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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (136650)	7/1/2012 8:50:05 PM
From: Wayners	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

The individual mandate uses the word penaly 18 times and the word tax 0 times and Obammy himself said the law named after him isn't a tax, they argued in front of the Supremes that it was not a tax and the Authority cited in the law itself is the Commerce Clause not the taxing power. You are right on all your points. Judges can only strike sections of law or strike an entire law, if the section strikes are considered nonseverable, meaning the law makes no sense at all after a section is stricken. Judges are not Congress, and cannot write law and if they do, they are Judical Activists. The Supremes do not have the power to rewrite the section of authority of law under the Commerce Clause. Only Congress can fix the fatal flaws in the law. But now that it is a TAX under the opinion, guess what, it's a Direct Tax meaning it has to be apportioned among the States but was not. This needs to go right back to court where it needs to be challenged as an illegal direct Tax that is not apportioned among the States. Apportioned just means that the Tax cannot overly burden any States in its application based on their populations. This is a very hard thing to do and they cannot do it with this illegal "law". There is ONLY one direct Tax that has an exemption from Apportionment by Constitutional Amendment and that is the Income Tax. This Obamination does not qualify for that exemption. Take this monstrosity right back to court now and fight for its repeal.