Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Big day for the president tomorrow


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
225 replies to this topic

#37 Iceberg Slim

Iceberg Slim

    Keep it 100

  • Joined: 22-September 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,087
  • Reputation: 212
HUDDLER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:19 AM

Quote from the section on the mandate

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

#38 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    Jerry Richard$on and Gettledouche apologist

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 12,233
  • Reputation: 5,653
SUPPORTER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:19 AM

live stream on cnn saying upheld now

#39 Iceberg Slim

Iceberg Slim

    Keep it 100

  • Joined: 22-September 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,087
  • Reputation: 212
HUDDLER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:19 AM

On CNN...

The Supreme Court has struck down the individual mandate for health care

Crazy.


CNN is wrong...as usual

#40 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 18,249
  • Reputation: 6,607
Administrators

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:22 AM

people who are upset when the masses are allowed to vote away a group of people's rights... how do you feel about 9 unelected officials voting away a group of people's rights?

#41 Iceberg Slim

Iceberg Slim

    Keep it 100

  • Joined: 22-September 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,087
  • Reputation: 212
HUDDLER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:22 AM

The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA 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." (p. 55)

#42 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,605
  • Reputation: 505
HUDDLER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:26 AM

people who are upset when the masses are allowed to vote away a group of people's rights... how do you feel about 9 unelected officials voting away a group of people's rights?

Seems like the system worked as it was supposed to this time.

Congress voted on a proposed law. The president signed it into law. The Supreme Court interpreted and upheld the law.

#43 God

God

    Attitude

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,914
  • Reputation: 15
HUDDLER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:26 AM

CNN blows it and gets it wrong. Surprise!

#44 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,817
  • Reputation: 3,103
HUDDLER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:26 AM

Romney is now done.

#45 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,267
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:30 AM

The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA 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." (p. 55)


What happens if states choose not to comply with this ruling.

#46 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 18,249
  • Reputation: 6,607
Administrators

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:31 AM

Seems like the system worked as it was supposed to this time.

Congress voted on a proposed law. The president signed it into law. The Supreme Court interpreted and upheld the law.


except for the first part. It wasn't passed as a law, but rather as a budget via reconciliation.

Our rights just got snipped by a cleverly worded budget. And the SC just stood idly by.

#47 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,267
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:34 AM

There goes the Obama, "I will not tax anyone making $250,000 or less" promise.

#48 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:38 AM

except for the first part. It wasn't passed as a law, but rather as a budget via reconciliation.

Our rights just got snipped by a cleverly worded budget. And the SC just stood idly by.


Can you explain this? Admittedly I do not understand the process of reconciliation well, but it was my understanding that it was passed as a bill by the senate, and that is what the roll calls from the Senate (http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00396) and House (http://clerk.house.g...010/roll165.xml) imply.