Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally are

[ChuckBerry]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

When I taught Government and US History for three decades, I always covered the Electoral College in depth and the instances in history where the EC overrode the popular vote choice. Kids wanted to know why we did not change such a system. I would explain since it had not happened in the last hundred years, there was no big push to do much about it. And then I would say if it did happen in our lifetime, the people would want it changed.

Boy was I wrong.

The Court decided the election and barely a whimper rose up. No parades of protest. No big demonstrations. No riots. No nuthin. Nobody tried much of anything except wanting to know the results of the NFL game and if their team had made the playoffs or the winner of the latest 'reality TV show'. Sad. Really pathetically sad.

No, the people of Florida decided the election. The question in Bush v. Gore was whether or not votes could be counted differently from one county to another; e.g. a pregnant chad would count as a vote in Broward County, but not in Miami-Dade. The Supreme Court upheld Florida state law that they could not count votes differently because it violated equal protection.

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

No, the people of Florida decided the election. The question in Bush v. Gore was whether or not votes could be counted differently from one county to another; e.g. a pregnant chad would count as a vote in Broward County, but not in Miami-Dade. The Supreme Court upheld Florida state law that they could not count votes differently because it violated equal protection.

haymarket taught government. :lamo Actually I'm not surprised given what our youth know about it.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

haymarket taught government. :lamo Actually I'm not surprised given what our youth know about it.

Since I have never seen you make the fries where you work, I will not stoop to judging how well or how poorly you may do your job or if they are tasty or not.

I would hope a mature person with some integrity would do the same and abstain from judging my teaching when you never saw one second of it.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

No, the people of Florida decided the election. The question in Bush v. Gore was whether or not votes could be counted differently from one county to another; e.g. a pregnant chad would count as a vote in Broward County, but not in Miami-Dade. The Supreme Court upheld Florida state law that they could not count votes differently because it violated equal protection.

You miss the point. And it was NOT about counting the votes. My point was that - even if the vote count in Florida was legit - the end result was that the American people voted for one candidate in the popular vote and the Electoral College went to the loser of the popular vote. And there was no significant outcry, demonstrations or uproar about it.

That was the point. My post that you reproduced clearly states that without any ambiguity whatsoever.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

You miss the point. And it was NOT about counting the votes. My point was that - even if the vote count in Florida was legit - the end result was that the American people voted for one candidate in the popular vote and the Electoral College went to the loser of the popular vote. And there was no significant outcry, demonstrations or uproar about it.

That was the point. My post that you reproduced clearly states that without any ambiguity whatsoever.

In the government classes I took in HS and college , the popular vote was irrelevant. Bush won the electoral vote and that is all that counts. He won the first count in Florida and the recount. He would have won the modified or mutated standard count that GOre wanted. as to the national popular vote-who knows? there were more UNCOUNTED VOTES because once a state went past the margin of error, absentee ballots etc were not counted. For example, Once Bush had more than a 100K lead on Gore in Texas there was no need to count 90K in absentee ballots as an example.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

So now that the supremes have decided a tax is a penalty not a revenue generator what's next? The IRS shows up at your door if you don't drive the right car, eat the right food, weigh the proper amount, vote the right way.......

 

[Arbo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

So now that the supremes have decided a tax is a penalty not a revenue generator what's next? The IRS shows up at your door if you don't drive the right car, eat the right food, weigh the proper amount, vote the right way.......

The 'mandate' is only a small part of all the new ways that Obamacare will make people pay more. From increased thresholds for writing off medical expenses, to the nice real estate sales tax you will have to pay them when you sell your house.

 

[Tomfoolery]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Conceding Hon Justice Roberts analysis regarding sustaining the mandate, note that he felt the framers thought it important that the federal government not cause commerce by fiat. Not that it is necessary to the holding at all, but I do wonder if that distinction as applied to the states would survive. In other words, is there any reason the states should be allowed to do that which is bad if the federal government should not? Mind you I am fully aware of the basis for the principle of federalism and state sovereignty. But the rationale seems to pivot on the dislike for unenumerated coercive power. It would be unenumerated coercive power if a state did it as well.

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Since I have never seen you make the fries where you work, I will not stoop to judging how well or how poorly you may do your job or if they are tasty or not.

I would hope a mature person with some integrity would do the same and abstain from judging my teaching when you never saw one second of it.

I'm sure you taught the living document approach to Constitutional law.

 

[Paschendale]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

First, I'm rather impressed that this thread started with the actual text of the ruling, rather than a bunch of speculation. So, props to the OP.

Second, what's the point of this whole "Obama lied about it not being a tax" thing? Last I checked, the president doesn't write legislation, nor does he write supreme court decisions. This was a matter of checks and balances, and an example of the judicial branch checking presidential power. The president said it was not a tax, but it wasn't his decision. Deciding that is a power he doesn't have. It seems to me that this is a victory for those who think the president holds too much power.

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

First, I'm rather impressed that this thread started with the actual text of the ruling, rather than a bunch of speculation. So, props to the OP.

Second, what's the point of this whole "Obama lied about it not being a tax" thing? Last I checked, the president doesn't write legislation, nor does he write supreme court decisions. This was a matter of checks and balances, and an example of the judicial branch checking presidential power. The president said it was not a tax, but it wasn't his decision. Deciding that is a power he doesn't have. It seems to me that this is a victory for those who think the president holds too much power.

Obama did lie, I believe the interview is on Youtube if you'd like to see it. Just stating fact. Also, it was argued as a tax before the Supreme Court.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

In the government classes I took in HS and college , the popular vote was irrelevant.

Sounds like you were let down by less than good teaching.

Any government teacher worth their salt knows that the popular vote is the key determining factor of who wins the electoral vote in each state.

If the lesson you took away was that THE POPULAR VOTE WAS IRRELEVANT, you missed a very important lesson.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I'm sure you taught the living document approach to Constitutional law.

LIVING DOCUMENT!?!?!?!??! No. I taught that it was a piece of paper. A very important piece of paper to be sure. But a piece of paper just the same.

Paper does not live. Creatures live, paper does not.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Sounds like you were let down by less than good teaching.

Any government teacher worth their salt knows that the popular vote is the key determining factor of who wins the electoral vote in each state.

If the lesson you took away was that THE POPULAR VOTE WAS IRRELEVANT, you missed a very important lesson.

you are being dishonest again. the soreloserman faction whined about Gorebot winning the national popular vote and that was what I was referring

and once again-I know far more than most people on this subject and the popular vote is irrelevant nationally

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

In reading the pronouncements of some far right individuals here, I have always felt they wanted some sort of violent uprising that led to parts of the nation breaking apart and the dissolving of the USA as we know it. They seem to believe that a right wing libertarian paradise somewhere here is better than the nation we now have even if it means destroying it in the process.

They seem to encourage the enemy mentality. They seem to enjoy hyper partisan vitriol. They seem to thrive on the possibility of a collapse of a society they can no longer identify with or support.

They engage and participate in a self fulfilling prophecy preaching that the nation is hopelessly divided and doomed while all the time they are greasing the tracks so the roller coaster jumps the curve then they can say they told us so.

That is my take on them.

In other words pretty close to what the far Left does?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

you are being dishonest again. the soreloserman faction whined about Gorebot winning the national popular vote and that was what I was referring

and once again-I know far more than most people on this subject and the popular vote is irrelevant nationally

YOu need to write what you mean the first time so others do not have to correct you.

The popular vote IS NOT IRRELEVANT as you claimed. it is the key component in determining which candidate gets the state electoral vote. So you were clearly wrong.

So now you attempt to get out of the corner you painted yourself into by adding the word NATIONALLY to your statement. The national popular vote serves no mechanical or determining purpose the way it does in the state itself. That is clear. However, in a nation where every other office is elected by a standard where the one who finishes with the most vote wins, it is an important standard for people to examine. A clear popular vote winner is often said to have a MANDATE and a landslide can provide much political capital and power for the presidential winner to use as a springboard for their program and policies.

The opposite could be said to be true of a EC winner but a popular vote loser. Yes, they still are president because they won by the rules - however, the American people know that an opponent got more popular votes from the people and that winning candidate enters office with a cloud over them and a question mark in the minds of many as to their validity.

So even if the national popular vote does not determine the winner of the presidency, it is far from irrelevant.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

In other words pretty close to what the far Left does?

Perhaps you can give us some examples of this?

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

LIVING DOCUMENT!?!?!?!??! No. I taught that it was a piece of paper. A very important piece of paper to be sure. But a piece of paper just the same.

Paper does not live. Creatures live, paper does not.

Toilet paper is important too, I'm sure you were able to fit that analogy into your lesson plan.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

YOu need to write what you mean the first time so others do not have to correct you.

The popular vote IS NOT IRRELEVANT as you claimed. it is the key component in determining which candidate gets the state electoral vote. So you were clearly wrong.

So now you attempt to get out of the corner you painted yourself into by adding the word NATIONALLY to your statement. The national popular vote serves no mechanical or determining purpose the way it does in the state itself. That is clear. However, in a nation where every other office is elected by a standard where the one who finishes with the most vote wins, it is an important standard for people to examine. A clear popular vote winner is often said to have a MANDATE and a landslide can provide much political capital and power for the presidential winner to use as a springboard for their program and policies.

The opposite could be said to be true of a EC winner but a popular vote loser. Yes, they still are president because they won by the rules - however, the American people know that an opponent got more popular votes from the people and that winning candidate enters office with a cloud over them and a question mark in the minds of many as to their validity.

So even if the national popular vote does not determine the winner of the presidency, it is far from irrelevant.

you have never corrected me. you merely spew garbage based on your biased interpretation of what you want me to have said when everyone else knew that I meant the national popular vote because that is what the soreloserman minions were pissing and moaning about.

Gore lost-the whiners couldn't deal with the fact that the gorebots did everything possible to try to steal the election and they failed

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

you have never corrected me. you merely spew garbage based on your biased interpretation of what you want me to have said when everyone else knew that I meant the national popular vote because that is what the soreloserman minions were pissing and moaning about.

Gore lost-the whiners couldn't deal with the fact that the gorebots did everything possible to try to steal the election and they failed

This is one reason I support the original process by which senators were appointed by the state legislatures. It gave the states a direct stake in the federal process, but now with popular vote it took the states out of the loop. No doubt due to the leftwing thinking that popular vote solves all our ills.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Perhaps you can give us some examples of this?

The occupy movement.
The assertions that Capitalism must end.
The accusations that wall street rules the world.
The promotion of Marx.
The accusations of plutocracy.
The accusations of a military complex.
The accusations that all mainstream media is under the control of corporations.
The accusations that corporations are destroying the world.
The accusations that corporations rule the US and the world.
The insistence that the people must rise up against our Government.
The insistence that the US system of government has always been unfair and that Marx's theories are the only solution.
The promotion of Che as a hero.
The chants of revolution.
The insistence that revolution is the only way to obtain fairness.
The constant attacks on works by Ayn Rand. (Which is just short of banning her books)
The assertions that that all banks are evil.

The thing is that corruption is a problem in the US, but its the insistence that Americans can never be happy under the US Constitution that is an attempt to incite the population to over through our Government that makes the case.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I could not care less if Roberts wants to call it a tax or a burrito.

Is it safe to say then that you could not care less about checks and balances, or the way government decides to govern?

 

[washunut]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

The occupy movement.
The assertions that Capitalism must end.
The accusations that wall street rules the world.
The promotion of Marx.
The accusations of plutocracy.
The accusations of a military complex.
The accusations that all mainstream media is under the control of corporations.
The accusations that corporations are destroying the world.
The accusations that corporations rule the US and the world.
The insistence that the people must rise up against our Government.
The insistence that the US system of government has always been unfair and that Marx's theories are the only solution.
The promotion of Che as a hero.
The chants of revolution.
The insistence that revolution is the only way to obtain fairness.
The constant attacks on works by Ayn Rand. (Which is just short of banning her books)
The assertions that that all banks are evil.

The thing is that corruption is a problem in the US, but its the insistence that Americans can never be happy under the US Constitution that is an attempt to incite the population to over through our Government that makes the case.

Your list is a good start but I am sure we can go back and add a few.

- Bondholders in Chrysler that Obama labeled greedy speculators because they tried to stop an unlawful breaking of contract law.
- Demonizing insurance companies during the HC debate.
- Scolding the supreme court during a state of the union speech.
- Calling the CEO of JPM in front of congress because they made a losing investment of $2 billion of their Money. A couple of weeks later a tech company (MSFT) announces it will write off $6 billion because of a failed investment and no ( rightfully) says anything.
- Secretary of Transportation says people should not drive "unsafe" Toyotas and then finds nothing wrong with the car.

I am sure others can do a better job adding to this list.

 

[ChuckBerry]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

You miss the point. And it was NOT about counting the votes. My point was that - even if the vote count in Florida was legit - the end result was that the American people voted for one candidate in the popular vote and the Electoral College went to the loser of the popular vote. And there was no significant outcry, demonstrations or uproar about it.

That was the point. My post that you reproduced clearly states that without any ambiguity whatsoever.

You said "The Court decided the election". They didn't. I was correcting the record. If your point was solely about electoral college vs. popular vote, you should have contained your comments to those two topics alone.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Toilet paper is important too, I'm sure you were able to fit that analogy into your lesson plan.

YOU bring up toilet paper.
Then YOU tell me it was in my lesson plan?!?!?!?!?!?!

Project much do you?