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: Paul V. who wrote (138571)	7/18/2012 10:31:42 PM
From: Wayners	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

You don't have a clue what budget reconciliaton is and your post shows you don't know anything.

To: Paul V. who wrote (138571)	7/18/2012 10:32:09 PM
From: ahhaha	8 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224749

That is true if it gets that far? Roberts inadvertently put it that far. Roberts accepted the 'crat argument that the single mandate was a tax(which it wasn't according to the Constitution), an argument which the 'crats disowned during oral arguments. Thus, Roberts made the case that the 'crats did not make, added an absurd appeal to "promote the general welfare", and voila, it's a tax. Once Roberts did that he could rule that ACA was constitutional. Untoward or inadvertent side effect : by so ruling ACA comes under the jurisdiction of the Budgetary Control Act of 1974 which says you can't pass a budget that destroys the country, i.e., the power to tax is the power to destroy. Accordingly, any tax however levied at the federal level is subject to Congressional review. Thus, ACA is hostage to the budgetary considerations. Using the chicanery of the 'crats to get that monstrosity passed in the first place it would only take 51 Senate votes and concurrence, simple majority in the House, to reconcile ACA into the trash can given its now estimated $2.7 Trillion and rising cost. It's an explicit violation of the '74 Act. Congress can vote to defund it and that means 85% of it, the most onerous part, disappears. Medicaid provisions to the states remains because the Court voted 7 - 2 to keep it. Once ACA has been neutralized and Sebelius is on her way to impeachment, or out of DC all black and on a rail, Congress can set about health care problems on a rational basis WITH involvement with the 'crats. But, what happens if there is no budget to reconcile? Who says Harry Reid will be in control? Anyway, the existence of a budget is conditioned by the '74 Act. Roberts had no business writing law. What he did was ludicrous. He pontificated. The Constitution doesn't give the chief justice the power to write law. Roberts violated separation of powers. What really capped it though was the appeal to "promote the general welfare". No court has ever so ruled partially because that isn't in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Jefferson stated emphatically that elements in the preamble weren't to be used as a rationalization by future courts in order to push forward personal agendas. Roberts thinks he deflected political bias from the Court with his ridiculous deciding written opinion, but in actuality what he did will bring about the opposite.