Between this and the NBA draft, the end of my week is shot. I better have all my work done by end of day Wednesday.
massive fail in that article. see my post above, the individual mandate, and constitutional problems w/ same, were discussed in 1993.
This is how the liberals are responding to their shaming -- trying to claim SCOTUS activism. The bottom line is the arrogance of our president didn't bother to check to see if his legislation was constitutional. So the SCOTUS could pimp slap him and then he'll cry about it and spread the message to his sheeple to claim "SCOTUS activism!"
It was all the rage in the 1950s, back when SCOTUS was trying to you know, desegregate schools. It's actually a grand old part of how Republican strategy evolved in the South. It's always nice when the tables turn, and Republicans contemplate a whole new coalition of minorities, progressives, and the new urban professional class, all of which are steadily increasing demographically.
The mandate is without a doubt unconstitutional so it has to go. Without the mandate the rest of the monstrosity will fail so I believe the whole thing will be struck down.
Actually due to the fact that there is no separability clause in the law, I think the entire law becomes unconstitutional if one part of it is found as such.
The entire vote hinges on Kennedy. I have a feeling it'll either be 5-4 against the mandate, or 6-3 in favor, what with Roberts being the "consensus" builder. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it would be 6-3 in favor.
wouldn't surprise me if pigs flew around either. This thing is dead. Can the gov't tax someone for not buying something is the question. Can you be taxed for not buying a car? I think that is the fundamental issue, and it appears the court has already basically said the answer is no. So it's pretty cut and dry to me.
Yeah, I can't imagine a constitutional law professor not checking to see if his piece of legislation was constitutional.
Depends - you're currently "taxed" for not buying a Prius because your taxes get cut if you do buy one. So the only issue really is semantics there. Where has the court already said the answer is no? ConLaw experts pretty <a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/law-experts-say-health-measure-legal-as-some-doubt-court-agrees.html>universally agree</a> that HCR is legal according to precedent - but they disagree on whether the Supreme Court will rule that way.
no they don't. what the instructors interviewed agree on is there's precedent that can be construed as supporting their view of the case. that doesn't mean that a) the precedent does in fact support their view, or b) said precedent should be sacrosanct.
What should be sancrosanct precedent, should we be hyper-orignalists and go back to the Ten Amendments?
