Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scalia is a Scoundrel
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 108 (762936)
07-18-2015 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
07-18-2015 1:02 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
But they made a law. In fact they have made several laws in the last couple of years.
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2015 1:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 108 (762937)
07-18-2015 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
06-26-2015 12:19 PM


It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words "established by the State." And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words "by the State" other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.
Well, this is disingenuous. It would be one thing to insist that these four words must take precedence over the legislative intent, but it is quite another thing to insist that they must express the legislative intent. Unless he has completely taken leave of his senses, he must know for a fact that they do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 06-26-2015 12:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2015 12:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 40 of 108 (762987)
07-19-2015 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
07-19-2015 3:01 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
The House of Representatives is the only goverment body that has the authority to start a bill that levy taxes.
[...]
So the bill that was passed was a bill that started in the Senate and included a tax which makes the bill an unconstitutional bill.
But see here:
In interpreting the Origination Clause, the Supreme Court
has held from the early days of this Nation that revenue bills
are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are
not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create
revenue. Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196, 202 (1897)
(citing 1 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION
880). The Court has adhered to this strict interpretation.
See United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385, 397 (1990);
Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429, 436 (1906); United States v.
Norton, 91 U.S. 566, 569 (1875). Necessarily, this court has
followed suit. See Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC, 685 F.3d 1083,
1090 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Under this strict interpretation, the
Supreme Court has upheld as not subject to the Origination
Clause a tax on circulating bank notes, see Nebeker, 167 U.S. at
202, a tax to fund railway construction in the District of
Columbia, see Millard, 202 U.S. at 436—37, and a special
assessment levied on federal criminal offenders for a victims’
fund, see Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. at 401. In each case,
consistent with its strict interpretation of the phrase Bills for
raising Revenue, the Court’s analysis focused on the purpose
of the challenged measure: Because the revenue raised was
merely incidental to the main object or aim of the challenged
measure, the requirements of the Origination Clause were held
not to apply. In Nebeker, for example, the issue was whether a
tax upon the average amount of the notes of a national banking
association in circulation was a revenue bill within the
[Origination] [C]lause. 167 U.S. at 202. The Court observed
that [t]he main purpose that Congress had in view was to
provide a national currency based upon United States bonds, and
to that end it was deemed wise to impose the tax in question.
Id. at 203 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Millard, involving the
use of property taxes to fund railway construction in the District
of Columbia, the Court reasoned that [w]hatever taxes are
imposed are but means to the purposes provided by the act.
202 U.S. at 437 (emphasis added). And in Munoz-Flores, the
Court noted that [a]ny revenue for the general Treasury that
[the provision imposing a special assessment on defendants]
creates is . . . ‘incidental’ to that provision’s primary purpose,
which was to provide money for a crime victims’ fund. 495
U.S. at 399 (emphasis added; alterations omitted). In each
instance, the Court underscored that unless a bill is aimed at
levy[ing] taxes in the strict sense, it does not fall within the
limited scope of the Origination Clause.
The ACA, in short, is not a "Bill for raising Revenue" and so does not fall under the Origination Clause. This argument is not novel, but is how the Supreme Court has always understood the Origination Clause. And if we wish to consider the intent of the Founders and Framers, it was to put the power of the purse in the hands of the more representative body, not to supply you with a silly technical quibble against a bill you dislike.
But if you and other conservatives think that the Origination Clause means what you want it to mean, it would have looked better if you'd said that before the ACA was passed. Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, for example, was decided in 1897. Between then and the passage of the ACA you guys had a hundred and thirteen years to complain that the narrow interpretation is a vile travesty of the Constitution. To say so now seems a bit ad hoc, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 07-19-2015 3:01 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 07-19-2015 9:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 42 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 11:43 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2015 2:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 108 (763002)
07-19-2015 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by JonF
07-19-2015 9:00 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
I don't think that's as clear, but it is what Scalia said in U.S. v Munoz-Flores, and without any cries from the right about how he was murdering the Constitution:
The designation "H.J. Res." (a standard abbreviation for "House Joint Resolution") attests that the legislation originated in the House. Such an attestation is not explicitly required by the Constitution, but is reasonably necessary to the operation of Art. I, 7, cl. 2, which requires the President, if he desires to veto a bill, to "return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated." The President can hardly be expected to search the legislative journals (if they have even been printed by the time his veto must be cast) in order to determine where to direct his veto message. Indeed, it can be said that the attestation is reasonably necessary to the operation of Art. I, 7, cl. 1 (the Revenue-Origination Clause), itself. The President, after all, is bound not to sign an improperly originated revenue bill by the same oath that binds us not to apply it, so he must have a ready means of knowing whence it came.
The enrolled bill's indication of its House of origin establishes that fact as officially and authoritatively as it establishes the fact that its recited text was adopted by both Houses.
[...]
This disposition does not place forever beyond our reach the only issue in this area that seems to me appropriate for judicial rather than congressional resolution: what sort of bills constitute "Bills for raising Revenue," Art. I, 7, cl. 1. Whenever Congress wishes to preserve the possibility of a judicial determination on this point, all it need do is originate the bill that contains the arguably revenue-raising measure in the Senate, indicating such origination on the enrolled bill, as by the caption "S.J. Res." This Court may thereby have the last word on what constitutes a bill for raising revenue, and Congress the last word on where a particular bill has originatedwhich seems to me as it should be.
So in this particular case the ACA is House Resolution 3590, and if Scalia is right, that settles the matter. Let's hold our breath and wait for conservatives to denounce him as an idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 07-19-2015 9:00 AM JonF has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 108 (763003)
07-19-2015 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 11:43 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
It has been stated that the affordable care act is a budget buster if the penalty is not in place. That tells me the purpose of the penalty/tax was to raise revenue when it was passed into law.
Where has this been stated? By whom? What had they been smoking?
The point of the mandate is not that the government needs the revenue (though a few dollars more never comes amiss). The point is that the private health insurance companies need the customers. The ideal outcome in the eyes of the people who framed the bill would be that everyone gets health care and no-one pays the fine. That tells me the purpose of the penalty/tax was not to raise revenue when it was passed into law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 11:43 AM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by JonF, posted 07-19-2015 12:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 108 (763015)
07-19-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 12:46 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
So the senate or the president or the boy scouts can write revenue raising bills if SCOTUS says its constitutional?
It's hardly likely, is it?
But, you know, someone has to decide what's constitutional. The Constitution puts that power, ultimately, in the hands of the Supreme Court. Where else would you like it to reside in this case? In the hands of the President --- who signed the ACA into law? In the hands of Congress --- which voted for it? No, that doesn't work. Hey, how about if we leave the final decision to talking heads on Fox News? Well, that might give you the result you want, but you'll have to amend the Constitution first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:46 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 58 of 108 (763021)
07-19-2015 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 3:32 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
It was introduced by Charles Range as a housing bill. The Republicans didn't know it was a bait and switch? It was imported into the ACA and passed by the Senate?
Huh?
When sold to the house, the mandate was bought by the gullible as a penalty and not a tax?
What's the difference? They were told: to enforce the mandate, people who don't have health insurance will have to pay such-and-such an amount of money. No, they weren't told that Justice Roberts would call it a tax four years later, possibly because the people who drafted the bill weren't clairvoyant. They did, however, know exactly the effect the bill would have. They would have known that if Roberts had subsequently called it a cantaloupe or a walrus.
Here's the section of the ACA in question. It seems clear enough. Also, it contains 48 instances of such words as "tax", "taxpayer", "taxable", etc.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 3:32 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 108 (763030)
07-19-2015 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 5:46 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
The shenanigans that were used to get a tax passed under the guise of a mandate smells to high heavens to me.
You'll also want to watch out for people selling you automobiles under the guise of cars, or eggplants under the guise of aubergines. Such shenanigans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 5:46 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 6:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 65 of 108 (763033)
07-19-2015 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 6:03 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
I'm sorry. You are going to have to break that one down. What are you saying?
Suppose I offer to sell you this.
I let you take it for a test drive. I let you look under the hood. I provide you with a cut-away diagram of the chassis, a blueprint of the engine, a wiring diagram, and an accurate figure for the mileage, fuel efficiency, and expected depreciation. And I call it a car. You happily pay me the money and go on your way. Four years later, Mr. Justice Roberts describes the same object as an automobile. Are you now going to complain that I swindled you? Why would you? You knew exactly what you were buying. If you didn't know what Mr. Justice Roberts was going to call it four years later, than in the first place neither did I, so I did not deceive you, and in the second place it makes no difference: you knew what you were buying, so you were not deceived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 6:03 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 8:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 108 (763042)
07-19-2015 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 8:41 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
There is no difference between a car and an automobile. A tax is used to raise revenue for the government. A penalty is used to dissuade you from a behavior.... Quite a difference.
Not when the penalty involves the IRS taking money away from you and paying it into the government coffers. Then it's the same thing. The penalty is a tax: the government is taking money from taxpayers. The tax is a penalty: its purpose is to dissuade you from doing something the government had rather you not do.
And, again, let me point out that the details were right there in the bill. Any Congressman, journalist, or member of the public who took the trouble to read it would notice that the penalty was in fact financial in nature, rather than execution, imprisonment, forty lashes, or prolonged tickling; and that the money would end up going to the government rather than to the Humane Society or the Campaign For Real Ale. And everyone did in fact know this. Can you point to anyone --- to one single person, f.e.y. --- who was fooled by the use of the word "penalty" into thinking that the nature of this penalty was anything other than paying money to the government? No? Then where are the shenanigans?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 8:41 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by foreveryoung, posted 07-20-2015 12:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 72 of 108 (763043)
07-19-2015 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
07-19-2015 6:26 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
What have I left out that I have not gone over many times here at EvC; the fact that today's so called conservatives are just incipient fascists wannabees who are totally clueless about Conservatism, reality, morality, empathy, US history, reason, logic, the Constitution or empathy?
This thread is a great piece of evidence.
Examples: not knowing and understanding that if the SCOTUS says something is constitutional it is constitutional.
The sort of fascists who disagree with you about constitutional law are so very different from the fascists who started a world war and committed genocide that I almost think there should be a different name for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 07-19-2015 6:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 07-19-2015 9:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 108 (763045)
07-19-2015 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
07-19-2015 9:32 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Fortunately Fascism comes in many flavors already much like Christianity including Christian Fascism.
You're an aardvark. They come in different flavors, y'know. There's the sort that live in Africa and eat ants, and then there's your sort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 07-19-2015 9:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 07-19-2015 9:38 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 108 (763050)
07-20-2015 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by foreveryoung
07-20-2015 12:23 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
As I recall, Obama and all the Democrats insisted there was no tax increases in his health care plan.
I can't find where he said that. I do know that pretty much everyone in the freakin' world who'd so much as heard of the ACA knew that the plan involved a mandate enforced by financial penalties. And certainly everyone who bothered to read the bill knew that, because that's what it says. It's not written in invisible ink, it's right there, in black and white. Any Congressman who only realized the existence of the mandate four years later when one out of the nine Supreme Court Justices decided to refer to it as a "tax" is mentally incompetent to hold office.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by foreveryoung, posted 07-20-2015 12:23 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 80 of 108 (763051)
07-20-2015 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by foreveryoung
07-20-2015 12:32 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
I am bewildered at such a statement especially when fascism is one of the first things tat come to mind when I hear a progressive speak his mind in the heat of the moment.
Oh, and you so nearly had the moral high ground. But then you fell off.
Y'know, I can tell the difference between someone speaking his mind, even heatedly, and someone killing six million Jews. Perhaps you should learn the difference too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by foreveryoung, posted 07-20-2015 12:32 AM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 07-20-2015 7:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 96 of 108 (763094)
07-20-2015 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
07-20-2015 2:58 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
As I said in the message you replied too.
HR 3962 was started in the House.
H.R. 3590 was started in the Senate.
Reid could not get enough support to pass the House Bill but Pelosi was able to get enough votes in the House to pass the Senate Bill.
The Senate Bill H.R. 3590 became the law.
End of discussion.
Well, we could still discuss what you think H stands for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2015 2:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024