Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (493434)	6/29/2012 1:50:57 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793917

I don't recall it precisely, but there is a rule of judicial interpretation under which labels don't really matter. And, of course, this is appropriate since it is the substance of the laws that matters, not what anyone calls them. Anyone recall the federal Marijuana Tax Act? It required payment of a tax for dealing commercially in hemp. Since pot was illegal, it was ruled invalid under the Fifth Amendment because anyone who sought to pay it incriminated himself.

To: skinowski who wrote (493434)	6/29/2012 2:16:17 PM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 793917

The law in America is that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law if binding on everyone. This principle was established in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, which has been affirmed many times since it was decided. Since they have adjudicated this case we are stuck with it, unless they would reconsider and I would say the chances of that happening are nil. lj

To: skinowski who wrote (493434)	6/29/2012 3:44:23 PM
From: steve harris	4 Recommendations Respond to of 793917

I don't understand why Roberts rewrote the case. I mean, the question was, is Obamacare constitutional under the commerce clause. Roberts said no it isn't. But he then he turns around and says it was constitutional after building a strawman in his own mind that it was a tax. Like I get a speeding ticket and choose to go to court. If Roberts was my judge, he'd say not guilty on the original charge, but you're guilty of driving a red car so pay the speeding ticket! Unbelievable.