Va. federal judge strikes down health care law

LadyJazzer wrote: No, I mean the one that said that state voters don't get to vote on whether or not the 14th Amendment, "equal protection under the law", applies to ALL it's citizens... Kind of like Colorado's Amendment-2 tried to do...(but was ruled unconstitutional.)

Kind of like all of the citizens are covered by the 14th's promise of equal protection with regards to the tax rate they are subjected to on their income right? As long as everyone within the parameters is treated equally by the law, there is no violation occurring. The law says that any two people of the opposite sex are eligible for a marriage license issued by the state. So long as any two people of the opposite sex are issued the license, then all are equally protected and equally treated by the law. If you are going to now redefine the 14th to include every person regardless of parameters established by the law, then you are going to start having some problems taxing the evil rich at substantially higher rates than everyone else.

Spin, spin, spin... You can create more irrelevant hypotheticals than anyone I know... 'cept maybe Viking.

Consistency of logic is analogous to spin? Really?

Show me where in the 14th Amendment it references equal protection in terms of tax-law? A tax-rate is not a "right"... Particularly, when you consider how they have changed in the last 60 years. That's why it's called a "progressive tax policy".. It's not MEANT to be "equal" rates for all--it's based on income-levels. Dang! Who knew?!?!?

Yes...Really.... spin, spin, spin.... But it's entertaining... I just love irrelevant hypotheticals... I could sit and watch 'em for hours...

AV8OR wrote: Do you have the ability to enlighten us ignorant folks on how the pool works? Or, do you just accuse someone of not knowing and use the name calling tactic?

Every time you pay your health insurance premium you are subsidizing other peoples' health care, idiot.

Brandon wrote:

AV8OR wrote: Do you have the ability to enlighten us ignorant folks on how the pool works? Or, do you just accuse someone of not knowing and use the name calling tactic?

Every time you pay your health insurance premium you are subsidizing other peoples' health care, idiot.

But it is your CHOICE to buy it and pay into the pool right? Which is what the 10th Amendment guarantees. Or are you FORCED into it?

I haven't read any of the pages in this thread yet. Been too busy. So I am sure I missed a lot.

So not reading all the previous pages, what happens between now and 2012 when they say the Supreme Court will rule on this?

LadyJazzer wrote: Show me where in the 14th Amendment it references equal protection in terms of tax-law? A tax-rate is not a "right"... Particularly, when you consider how they have changed in the last 60 years. That's why it's called a "progressive tax policy".. It's not MEANT to be "equal" rates for all--it's based on income-levels. Dang! Who knew?!?!?

Show me where the 14th references equal protection of any specific law LJ. It doesn't, of course, it references equal protection of the law, meaning all laws. If you are making the argument that this language means that the law can't be constructed such that it pertains to different people in a different manner so long as all of the people within the constructed elements of the law are equally protected by the law, then you are going to have a problem with a "progressive" schedule of taxation since such laws treat people differently depending upon their income levels. The marriage law in California establishes that the two people seeking the license must be of opposite sexes. As long as all the people falling within the parameters of the law are equally protected by the law, no violation of the 14th Amendment exists. We do allow laws that treat different people in a different manner, the progressive income tax laws are simply an example of the many such laws that exist, as is the marriage license law in the State of California.

Now, if the laws of California allowed non-married heterosexual couples access to credits or benefits that were withheld from homosexual non-married couples, I would completely agree with you that the 14th Amendment was being violated in that instance since the latter would be having the equal protection of the law denied to them. As long as the state treats all non-married couples the same, however, no violation of the 14th is evident. Neither the Constitution, nor its amendments, grants to the general government the power to define who may or may not receive a marriage license and thus it falls to the state to define. Different states may have different laws just as some states have a fixed income tax rate regardless of income, some states have no income tax regardless of income and some states have a variable income tax rate depending upon income. Last I knew, neither marriage nor the privilege of paying taxes was a right defined by the Constitution. Taxes are indeed an obligation to be paid once established, but certainly you would agree that the Constitution doesn't establish an obligation for all those over a certain age to be married to advance the common defense and general welfare of the union of states.........or would you?

The Viking wrote: So not reading all the previous pages, what happens between now and 2012 when they say the Supreme Court will rule on this?

Nothing much since the unconstitutional individual mandate wasn't scheduled to kick in until 2014 anyway. What it does do, however, is toss any hope of having affordable health insurance out the window if the rest of this scheme is kept in place, not that there was really any hope of keeping insurance or health care affordable in the first place by creating the law. The purpose of the law was to get the camel's nose under yet another tent and has been intended from the get go as the first step towards the grossly expensive and inefficient single payer system so favored by the the progressives. They knew the law would increase both the cost of insurance and the cost of care, in fact they counted on it accelerating the existing rate at which both increase to collapse the existing system such that the people of this country would all be clamoring for the general government to step in and solve yet another crisis their intervention was responsible for creating in the first place.