If you can't understand how that analogy isn't even close, I would read the ruling.
So does this mean SS is also illegal, I don't want to be forced to pay anymore.
If you can't understand how that analogy isn't even close, I would read the ruling.
His words...
"Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals,"
Or congress could require people to pay into a retirement account and Disability Insurance.
Oh yea, SS is insurance and I am forced to pay it. You forget that?
Here's the nice, simple answer:
Collect taxes and use those taxes for a specific purpose, eg SSI- Constitutional
Threaten people with fines and jail for not doing something, eg health care law- not Constitutional
Two separate items that have no bearing on the other.
That seems an odd separation, seeing as how we already impose fines and jail time for not doing things like paying child support. Though perhaps there aren't any comparable federal laws.Here's the nice, simple answer:
Collect taxes and use those taxes for a specific purpose, eg SSI- Constitutional
Threaten people with fines and jail for not doing something, eg health care law- not Constitutional
Two separate items that have no bearing on the other.
That's my thought as well. Though I think this is clearly not "Constitutional" in the sense of what the Founding Fathers intended, the fact is that ship sailed long ago. The federal government has been usurping the state's powers and rights for a century or more, grabbing more and more power for itself using the flimsiest of justifications. The Supreme Court, being integral to grabbing this power, seems unlikely to stray now. It will be interesting, however, to see if SCOTUS' obvious partisanship outweighs it's enthusiasm for an all-powerful federal government.That seems an odd separation, seeing as how we already impose fines and jail time for not doing things like paying child support. Though perhaps there aren't any comparable federal laws.
I can't conceive of SCOTUS telling the federal government it can't grab an additional power. The five progressive justices who gave us Kelo v. New London are still on the court, and this seems like a much less abusive power grab to me. Personally I'd much rather government tell me I had to buy health insurance than to take my land and give it to some rich person on the grounds that government will make more money that way. In any event this seems ripe for circular logic; if SCOTUS rules the mandate is Constitutional then the fines are probably okay as well.
His words...
"Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals,"
Or congress could require people to pay into a retirement account and Disability Insurance.
Oh yea, SS is insurance and I am forced to pay it. You forget that?
That's my thought as well. Though I think this is clearly not "Constitutional" in the sense of what the Founding Fathers intended, the fact is that ship sailed long ago. The federal government has been usurping the state's powers and rights for a century or more, grabbing more and more power for itself using the flimsiest of justifications. The Supreme Court, being integral to grabbing this power, seems unlikely to stray now. It will be interesting, however, to see if SCOTUS' obvious partisanship outweighs it's enthusiasm for an all-powerful federal government.
Long explanation: Despite your indoctrination, Social Security is a system that does not represent an old age pension, an "insurance" program, or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits for older people. There is no Social Security trust fund, and you dont have an "account." Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happened to be born and how long you live to collect. Young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits.
Short explanation: Social Security is not "insurance". It is a tax to fund the biggest ponzi scheme in history, and that today's young people will never get a chance to see a pay out.
If I don't pay into the Social Security insurance do I also not get fines and jail? If I run a business am I also not forced to pay by threat of jail, fines, and lose of my job/business?
Also just in case you don't know. The SC ruled SS was legal in 37. SS expansion and many amendments did not take place until 1939 and later. So yes the original SS was legal but since then it has been expanded and adjusted so many times since then... well.
More details. The judge didn't issue an injunction because in cases like these the federal government has always stopped itself. This opens the door for impeachment if Obama continues to execute this act after a court order saying he can't do it. Very nice play Judge, very nice. Puts obama in a very bad place legally.
The judge specially spoke to injunctive relief and essentially said the executive branch should stop (and always has in the past) because of the federal courts decision/ruling. That was the reason for not having an injunction.
In this case the "Social Security" tax is a specific tax; it is used to fund the specific program known as Social Security.
Naturally that's not what I said, but you've proven over and over that you are totally incapable of reading others' words without imposing your own screwed-up assumptions over them. Get well soon.Yeah, that's a good attitude. Since it's long been abused... just abuse it some more... and label it partisan vs power grab... as if there isn't a correct choice in the matter.
Reading more the judge ruled the entire bill/law unconstitutional! Awesome. Just think, half of the states are against this president.
Naturally that's not what I said, but you've proven over and over that you are totally incapable of reading others' words without imposing your own screwed-up assumptions over them. Get well soon.
Which words -- words I actually said, mind you, not the ones you imagined -- which words were too hard for you?Ah yes, clearly it's not what you stated in other words... so what else could you possibly be saying by what you posted if not my mocking portrayal?
At least half of what the US government does has no base from the constitution.
Which was not an expression of approval, but a recognition of reality.yep, but that ship has sailed...