of the 1st amendment's guarantee of free speech, assemblly, and petition: 'freedom of association' is a [relatively] new 'legal' construct arising out of civil rights cases in the late 50s early 60s. Notably; NAACP v. Alabama ex Rel. Patterson (1958), Bates v. City of Little Rock (1960), NAACP v. Button (1963).

Yes, probably very far off this topic of discussion.

So, implied rather than expressed right? Dangerously close to loose constructionist philosophies, no?

Thanks.

But then, people are free to choose to associate with whatever ACA policy they wish ... so I'm not sure how there's any transgression of even an implied right there.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The exchange policies are like a Model T.

Henry Ford said so....

All new cars were black; as Ford wrote in his autobiography,

"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black".

a reply to: xuenchen

Yep, ol' Henry Ford, rather outspoken anti-Semite that he was ... oops, we're not supposed to say things like that, are we?

Race cards and all.

He also said: "Don't find fault, find a remedy."

a reply to: Gryphon66

I will concede to 'implied', sure...'Inherent' more preferred. But, semantics aside...

I can see a viable argument being made for the constructivist methodology; a (negative) social experience, perception (of the ACA, government), and a conveinient (legal) convention to cite...I still do not think it is the case though.

Political association, an 'integral' aspect of 'assembly' is, in my opinion, greater than simply what 'party' I align with. It extends to what civil statutory status I declare.

I do not find any constitutioanl transgressions either, because everyone has the choice to freely associate or not with the civil [statutory] status of ' US Citizen'. BUT, this particular political association (status), within the 'United States' (per 28 USC 3002(15)(A) definition) makes, an otherwise nonbinding franchise, binding on those electing to declare such status. We can see the effects (restrictions) of political association on governmental employees in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois.

ETA... My crux being that, electing to be a [statutory] 'US Citizen' one tacitly consents to being a [federal] employee and assumes the political association, and restrictions.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

Nice summation, actually.

Can I say I'm surprised and not be offensive?

Most folks here understand little of real Constitutional law and/or theory.

For the record, as opposed to the Supreme Court, I find the taxation basis of the Individual Mandate rests on sinking sand, mainly because Federal taxation in general, happens simultaneously with an event (wages earned, goods purchased), not after, and certainly not in the absence of such an event (procuring medical insurance.)

a reply to: Gryphon66

No offense taken.

Agreed, that 'in general' [income] taxation is simultaneous and event based, but that need not be the case. The W-4 is Voluntary, [a declaration of status/association] and I know of no laws requiring one to be filed, or penalties for not doing so (employee or employer). Whereas a 'sales' or 'fuel' tax is an excise [privelege tax], and avoidable by simply not engaging in the excisable activity.

It still bakes my noodle, on how anything in the ACA is not [considered/advertised as?] an excise.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

Seems to me the Individual Mandate, a Republican idea, calls for those who don't have insurance to be penalized via tax penalties.

How is it that the IRS is doing anything except it's duty under the law?

You would prefer that the laws be ignored?

How is that supposed to work when the system is corrupt? In a normal world, bad laws would be challenged and overturned and confirmed traitors would be hung. But this isn't a normal world, it's bizarro world where wrong is right, up is down and traitors garner respect.

Cheers - Dave

I'm talking about the IRS following the law that was passed by our Congress and signed by our President.

That law no longer exists. The SCOTUS (unelected non-legislators, non-executives) have modified it several times already. The current ACA is not the law that was passed by our Congress and signed by our President. The original law had a non-severability clause, which was ignored. Our President is enforcing an illegitimate law that has only been salvaged by judicial activism and the apathy of the opposing party.

Not that an acolyte of progressivism and central planning would care about those details. Ends justify the means, and all that.

Mr. Ketsuko

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

Indeed.

What I find odd is that, although the Congress has appropriated and won by fiat a very broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause over the years, that was not the "language" coded into the bill as the Constitutional "defense."

That seems a lot stronger out of the gate than the "taxation" scenario, at least given a mixed and/or liberal court.

Scalia would probably eat the idea for lunch though, LOL, and it would probably give him gas.

My, that's a horrid thought.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

Seems to me the Individual Mandate, a Republican idea, calls for those who don't have insurance to be penalized via tax penalties.

How is it that the IRS is doing anything except it's duty under the law?

You would prefer that the laws be ignored?

How is that supposed to work when the system is corrupt? In a normal world, bad laws would be challenged and overturned and confirmed traitors would be hung. But this isn't a normal world, it's bizarro world where wrong is right, up is down and traitors garner respect.

Cheers - Dave

I'm talking about the IRS following the law that was passed by our Congress and signed by our President.

That law no longer exists. The SCOTUS (unelected non-legislators, non-executives) have modified it several times already. The current ACA is not the law that was passed by our Congress and signed by our President. The original law had a non-severability clause, which was ignored. Our President is enforcing an illegitimate law that has only been salvaged by judicial activism and the apathy of the opposing party.

Not that an acolyte of progressivism and central planning would care about those details. Ends justify the means, and all that.

Mr. Ketsuko

Why don't you concentrate on accurate and/or meaningful words coming out of your mouth instead of trying slap-dash to put them into other's mouths?

As to the rest of your screed, I refer you to the US Constitution, Article III. You might find an actual read of the document useful.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sunwolf

Do you prefer that the laws of the United States be ignored?

Seems to work for President Obama and his Department of Justice.

Didn't like DOMA, didn't enforce or defend it.

Doesn't like federal Immigration law, doesn't enforce it.

Doesn't like federal drug enforcement laws, won't enforce them.

Judge strikes down his drilling moratorium in the Gulf, he enforces it anyway.

Can't get his immigration or environmental agenda passed in Congress (even the Dems wouldn't support it) goes ahead and regulates it as much as he can.

etc. etc. etc.

I'd prefer our President follow his oath to uphold the Constitution and our federal laws, how about you? Or are you a hypocrite and acolyte of progressivism?

Mr. Ketsuko

a reply to: ketsuko

Hmm. Sounds like every President.

Did you have a chance to actually read any of the Constitution yet?

From Article II Section 1: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I don't see anything there about tailoring his Execution of the laws to your satisfaction.

If he's in abrogation of his Oath, why hasn't the Congress impeached and tried him?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

Seems to me the Individual Mandate, a Republican idea, calls for those who don't have insurance to be penalized via tax penalties.

How is it that the IRS is doing anything except it's duty under the law?

You would prefer that the laws be ignored?

How is that supposed to work when the system is corrupt? In a normal world, bad laws would be challenged and overturned and confirmed traitors would be hung. But this isn't a normal world, it's bizarro world where wrong is right, up is down and traitors garner respect.

Cheers - Dave

I'm talking about the IRS following the law that was passed by our Congress and signed by our President.

That law no longer exists. The SCOTUS (unelected non-legislators, non-executives) have modified it several times already. The current ACA is not the law that was passed by our Congress and signed by our President. The original law had a non-severability clause, which was ignored. Our President is enforcing an illegitimate law that has only been salvaged by judicial activism and the apathy of the opposing party.

Not that an acolyte of progressivism and central planning would care about those details. Ends justify the means, and all that.

Mr. Ketsuko

Why don't you concentrate on accurate and/or meaningful words coming out of your mouth instead of trying slap-dash to put them into other's mouths?

As to the rest of your screed, I refer you to the US Constitution, Article III. You might find an actual read of the document useful.

Why don't you address the post instead of deflect like a typical progressive?

I suggest you follow your own advice, and this time not fill in the non-existent blanks with words you make up in your own mind or passed on to you by another progressive.

Mr. Ketsuko