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: Wayners who wrote (137501)	7/10/2012 12:28:37 AM
From: Paul V.	Respond to of 224750

Wayners, Now that the penalty is a tax and a direct tax but not THE income tax, the tax has to be apportioned among the States. However, the moving party to not participate in the Healthcare Programs would be the State rather than the Federal government. Therefore, it would not be the Fed denying the State but the State refusing to take the contributions from the Federal government. The State would be exercising its sovereign power as a State. This would be a very interesting case regarding State and/or Federal sovereignty and the law of un-intended consequences. Kenneth, and, or other lawyers, on this site could probably give us some ideas who would have the greatest weight of the case working for them, or against them. I have always found it interesting how the "law of un-intended consequences" come into play regarding any decision which is made.