I realized that when, upon giving him a case on point, he pretended that I hadn’t offered any support, and that the case didn’t say what it actually said ("The individual and employer mandate provisions are independently authorized by Congress’s constitutional power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .”.) Although I admit that I had a hint of this irrationality earlier when he ignored the entire Commerce Clause argument in favor for his penalty/tax obsession.
Aside from misstating both my position and the facts concerning an entirely different topic that has no bearing on whether or not the penalty being discussed is, in fact, a penalty, I appreciate your desperate attempt to not argue the actual points raised. I fully understand why you’d be eager to discuss anything else.
If you like to discuss SSM again, feel free to start a thread on it.
It’s relevant because it shows the recurring and devastating damage to your ability to reason, that your ideology has inflicted on you.
You’re broken. And it’s sad.
Why? I and about ten other posters *destroyed *you in the last thread. No one gets fun out of beating a wretch who can’t fight back.
Now that you’re back, perhaps you’d like to answer what was asked of you in Posts 110 and 112.
Ha. You are just trying to poison the well. It’s as simple as that, you coward. If you were paying attention you would notice that I’m not against health care reform, just the mechanism that has been used. And you might realize, you nitwit, that what I think would be allowed as constitutional is a more liberal position concerning health care reform than what Obama has carved out.
Good job, once again, Chucklehead. :rolleyes:
Sure. The answer to all of them are contained in both the opinion and the concurrence in the Geither case I cited to earlier. It deals with all those questions as well as discussing the responses to your previously raised objections.
I’m not poisoning the well. I’m letting people know that you have no intention of allowing an opinion to change. In any case, the reason you are fixating on the mandate is that your ideology demands you’re against it. I’m sure if Obama had gotten through single payer, you’d be arguing against that.
I will admit: My head has done some chuckling.
No, not really. But I looked at what may have been answered and changed the questions trying to get to the heart of some things you have not answered. Namely:
- Why do you insist that the penalty is a tax? Seriously, why is this so important to you.
2-A) Did you read the text of the bill I supplied? 2-B) Do you doubt its veracity for some reason? If so, why?
-
What specific support do you have to offer that the penalty mentioned in the bill is, in fact, a tax? Please site the specific passage that supports your position. (As I did for you when citing the actual language of the bill.)
-
Can you show me a site for any court taking the position that the penalty for not having health insurance can or should be construed as a tax?
-
Can you point to any other tax that, legally, is also a penalty? Or a penalty that is, legally, also a tax?
-
show me a site for any court taking the position that the penalty for not having health insurance can or should be construed as a tax.
I very rarely accuse posters of this, but you make it easy here: you are a liar.
You’ve made that much crystal clear.
Oops. Please disregard the last item in my post #128. I incorporated it into the first five questions.
Not entirely. It’s a fairly reasonable extension of Darby, I think. But even if it was ridiculous, it’s been the law of the land for 70 years now and reversing it would have catastrophic effect. There’s a reason for stare decisis, and constantly revisiting settled case law doesn’t do anybody any good.
You didn’t read the opinion, did you. Nor the concurrence? Because you continue to insist that the case doesn’t support my position, when it clearly does. You’re not even trying to keep up the facade of intelligent debate any more.
It’s not all that important to me. The taxation argument for the Constitutionality of the health care mandate is clearly the weaker of the arguments, with the Commerce Clause argument having a much better chance of success.
Yes, I’ve read it. So did the judges who rendered the opinion to which I cited you to earlier. They even went on to discuss it at length, saying: “That fact, however, only aids the Secretary if there is something talismanic about the label “penalty” that removes a challenged exaction from the scope of the AIA. The Secretary has cited no case even remotely supporting such a proposition. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed that congressional labels have little bearing on whether an exaction qualifies as a “tax” for statutory purposes.” You could have read more in III A of the opinion about that, but, again, you didn’t.
""The individual and employer mandate provisions are independently authorized by Congress’s constitutional power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .” In the concurrence. I provided this earlier too. You could, oh I don’t know, actually read the court case too, where it goes into great detail. If you are still interested, the writings of Jack Balkin and the briefs from the government in the challenges to the health care law are also instructive.
I have. Repeatedly.
I have. The lack of scrubbers resulting in a penalty tax for coal burning companies. The substantial penalty for early withdrawal. The IRS can also levy penalty taxes against those who use their positions on tax exempt groups for their own game. And many people consider marriage, children, or tax breaks for companies that offer health care to be penalties to those who don’t.
Did you notice anything in those answers? Well, assume you’re actually interested in debate and not just a harpy, and you’ll notice all those answers were given to you previously in the thread and in the case I cited to earlier. We’re not breaking new ground here, I’m simply repeating myself to someone who has steadfastly refused to pay any attention whatsoever. I can’t make you read the case. I can’t make you read my posts. I can’t force you to stop lying about my position. But I can stop giving any any credence whatsoever, which is what I think I’ll be doing from here on out.
I’m sorry that you’re hurt and feel the need to lash out. They pain you’re feeling is a network of cracks worming their way into the dense ideological wall you’ve set up around your thinking mind.
Don’t repair it. Let the sunshine in. <3