Scalia is a Scoundrel

Fewer democrats would have voted for it if it was called a tax.

Conservatives hate what the courts have done to the constitution; not the original constitution as it was originally written. They fully support the authors original intentions.

We are used to it. We just don't recognize the decision as legitimate.

Thanks. I will get back to climate change posting sometime.

So, the intent of the origination clause was to put the power of raising revenue in the hands of the house. It has been stated that the affordable care act is a budget buster if the penalty is not in place. That tells me the purpose of the penalty/tax was to raise revenue when it was passed into law. If the bill originated in the senate, it is unconstitutional because of the revenue raising "penalty" was part of the bill.

So the senate or the president or the boy scouts can write revenue raising bills if SCOTUS says its constitutional?

Link?

It was introduced by Charles Range as a housing bill. The Republicans didn't know it was a bait and switch? It was imported into the ACA and passed by the Senate? When sold to the house, the mandate was bought by the gullible as a penalty and not a tax? Who are the scoundrels now?

Hate? Where do you get that? I am simply calling it as I see it and understand it. I'm not the one calling Scalia scoundrel. The shenanigans that were used to get a tax passed under the guise of a mandate smells to high heavens to me. If this kind of game is routine and done by both sides.....well no wonder people don't trust Washington. Who exactly do I hate? I must have missed something.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

I'm sorry. You are going to have to break that one down. What are you saying?

You too are leaving out relevant information. You are giving me a conclusion without explaining the background and how you arrived at it.

Are you calling me a fascist? Make your case. To me, to describe a thing as constitutional is to say it is something the Federalist papers would approve of. It is a philosophy of governance. It isn't something that changes with changes in society or the decisions of supreme court jurors. A thing may be settled as law but it is never settled as long as there is reasoned disagreement. To say something is settled and label people who disagree as idiots or fascist is totalitarian in nature to me.

There is no difference between a car and an automobile. A tax is used to raise revenue for the government. A penalty is used to dissuade you from a behavior.... Quite a difference.

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.