That’s just like your opinion, man.
1 Like
When and if you get around to being specific, rather than being illusive and intentionally indeterminate, feel free to post you argument and rebuttal so a productive discussion may take place.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
An irrelevant question with respect to the question asked in the OP.
The fact is, there is a consistency among our forefathers comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. For example, Hamilton’s brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted says: ’The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.’ In each of the above mentioned cases, is the individual not assessed directly by government, which is a distinguishing characteristic of a direct tax and the same as the “shared responsibility payment”?
Why is the protection intended by the rule of apportionment not being enforced when it comes to direct taxation, but enforced when it comes to determining each state’s number of representatives?
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
One does not have to sit in a classroom or have a degree on their wall to become very well educated on a particular topic. See the movie Lorenzo’s Oil for example. Also the decision was 5-4, so it was not like it was so clear that all 9 justices felt the same way. The bottom line is that Roberts did not want to overturn the ACA by a 5-4 vote so he came up with a decision in which many learned people viewed as unconstitutional.
1 Like
Its only unconstitutional if SCOTUS says it is.
SCOTUS being the final arbiter of all important federal questions.
Obamacare was ruled constitutional.
Now people can disagree with the opinion.
But Obamacare is constitutional.
Allan
Its like all SCOTUS opinions.
all 9 justices dont have have to feel the same way.
if we needed 9-0 in SCOTUS opinions LOL
Gore v Bush would still be going on.
only needs a consensus, which was reached.
Allan
The main point I am making is that what is deemed “Constitutional” is not something based on objective scientifically testable standards. 5 people determine what is so-called “Constitutional”. It is possible that the 4 who dissent can have more sound arguments to support their decisions than the other 5. Nonetheless the way it works is that if the majority of Justices vote one way than that opinion becomes Constitutional no matter how you or I feel about it.
Why don’t you tell the OP that. He is the one that posted an obviously rhetorical question as a thread topic.
Not only that but the answer to said question is legally irrelevant at it’s very core. No amount of internet rants is gonna change that.
Do you even realize how absurd that statement is? If something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional before it ever gets to the Supreme Court.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Except for the fact that its the courts job to determine if something is constitutional.
well its not just 5 “people” but 5 experienced justices who were nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by the senate,
and you are correct. SCOTUS doesnt go by “feelings” but by the constitution as they see it.
You are quite incorrect on this issue.
SCOTUS determines the constitutionally of important federal questions.
Read Madison v Marbury for edification on this subject.
No one else.
Allan
For instance. Lets take Murphy v NCAA, a case settled by SCOTUS this year (2018)
it was about PASPA and its constitutionality.
-
New Jersey district court–PASPA is constitutional APPEALED.
-
Full 3rd Circuit court of appeals–PASPA is constitutional APPEALED.
-
SCOTUS–PASPA is unconstitutional.
See how that works John.
Allan
All I know is this ruling was fantastic because Obama once said “Nobody making under $250,000 will see a tax increase”. The moron, at one point, actually argued the ACA wasn’t a tax just for this reason. I absolutely loved how he had to shovel that pile of feces spinked with this bit of sugar into his mouth after this ruling. Moron.
1 Like
Wrong. Our Constitution determines what is and what is not Constitutional. And judges and Justices are obligated to support and defend “this Constitution”. It’s right there in our Constitution. Read it.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
So when two people read the constitution and they disagree on its meaning who determines which one is right?
1 Like
Haven’t you been paying attention? The constitution determines itself. It is self aware and sentient.
1 Like
Ahhh, good. We don’t need a Supreme Court at all then. We can just have farmers adjudicate cases and controversies.
Yabbut, the first two were “Obama judges,” amirite?
Just like the Founding Fathers intended.
