Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,583 Year: 4,840/9,624 Month: 188/427 Week: 101/85 Day: 6/2 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scalia is a Scoundrel
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 31 of 108 (762973)
07-18-2015 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
07-18-2015 12:14 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Which sentence in Section 2 of Article 3 gives the Supreme Court the Authority to interpret the law?
You are looking in the wrong place. The sentence describing where the entire judicial power resides does that. That power resides entirely in the Supreme Court and the inferior courts. You are asking a question that has been settled since Marbury v. Madison back in the early post Constitutional history of this country. Why do conservatives hate the constitution?
When it reached the Supreme Court the Court said it was a tax and upheld the law since it was a tax.
This interpretation was done only by the conservative chief Justice. No other Justice on the court agreed with this definition.
What is the difference between a penalty and a tax? If it is simply words then your claim would seem to lack substance.
Since the House of Representatives did not pass a law that stated the fee was a tax instead of a penalty the court had no authority to change the wording of the law making the penalty a tax.
It is not necessary for the House of Representatives to point to a specific part of the constitution and identify that as the support for a law. It is enough that the statute is found to comply with the constitution. The fact that they did not make such a statement is meaningless. In fact, once the law is passed, what happens is that the executive branch is left to determine the method of collecting the money. If it is necessary to collect it as a tax rather than a penalty then that's what will happen. I'll note that the organization that is in charge of managing the procedure is the Internal Revenue Service.
Finally, as I noted that the characterization of the penalty as a tax is the construction of a single, conservative Justice, namely the chief Justice. Four other Justices found essentially that the Commerce Clause was sufficient authorization to pass the entire legislation using fairly conventional reasoning. Your entire remarks about the Court ignoring the constitution, if it is to be given any weight, would apply only to Chief Justice Roberts.
The affordable care act was passed and sold to the public as having a penalty. It would have never passed Congress as a tax.
Really? Do you think any fewer Republicans would have voted for it. Fewer than none?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : Answer an additional question.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2015 12:14 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:04 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 34 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:08 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 07-19-2015 3:01 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 108 (762974)
07-18-2015 6:18 PM


Whatever it was, it's a Tax now
Is it worth pointing out that the 1040 I filled out in February listed Health care: individual responsibility under 'Other Taxes'?
It would seem that whatever the hell it was when it became law, the fee paid to the government for failure to carry health insurance is most certainly a tax and has most certainly been a tax since it was first collected.

Love your enemies!

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 33 of 108 (762979)
07-19-2015 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
07-18-2015 5:34 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Fewer democrats would have voted for it if it was called a tax.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2015 5:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2015 12:16 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 34 of 108 (762980)
07-19-2015 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
07-18-2015 5:34 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Conservatives hate what the courts have done to the constitution; not the original constitution as it was originally written. They fully support the authors original intentions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2015 5:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2015 12:18 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 108 (762981)
07-19-2015 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 12:04 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Fewer democrats would have voted for it if it was called a tax.
Maybe.
In any event it's great to hear from you. Been a while...

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:04 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:24 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 36 of 108 (762982)
07-19-2015 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 12:08 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Conservatives hate what the courts have done to the constitution; not the original constitution as it was originally written. They fully support the authors original intentions.
Of course the question of whether the Supreme Court has the final say on federal law was settled in 1803. I feel sorry for a conservative that is not used to that situation by now.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:08 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:23 AM NoNukes has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 37 of 108 (762983)
07-19-2015 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
07-19-2015 12:18 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
We are used to it. We just don't recognize the decision as legitimate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2015 12:18 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2015 3:28 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 38 of 108 (762984)
07-19-2015 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by NoNukes
07-19-2015 12:16 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Thanks. I will get back to climate change posting sometime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2015 12:16 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 39 of 108 (762986)
07-19-2015 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
07-18-2015 5:34 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Hi No Nukes,
NoNukes writes:
Your entire remarks about the Court ignoring the constitution, if it is to be given any weight, would apply only to Chief Justice Roberts.
The commerce clause does not give anyone the authority to levy a tax.
Neither does Chief Justice Roberts.
The House of Representatives is the only goverment body that has the authority to start a bill that levy taxes.
The bill that was passed was started in the Senate and not the House of Representatives which had passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
The IRS can not make a law to levy a tax. They can only collect the taxes that has passed the Congress in regular order.
But since the bill that was passed out of the Senate could not get enough democrats to support it in the House and the reconcilation bill would not then pass the Senate all kind of deals and promises was made to several of the democrat members of the House that they voted to pass the Senate bill and they are still waiting for the promises to be fulfilled.
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.
NoNukes writes:
It is not necessary for the House of Representatives to point to a specific part of the constitution and identify that as the support for a law.
No the House does not have to point to a spoecific part of the constitution and identify support for a law.
It is the job of the Court to know or at least read the Constitution before they rule on anything.
The Constitution plainly states that the House of Representatives is the only body who has the authority to start a bill that has to do with levying any tax.
Give me the line in the Constitution that gives anyone the authority to levy a tax of anykind. The only ones who can start a bill to levy a taxe is the House of Representatives.
Now don't get the wrong impression about what I believe. Because I believe it is necessary for our federal goverment to discard the Constitution and change the US into a socialist state. Because my Bible tells me that we must have a one world government with one man ruling the entire world. The first 3 1/2 years of his rule will be pretty good with the last 3 1/2 years being hell on earth for anyone who opposes anything he wants to do. Without these things taking place Jesus can't come back and take me home to be with Him. So bring it on.
I will still argue for what is right even though these things must come to pass.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2015 5:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2015 4:19 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2015 3:21 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 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

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 41 of 108 (762994)
07-19-2015 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2015 4:19 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.
It's common for the House to pass a bill of some sort, send it to the Senate, which then amends it to remove all the original language and add their desired language to the bill. Easy-peasy, constitutional as all get-out. Happens all the time, nobody complains. {ABE} Of course it then has to go to confernce. {ABE}
Such was the case with the ACA, which originated in the House as HR 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009".
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2015 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2015 11:54 AM JonF has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 42 of 108 (763000)
07-19-2015 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2015 4:19 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
So, the intent of the origination clause was to put the power of raising revenue in the hands of the house. 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. If the bill originated in the senate, it is unconstitutional because of the revenue raising "penalty" was part of the bill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2015 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 07-19-2015 11:47 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2015 12:03 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 46 by JonF, posted 07-19-2015 12:46 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 43 of 108 (763001)
07-19-2015 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 11:43 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
If the bill originated in the senate, it is unconstitutional because of the revenue raising "penalty" was part of the bill.
Fortunately for the US, thank God, regardless of what you believe it is not unconstitutional if the SCOTUS says it is not unconstitutional. Remember, the Constitution is only one of the three sources for Supreme Laws of the land.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 11:43 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:46 PM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 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 363 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024