it's strange indeed.
it's strange indeed.
Well, if we citizens can be forced to buy health insurance, I wonder what we'll be forced to buy next? The mind just reels. . .
The dance has been canceled, and a spring cleaning will commence, beginning in November!
While the thought persists that Obama was a constitutional law attorney, I'd certainly trust more in Roberts' opinion on this matter than his. Their ruling, while I disagree with the law, makes sense. It's not a stretch to consider this a tax. That is much more logical than believing the commerce clause has authority over opting out.
Because it is forcing citizen's to purchase items from business. As DustinGaunder pointed out in another thread, he wishes Congress would make the purchase of suppressors mandatory because of such a boost it would give to his business. If they can make you purchase health insurance what else can they make you purchase and why won't they in the future?
That is a common argument and one i agree with, but it has nothing to do with the statement i quoted. The courts view this as a tax and that it's within congress' power to levy taxes then why would the court strike down a law repealing the tax?
Very interesting point. The blow back here could be enormous. Bigger even than when they voted it in. It's going to be an interesting four months.
Hi,
I am baffled by this. Isn't it the role of the Supreme Court to deem a law constitutional or not? What gives them the right to "change" a law? Even if they say ok, you can't do it this way or that way, but you CAN do it this way - shouldn't the congress have to go back and pass a NEW LAW that rewords or amends it to do what the court says is constitutional? Does the Supreme Court have the right to change the law to a tax when it wasn't designed so originally?
Thanks,
Alan
I am baffled by this. Isn't it the role of the Supreme Court to deem a law constitutional or not? What gives them the right to "change" a law? Even if they say ok, you can't do it this way or that way, but you CAN do it this way - shouldn't the congress have to go back and pass a NEW LAW that rewords or amends it to do what the court says is constitutional? Does the Supreme Court have the right to change the law to a tax when it wasn't designed so originally?
Thanks,
Alan
I tend to agree. What it boils down to in my mind is that they only reiterated that congress has authority to tax. So in other words they (SCOTUS) just punted and said that the president lied his ass off to the public when stumping for this POS.
Amen. But as the place continues to deteriorate, we'll just keep waving our flags and boasting of our liberty.
