Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

g5jamz

I think we should REALLY put this new found tax authority to the test

45 posts in this topic

Haha. I remember a few months ago when people used to cal Ron Paul supporters "Paul-bots"

Welcome to the club folks. Nice to see ya'll have finally arrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make the legal argument against the gun mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandate every home own a gun. It's even in the constitution..

You can choose not to own a weapon, but you'll be subject to a fine if you do so. That fine will go towards those people that cannot afford one on their own.

Same logic. If healthcare can be found in the general welfare clause (joke), then surely people can comprehend the necessity in this.

/sarcasm

Of course this wouldn't fly, but it's applying the new found taxing authority to obvious end conclusions. When Justice Stone (Roosevelt era) whispered the government can do anything when they gained taxing authority...he wasn't kidding.

And with the budget logic used by the Dems, we could ascertain that the prisons would be less crowded due to many more criminals walking the straight and narrow or dying. Therefore, police forces could be cut along with prison systems. Nancy Pelosi would say that this could help balance budgets all around the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because healthcare promotes health and life, and guns are instruments created for the sole purpose of death. You might as well say "Next they'll mandate we all jump off a cliff and fly a rocketship into the sun!" Come up with a better analogy, you're on the right track, just way way off.

Sole purpose of death. You are incredible.

If I see a guy carrying a gun or a knife, or a ball bat, I would avoid trying to rob the guy, because he could defend his "stuff" or person with his gun, knife, or ball bat, etc.

Purpose could be a deterrant but only a liberal sees things like "sole purpose"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What health care costs the country as it is is irrelevant in terms of a legal argument. As is what use the guns would be for. Constitutionally/legally it's the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What health care costs the country as it is is irrelevant in terms of a legal argument. As is what use the guns would be for. Constitutionally/legally it's the same thing.

Right. I want someone to argue the legal differences in Congress mandating health insurance vs. owning a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I want someone to argue the legal differences in Congress mandating health insurance vs. owning a gun.

there isn't much of one. like justice roberts said in his decision, the supreme court isn't there to protect you from the political ramifications of elections; it's there to determine constitutionality. if you really think this type of legislation is a good idea, vote for someone who supports it; but odds are you won't find anything near a majority of representatives to pass this through the house and senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While he is correct, there was no foundation to find that the PPACA had a mandate worded as a tax. Roberts wrote that part for them....which is why Ginsberg dissented Robert's assertion because she wanted the commerce clause opened up.

As for the gun idea, they should go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the majority found that ppaca either:

a ) functions as a tax, whether or not it was explicitly referred to as such

b ) functions as constitutional law under the commerce clause

this was enough to keep it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sole purpose of death. You are incredible.

If I see a guy carrying a gun or a knife, or a ball bat, I would avoid trying to rob the guy, because he could defend his "stuff" or person with his gun, knife, or ball bat, etc.

Purpose could be a deterrant but only a liberal sees things like "sole purpose"

Concealed hand gun is used as a deterrent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) would suggest law was found where it was not explicity referred to. There was a prior house version that specifically labeled it as a tax, but that was voted down.

Now the Whitehouse is correcting Roberts say he's wrong and that it's a penalty...not a tax.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/white-house-roberts-obamacare-mandate-penalty-tax/story?id=16679772

I wish Roberts would just say...Ok...I'm wrong. I rescind my decision and it's now a penalty...which is unconstitutional and thrown out.

Obama knows he's up s**t creek if this is called a tax to the American public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced he is in that big a trouble if it's called a tax. How many people is this tax going to actually impact? Seems like the numbers are low. I realize the word "tax" scares the poo out of every American no matter the context, but I have a feeling this will quiet down before the election a bit...

He is going up against the guy that championed the individual mandate. Then again, Romney is an etch a sketch, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites