Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[THE_WIZARD_]

"The Act provides that this 'penalty' will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and 'shall be assessed and collected in the same manner' as tax penalties. §§5000A(c), (g)(1)

"2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the indi­vidual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

"The individ­ual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activi­ty. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

"Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.

"The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative ar­gument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”
"In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the man­date as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Be­cause “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.
"Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.

"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 45–58.

"Because THE CHIEF JUSTICE finds the withholding—not the granting—of federal funds incompatible with the Spending Clause, Congress’ extension of Medicaid remains available to any State that affirms its willingness to participate. Even absent §1303’scommand, the Court would have no warrant to invalidate the funding offered by the Medicaid expansion, and surely no basis to tear downthe ACA in its entirety. When a court confronts an unconstitutional statute, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation."

• FROM MAJORITY DECISION:

"'Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government' requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if 'the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.'

"According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.

"The Government’s logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem.

"Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions.

"That is not the end of the matter. Because the Com­merce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

"The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. … But, for the reasons explained above, the Com­merce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a rea­sonable one.

"The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain in­dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Be­cause the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness...

"Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that States accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding. Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to do just that. It allows her to withhold all 'further [Medi­caid] payments . . . to the State' if she determines that the State is out of compliance with any Medicaid requirement, including those contained in the expansion. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. In light of the Court’s holding, the Secretary cannot apply §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaid funds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion...

"The Court today limits the financial pres­sure the Secretary may apply to induce States to accept the terms of the Medicaid expansion. As a practical mat­ter, that means States may now choose to reject the ex­pansion; that is the whole point. But that does not mean all or even any will. Some States may indeed decline to participate, either because they are unsure they will be able to afford their share of the new funding obligations,or because they are unwilling to commit the administrative resources necessary to support the expansion. Other States, however, may voluntarily sign up, finding the idea of expanding Medicaid coverage attractive, particularly given the level of federal funding the Act offers at the outset...

"As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions.Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act."

[bluetick]

Tick still thinks that Obamacare was ruled consititutional. Dumbass. It was ruled as a tax thus is governed by Congress' taxing authority. Basically he weaseled out...but he did NOT rule it constitutional...

Moron.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... obamacare/

The individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare" was always, clearly constitutional - so much so that conservatives, recall, were not only the ones who came up with the idea in the first place, but generally scoffed at legal challenges when they were first raised.

I dunno wiz - Fox News says it was constitutional...and 60+ news organization headlines proclaim this very minute that the SCOTUS ruled obamacare constitutional.

Take yer time eating that big bowl of dick. Moron. bwahahahah

The majority opinion does not state this is constitutional. Read it dipshit.

9 billion earth dwellers knew the SCOTUS was ruling on the constitutionality of obamacare today.

Whereas one tractor-humper from Nebraska thought they were discussing the merits of sharp cheddar vs muenster.

this place is an entertainment paradise in some respects

[puterbac]

Tick,

Congress called it a penalty...intentionally. In fact changed it from the the first drafts from tax to penalty.

From the dissent - "We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation thatimposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy FutureAct of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301"

2 0f 3 areas wrt to the mandate the majority said were unconstitutional. The 3rd was the issue of it being a tax. Something congress CLEARLY states in the law that is it is not. Roberts basically said well I know you said its a penalty and that would be illegal, but I know its a tax, so I will treat it as a tax even though you (congress) explicitly stated it was not a tax but a penalty. He re-wrote the law. He and the other four changed the law from a mandate to a tax.

[Jungle Rat]

Wiz.

Hi

[bluetick]

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Stop le run

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the Constitution permits such a tax

Because the

[THE_WIZARD_]

Apparently tick doesn't know how to read or lacks basic english comprehension skills.

Rat:

hello

[bluetick]

That was fun.

Now - if we were reading about the unconstitutionality of the 'tax' - then obamacare would be essentially dead. And headlines would be proclaiming "SCOTUS Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional."

Recess...put yer books under your seat.

[bluetick]

Ironies Abound (part three)

Conservatives on Twitter expressed their outrage in tweets.

"Obama lied to the American people. Again," former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin tweeted. "He said it wasn't a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies."

An alarming number of Twitter users declared their intent to move to Canada.

bwahahahah

stop it...your killing me

[bluetick]

LMFAO

Turns out Fox claimed the SCOTUS ruled obamacare unconstitutional at first. Oops!

[AlabamAlum]

So did CNN.

[bluetick]

CNN too!

[puterbac]

They all did tick. Cause the commerce clause portion was first.

[hedge]

Wow, Wiz is so enraged that he's copy and pasting in bold letters. LMAO. I've never met such a snot-nosed, fat ass blowhard as Wiz. Poor guy was obviously a fat fuck as a kid, got picked on, couldn't play sports, so he decided to go into referring (and having a bunch of daughters) as his only way to have any authority whatsoever over anybody or anything. What a pathetic fat fuck he is. Always has been, always will be. Eat Obama's ass this November, faggot, when he wins again...

[puterbac]

I would like to hear what the scheisters have to say. Where for art thou talent?

BTW...you bitches don't own an electric car? Oh okay well buy one or pay a tax for not doing so.

[Jungle Rat]

Seriously puter, you're making a fool of yourself. The world ain't gonna end. Repubs always act like my ex when she doesn't get her way.

[THE_WIZARD_]

hedge...you are a fucking tool...go fuck yourself...

hello

[Jungle Rat]

Didn't Mitt, as the Gov. of Mass. once try to pass state mandated health insurance with tax penalties?

LOL!!!!

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's a great day to be alive in America, gents. I figured this thread would be entertaining reading today and it did not disappoint.

Let's not neglect the terrific dissent by Clarence Thomas which re-established him as America's premier return-us-to-the-1850's thinker. No federal law can exist which denies the individual states their sovereign right to do with their chattel as they so please!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Didn't Mitt, as the Gov. of Mass. once try to pass state mandated health insurance with tax penalties?

LOL!!!!

Why, yes. Yes he did

But when the state of Massachusetts or Virginia or Utah does it, it's no big deal. When the Federal govt does it, IT'S A NORTH KOREAN DYSTOPIAN NIGHTMARE

[10ac]

I see the bedwetters here are pissing themselves with glee at the further loss of personal freedom.