SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (136518)6/29/2012 4:25:13 PM
From: TimF3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) of 224749
 
As a tax it should also be unconstitutional. Its not an income tax, or an excise tax, or apportioned to the states according to their population. Also because of the election of Scott Brown, the Dems in the Senate wouldn't be able to pass any changes in the law (they lost their super-majority) so the house had to pass the Senate's version of the bill, meaning the law was initiated in the Senate, but as a tax it has to be initiated in the house.

But Roberts apparently wanted to uphold the law, but couldn't stomach turning the commerce clause in to "the federal government can do anything it wants if its not expressly prohibited by the constitution (and maybe even if it is)" clause, so he seized on the tax issue, even though that doesn't make any constitutional sense either.

Of course if its a tax

1 - Apparently ou don't need a super-majority in the Senate to repeal it.

2 - So much for Obama's no taxes on those under $250K (or under $150k, or under $100k, or on anyone but the top 1% or top 2%, depending on what day of the week it is). Of course that pledge was already violated, but this is perhaps a bigger, clearer (if you accept it as a tax) example.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext