Well, this is much better. I normally don't like to conduct a discussion with an article, I'd rather you make the point and then use the article to back it. But since that's the best I can get from you, I'll try. These two dance around the issue and don't really make a case. They never say WHY they think regulatory taxes are unconstitutional when so many have already been enacted over so many years. Precedent has much sway with the courts. Will, as might be expected does get right to the point. But he also fails to explain why such unenumerated regulations have gone on so long if they are unconstitutional and what is going to be undone if they were ruled not to be. His last sentence is merely opinion regarding the text and perceived "logic" of the writers versus popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is guaranteed by Article 6. This is a anti-abortion group just announcing that they are going to make charges of unconstitutionality. They offer no evidence to make their case. If you have more. I'm not going to argue with articles if you aren't willing to pitch your own notions.
Well, aren't you the special one? My own notions are quite clear. If the constitution doesn't say you can do it than you can't do it. Not my problem if you can't grasp that simple concept.
So why do you ignore the many instances of Congress doing exactly that, that I have already mentioned. Should air traffic control be turned over to each state? How about NASA? Nothing in the Constitution about them at all. Congress has made literally thousands of laws that are not mentioned specifically in the Constitution. Not my problem if you can't grasp that simple concept. Do you imagine that the Supreme court won't consider all that could be undone if they were to rule so narrowly on Constitutionality?
You won't answer, but it's hilarious how porous your claims are. The Supreme Court changed it's idea on the power of the fed when FDR threatened the very independence of that court. We all have heard of the phrase "a switch in time, saves nine", but most probably don't know what it means. FDR threatened to stack the court by adding judges until he got a majority to approve his new deal legislation, which the court had ruled as over-reaching of the fed. The court buckled under the threat and gave away our rights. A Switch in Time Saves Nine - Reason Magazine But if you want an example of the court limiting the fed and their ability to tell the states what to do, how about: UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) Schools, gun control, fed can't tell them what to do, etc. etc. Maybe you have heard of it. FindLaw | Cases and Codes A pity obamacare did not include the ability to purchase insurance from another state (which would make sense), because then they might actually have a case under the commerce clause. I find it unlikely this court will find the current bill lawful. I suppose Obama can bump off a few justices and see if he can stack the court with shills, but I wouldn't hold my breath. What else ya got? Clips from a Michael Moore movie?
no, the airlines. perhaps the military. i can see that being constitutional as a mechanism of defense. should not exist! oh god it would be amazing if all that bull**** were undone. the effect on the economy of all the tax money saved would be incredible and would be huge and fantasticfor everyone on earth. we would be an economic juggernaut so strong that the economy of every nation on earth would be helped. the general welfare of humankind would be improved.
so, those of you that say the bill is unconstitutional, why did barry push for this? even though you disagree with his ideology and politics surely you dont think he is ignorant of constitutional law? so if its so clear cut that it will be overturned, why use soooooo much political capital to do it? do you think barry has bought the conservative scotus? what is up his sleeve?
