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? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (136688)7/2/2012 12:22:46 PM
From: CF Rebel6 Recommendations  Respond to of 224756
 
Actually he interpreted the law to be a penalty under the tax power of the Constitution.

That's just another way of saying that he rewrote the law to fit his agenda. The law, as written, made no accommodation for apportioning "taxes," so clearly the legislative intent was that penalties were intended, not taxes. Say it any way you want - they were penalties, not taxes. Roberts rewrote both the law and it's intent.

CF Rebel


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News