dayman

Imagine a scenario where form and not substance ruled. If you think that calling a penalty administered exclusively by the IRS in the regular course of their collections activities with no criminal competent that comes from a Bill written by the tax committee is not a tax is absurd we disagree on that...but if the mere words were what the court used guide them far more absurd results would be all over the law. Lawyers know how to call something one thing when it's another thing all together...that's why the courts look to substance...otherwise the law would be meaningless.

Are you aware of current First Amendment jurisprudence? Clearly not.

' B-Man that man has no way to prove anything he said b/c there is no way to prove it he's talking out of his ass to try and scare you into being violently against a Bill that hurts his political party. Plain and simple. Wake up.

LOL it's fine to feel this way but you are about 75 years late to say this.

And I'll say it again, if you know anything about how courts construe anything...be it a tax/penalty, be it a conveyance of land, be it anything under the sun save a few specific examples they look to substance over form...there are few areas of the law that "magic words" make a difference and this was never one of them. The oral arguments were bizarre b/e the gov't lawyer was hamstrung and wouldn't hit the ball...but regardless of what he or member of congress would admit, the court called it what it is. A penalty administered by the IRS, w/ no criminal component, that is what a tax is.

Romney speaking now basically saying he wants to do everything ACA does but not by the ACA by some unknown bill...which is strange since we saw what he came up w/ previously as Governor...lol...he should come out and say "if you have preexisting injuries, if you are within 133% of the poverty line, I will !@#$ you....if you are under 26 (and in some cases 30) I may !@#$ you."

No, you have to pay the bill. If you are under 133% of the poverty line you basically will have medicaid unless your governor hates poor people and refuses to take money to expand under the ACA...if you are over 133% and have no insurance paying the tax year to year and get sick then you get a bill and if it pushes you to bankruptcy then so be it. This bill IS about personal responsibility at it's heart. I've read a lot of Conlaw just trust me this is what courts do as a matter of course. Just look at the lower courts in this very case...that's what they were doing. Courts uphold the bill if there is a reasonable construction that allows it, if not the cut out the cancerous part, and if they can't cut out the cancerous part without disrupting the entire scheme of the bill they take the whole thing down. That's just how it's done take me at my word I've read a lot of Conlaw.

I'm reading through the opinion slowly and talking here but you can find it in the other thread. The gist of it is the CMS will promulgate regulations regarding insurance companies closed enrollment periods that deal with that issue.

As written you are penalized by TAX collected by the IRS in the normal course of it's tax collection, there are no criminal penalties. So how does it function as written?

Except there are windows for enrollment. If you are hell bent on not being covered when you are sick, you will still **** yourself. What you suggest simply isn't true. We've covered this in the original ACA thread but of course conservative nutballs wouldn't pay attention to the actual text I presented.

1) Absolutely that has happened countless times 2) The only thing struck down regarding Medicaid expansion is that if a State refuses to expand the Medicaid as the ACA demands then they cannot lose the existing Medicaid funding as a penalty, they still don't get the additional funds etc...if states want to give the finger to their people under 133% of poverty line feel free at their own political peril. Millions of people now should have access to healthcare, poor people won a huge victory provided they don't live in a state with a suicidal governor...

He was not oblivious. He was hamstrung. They tried to make the argument they wanted to make politically, as opposed to the argument they needed to make Constitutionally. In the end it did nothing except make us all think "damn, that went terrible" for a few months.

The next thing is going to be States saying to people under 133% of poverty line "we won't expand medicaid to cover you to spite the Democrats we don't care if federal grants come in we'll reject them, get a life bums." Then the right will cheer this cutting off of the nose to spite the face.

It's a cannon of constitutional construction that you uphold a bill passed by congress if any reasonable construction would make it constitutional. This is not news. Now, whether the function over form was actually going to fly was questionable after the oral arguments b/c lets face it...the US Attorney got up there and would not hit the softball they tossed him...but eventually they just hit it for him and said "Taxing power covers this."

So even if states do not comply with teh medicaid expansion their penalty would be merely losing the additional funds necessary, the existing funds they have can not be yanked to compel compliance: the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage by 2014 to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal pov¬erty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children onlyif their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act increases federal funding tocover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage. §1396d(y)(1).But if a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage require¬ments, it may lose not only the federal funding for those require¬ments, but all of its federal Medicaid funds. ... (b) Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Ser¬vices the authority to penalize States that choose not to participate inthe Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid fund¬ing. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the Stateswith no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion. ... The legitimacy of SpendingClause legislation, however, depends on whether a State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17. “[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 178. When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislationruns counter to this Nation’s system of Federalism ... c) The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaidfunds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion. See §1303. The other provisions of the Affordable Care Act are not affected. Congress would have wanted the rest of the Act to stand, had it known that States would have a genuine choice whetherto participate in the Medicaid expansion. Pp. 55–58. 6. JUSTICE GINSBURG, joined by JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, [did not agree]

I thought it was 55 it would go down, 45 it would be upheld. Ultimately I predicted it would be upheld. Nobody knew.

Substance over form gentlemen, entirely predictable.

So all you guys think we would not benefit from being able to control some of the money in politics?

Obama, Krugman, Buffet would assemble and by their powers combined save the planet from certain peril. We would build highways until the Aliens just left.

Pretty sure Tilman's last words were: "men..just...vote...obama." Just me opining.

Facehugger from Alien missed him and they can't take it off or he'll die.

Donald Trump v. the richest alien on Nimbus will probably get monster ratings. Trump always pulls ratings that are out of this world.

The global water crisis has been solved and we've all seen all the animals so they've got nothing left to do but go history channel on us.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-better-choice-handle-alien-invasion-romney-poll-finds-article-1.1103399 Obama better choice to handle alien invasion than Romney, poll finds Forget the economy and immigration. The race for the White House may be decided on an issue that’s out of this world. Nearly 65 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama would do a better job handling an alien invasion than Mitt Romney, according to a new poll commissioned for National Geographic Channel reported in USA Today. Thirty-six percent of those who responded said they are convinced UFOs exist, while just 17 percent said they don’t believe in alien spacecraft. Nearly half, 48 percent, say they don’t know either way. Who should the president call to battle the invading aliens? Twenty-one percent of respondents said the Hulk would be the best choice to fight the extraterrestrials, while 12 percent would choose Batman and 8 percent would call Spider-Man. Only two percent of those polled said they would attack the aliens themselves. Twenty-two percent said they would try to befriend a Martian, 15 percent would run away and 13 percent would lock their doors. "We will not go quietly into the night!" We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day! - President Obama ...do people realize that Romney is in league w/ Kolob? He could broker a peace I'm sure...

Classic Issa http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/fast_and_furious_issa_holder_contempt_gunwalking.php A day ahead of a vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said his committee is no longer even strongly suspicious that highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country knew that guns “walked” during the botched ATF operation known as Fast and Furious. “During the inception and the participation through the death of Brian Terry, we have no evidence nor do we currently have strong suspicion” that Holder knew of the tactics, Issa said during testimony before the House Rules Committee on Wednesday. “We have just the opposite, have a number of people, including Lanny Breuer, who should have known who’s responsibility was to know, that as part of our ongoing responsibility to figure out who was responsible,” Issa continued. Issa also said he had no specific knowledge that the White House knew of the gunwalking tactics and said the committee wasn’t looking to the president. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), ranking member of the Oversight Committee, butted in as Issa was being questioned by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). “We are now about to find in contempt the attorney general of the United States of America after you just heard that,” Cummings said. “Sure,” replied Issa. “It’s not for what the attorney general knew about Fast and Furious, it’s about the attorney general’s refusal to provide the documents.” Issa’s position on Holder’s knowledge of the tactics used is a reversal of what he claimed when he began his investigation last year, when he said the tactics went “all the way to the very top.” The California Republican has admitted to exploring “blind alleys” over the course of the investigation. The House is set to vote on a resolution finding Holder in contempt tomorrow. The resolution focuses on DOJ’s opposition to disclosing internal Justice Department communications created after Feb. 4, 2011 unless Issa agrees to let that disclosure settle his subpoena.