Obamacare Stands/Insurance Mandate, er, Tax Upheld

mtntrekker wrote: I am only 30 pages into the opinion so there might be more info in it that I haven't read.

But two questions come to mind. First question.
Article 3 Sec 8 of the US Constitution 1st clause states: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Based on this clause about being uniform throughout the US isn't Const. violated when exemptions have been made for some corporations, groups, etc. but not for others?

Second question.
Article 3 Section 7 of the US Const. states: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendements as on other bills.

Isn't this a violation of the Constitution?

Thoughts?

No, but I remember this:

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

This was modified later by the 13th Amendment...

The original clauses which dealt with taxation were also superseded by the 16th Amendment, and at least 99 years of settled case law based on the Amendments.

Somehow, I think the ruling that just declared the ACA constitutional took all of the existing case law into consideration... But, of course, if you feel qualified, you can always challenge the current law professors, constitutional scholars, and the Supreme Court Justices if you feel they made a mistake.

Democracy4Sale wrote: Somehow, I think the ruling that just declared the ACA constitutional took all of the existing case law into consideration... But, of course, if you feel qualified, you can always challenge the current law professors, constitutional scholars, and the Supreme Court Justices if you feel they made a mistake.

That is the point. There seems to be some items that weren't addressed, probably because it wasn't identified in the district and appeals cases. In this case when something wasn't addressed but identified the court asked for and received an amicus brief.

But not everything was discussed. And more than likely it will be challenged by others. Thanks for your meaningful discussion of the topic.

It makes me wonder though if you really want SCOTUS to decide anything. Better to get the people to exercise their voice via the vote.

Pine, FWIW.... if you have to get an individual plan and you do most of your doctoring in Colorado, you can't go wrong with Rocky Mtn Health. We had them before we started going to AZ, and were very pleased with their service. We never woul d have switched to BC/BS if RMHP had covered routine medical out of state.

On another note...I understand now you did not intend your post to be as I interpreted it...my apology.

mtntrekker wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: Somehow, I think the ruling that just declared the ACA constitutional took all of the existing case law into consideration... But, of course, if you feel qualified, you can always challenge the current law professors, constitutional scholars, and the Supreme Court Justices if you feel they made a mistake.

That is the point. There seems to be some items that weren't addressed, probably because it wasn't identified in the district and appeals cases. In this case when something wasn't addressed but identified the court asked for and received an amicus brief.

But not everything was discussed. And more than likely it will be challenged by others. Thanks for your meaningful discussion of the topic.

It makes me wonder though if you really want SCOTUS to decide anything. Better to get the people to exercise their voice via the vote.

Of course, you missed the point of my post...And I doubt that there were any "items that weren't addressed". But, of course, if you feel qualified, you can always challenge the current law professors, constitutional scholars, and the Supreme Court Justices if you feel they made a mistake.

[quote="Democracy4SaleOf course, you missed the point of my post....[/quote]

:rofl Your posts have a point? :faint:

Americans are mathematically challenged! Taxpayers pay "taxes" to cover the uninsured already but few on the hysterical right will even admit to this.

The ACA, "Obamacare", is a law that was:

- Passed by both houses of Congress, our legislative branch elected to represent the people.

- Approved by the Executive Branch via a signature of the President - elected by a majority of Americans to represent the people.

- Found to be Constitutional by any number of courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

That's EXACTLY how our system of government is supposed to work under our Constitution.

Soulshiner wrote: The ACA, "Obamacare", is a law that was:

- Passed by both houses of Congress, our legislative branch elected to represent the people.

- Approved by the Executive Branch via a signature of the President - elected by a majority of Americans to represent the people.

- Found to be Constitutional by any number of courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

That's EXACTLY how our system of government is supposed to work under our Constitution.

You left out one small detail, it was sold as NOT BEING A TAX. How many in congress would have signed on to it if they had to tell their constituents the truth in the first place? Kinda the same reason Obama won't be touting how great this massive tax increase is in his BS commercials.

You left out one small detail. Not ONE of the congressmen you claim were swindled did their research and came to that conclusion BEFORE they voted for it. Funny how the IT'S A TAX cry only came out as a talking point after the decision.

Face it, all three branches of your government passed, signed and confirmed this law. That's how democracy works.

While I wouldn't agree the democracy was perfect or honest in this case, it did pass and I'm ready to throw in the towel on this. Its done, and pretty much stick a fork in us going forward. We are toast.

I also think if the Repubs campaign mainly on over-turning Obamacare instead of growing the economy, they lose this fall. The smarter thing to do is campaign smarter on the economy, offer alternatives to obamacare, and reform it in the future so its affordable to taxpayers.

As for the whole bill passing, Soulshiner forgot the part about Medicaid expansion being limited. That is potentially 1/2 of the uninsured. And don't forget the subsidy rules and tax credits can easily be trimmed back by the budget cutters in the future. Good luck!