Scalia is a Scoundrel

As I recall, Obama and all the Democrats insisted there was no tax increases in his health care plan. I really don't believe I am that delusional to keep hearing something that was never said.

The Federalist papers were a collection of essays written to the country at large explaining the type of government Ben and the boys were cooking up. They explain in detail the thinking behind the constitution. There is no need to try and conjure up what the founders meant in what they wrote when it is all there in plain English for all to see.

Define fascism and then tell me how " conservatives" fit the bill. There is no of course in my mind. I am bewildered at such a statement especially when fascism is one of the first things tat come to mind when I hear a progressive speak his mind in the heat of the moment.

I can't find where he said that. I do know that pretty much everyone in the freakin' world who'd so much as heard of the ACA knew that the plan involved a mandate enforced by financial penalties. And certainly everyone who bothered to read the bill knew that, because that's what it says. It's not written in invisible ink, it's right there, in black and white. Any Congressman who only realized the existence of the mandate four years later when one out of the nine Supreme Court Justices decided to refer to it as a "tax" is mentally incompetent to hold office.

Oh, and you so nearly had the moral high ground. But then you fell off.Y'know, I can tell the difference between someone speaking his mind, even heatedly, and someone killing six million Jews. Perhaps you should learn the difference too.

The Federalist papers were one view of what the country should look like. But they were not 'the' type of government. And it is clear from reading both the constitution and the federalist papers that the 'Federalists' did not always end up getting their way.I understand that it is the way of some to pretend that 1) the founding fathers are some monolithic block all in agreement on every issue and 2) that the country ought to behave exactly as that mythological view suggests. But that view is just simplistic. The founding fathers had a very limited view on what equality meant and who was able to vote and participate in democracy that we ought not emulate, and they were not in agreement on every issue.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No. The delusional part of your thinking is that there was some plot by Democrats to hide a tax. The details of the penalty for not having health care as well as the intent of the penalty were well known. The penalty was characterized as a tax by one Supreme Court Justice and not by any Democrat.

What is the difference between a $500 dollar penalty for not having health insurance that goes into the tax coffers and a $500 dollar tax that you can avoid by having health insurance?Nothing at all. Let's recall that in the form that the bill was passed, it was expected that all 50 states would have exchanges, that medicare would be expanded to cover the poor in every state, and that no one except a few people wealthy enough to cover themselves would have any reason to forgo health care.Part of this formula unraveled when the mandate to expand medicare was made voluntary.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps you should learn something about Fascism and no where did I mention or suggest any connection to killing.Fascism, like Christianity, is not monotheistic.

Fascism is an authoritarian right wing political system (see The Authoritarians). It is ultranationalistic; usually supporting a mixed economy but often promoting autarky; supporting a strong military that should be used to project the power of the nation even to the extent of influencing other nations; believe that resources should be used and that the nation has a right to needed resources even when they are held by some other nation; fear immigration and changes in demographics; have a strong religious association; believe that the role of the government is to remove obstacles to industry; are antiliberalism and anti-communist; overly concerned with the Myth of Decline and promoting a masculine role and authority.

Not much of a difference really. A government can use either taxes or penalties to get a corporation to comply with environmental standards, for example. From the corporation's viewpoint, it doesn't matter what you call it; it's all about the bottom line.

Correct. In fact the bulk of the convolution in the tax code is due to Congress providing exemptions as incentive for corporate behavior. Federalism leaves very little police power in the hands of the feds. As a result, taxing and exempting is the major method by which Congress gets individuals, corporations, and even states to do anything.

Hi Dr,What part of the constitution repeals Article 1 of Section 7 which states:

quote:

---

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;

---

It makes no difference what an appeals court or any other court says. Unless Article 1 of Section 7 of the Constitution is repealed and ratified by a vote of 3/4's of the States it is still the law.Now if the House of Representatives are not willing to insist on all bills to raise revenue starting with them that creates a problem and all of them need to be replaced as they are not doing their job.You say they can't insist. Sure they can all they have to do is close the purse strings and shut of all monies until their powers are restored. You say that would cause chaos. I agree. But it would not last long if they kept the purse strings closed. Everybody including you would be screaming for their powers to be restored so they would open the purse strings.Now please explain what the word 'ALL BILLS' mean if it does not mean 'ALL BILLS'.Raising revenue means raising revenue. It does not limit what kinds of revenue. It just says revenue.God Bless,

I seem to recall the Republicans trying exactly this stunt in an attempt to have ACA appealed. It actually turned out though that screaming about the government shutdown was fairly universal with the Democrats receiving essentially no blame for the situation, and the Tea Party eventually being excoriated. I find it surprising that you would recommend the same failed tactic. Wait. I am not surprised.In any event, the bill that became the ACA was originated in the house, and then amended substantially in the Senate to something close to its current form. So the constitutional requirement was met. There was an opportunity to challenge the process, but the majority of House of Representatives at the time was in favor of ACA. Why would they then insist on pressing the issue?

Hi JonF You need to get your facts straight before you make such bold assertions.The Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) originated in the Senate.The Affordable Health Care for America Act House bill", HR 3962 originated in the House.Harry Reid could not get enough support in the Senate to pass the House bill HR 3962.Nancy Pelosi having a democratic majority in the House mustered enough votes to pass the Senate Bill H.R. 3590.So the Senate Bill H.R. 3590 is the one that became law.So how do you determine the bill H.R. 3590 originated in the House?God Bless,