Major Decisions By The U.S. Supreme Court
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-26/major-decisions-us-supreme-court
The U.S. Supreme Court has signaled to states that there are limits to their authority in dealing with undocumented immigrants. Yesterday the justices struck down most of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law. Most see the decision as a win for the Obama administration. But supporters of the Arizona law were pleased the court upheld the provision dubbed "show me your papers." It requires police to check the status of suspected illegal immigrants. The nation's highest court also ruled that it's unconstitutional to give juveniles mandatory life sentences without parole. And it declined to revisit its controversial two-year-old Citizens United campaign spending decision. Diane and her guests offer analysis of the court's key rulings.
Guests
Jeffrey Rosen
professor of law, The George Washington University; legal affairs editor, The New Republic.
Fawn Johnson
correspondent, National Journal magazine.
Michael Scherer
White House correspondent, Time magazine.
Supreme Court Decision: Arizona v. United States
The full text of the Supreme Court decision in Arizona et al., vs. the United States is below:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
MarcusTullius wrote:
LibVet wrote:
Marcus:
" I'm glad the Rosenbergs were convicted, though the evidence at that time was pretty flimsey; so I'm not sure what your point is."
---------------------------------
Two weeks ago you said, "I remember the conservatives' unwarranted commies-behind-every-bush paranoia. Conservatives have merely exchanged one bogey man for another." Now you are glad that these "bogey man" Communist were executed? OK
--------------------------------------
LibVet wrote:
Check out my post: it never said there were zero commies, just far, far fewer than conservatives tried to foist on us.
-----------------------
How many is fewer? Why were the conservatives the only ones who were hip to the fact that Soviet Communists were indeed influencing members of the U.S. government? These liberals were willing pawns for the Soviets for ideological reasons, not monetary reason. Did the liberals not notice that the U.S. were fighting Communist North Korea at this time? The same North Korea that sent Soviet Mig 15s piloted by Soviets against U.N. forces?
-----------------------------------
LibVet wrote:
" There were literally hundreds of writers and artists rounded up and blacklisted for years as being commies..."
-------------------------------
Right. Hollywood studio moguls took it upon themselves to have a blacklist. Liberals who chastise Hollywood for this list loved/love working for the same Hollywood studios then and now. Talk about hypocrisy.
----------------------------
LibVet wrote:
"FYI...... Keith Olbermann has not been on TV for quite some time now. He left MSNBC long ago and more recently left Current. He hardly can influence public discourse, much less me."
---------------------------------
You have kept track of your favorite moonbat. Thanks for admitting that KO is indeed your source for your moronic names for FOX News.
How can anyone take Jeffrey Rosen's snarky opinion of Scalia's dissent seriously when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg credited Rosen's early support for her Supreme Court candidacy as a factor in her nomination.
Was Rosen miffed at POTUS Obama when he singled out the SCOTUS for criticism during his State of The Union Address? Was Rosen's delicate sensibilities aroused when POTUS Obama arbitrarily decided that his Administration wouldn't enforce the immigration laws on the books? Scalia was acting like a "pundit," according to Rosen, but POTUS Obama was acting like a King.
Arkus Duntov wrote:
"At it's essence your argument is that no organized group of people should be allowed a voice in the political system if their politicaly demonized."
Ummm ... unless it's Planned Parenthood or the AFL-CIO.
LibVet wrote:
"The fact that Our Constitution makes explicit references to both individuals and groups of people (aka humans) but NEVER allots rights or privileges of any kind to companies/corporations/businesses as entities should indicate the lack of treating those as "people". "
Awesome! Since the Constitution is only there for people, I guess we can get rid of that much-abused Commerce Clause, right?!
will rock hill wrote:
"With the Supreme Court taking up the issue of Health Care Thursday ,I wanted to bring up an interesting point that has not been disscussed.
The federal government imposses "clean air and water"standards to corporations,and this ,making corporations go out and purchas and install equipment to meet the standards set.(Well if corporations are "people" then what is the differance with asking "people"to buy insurance?If on one hand the federal government can mandate to (people)corporations,then why not people people?"
Because businesses are NOT mandated to only buy "equipment" or pay a fine. They have the option to close their doors. The only way to get out of being insured or paying a fine under the ACA is to commit suicide.
Arkus,
Your rebuttal about the "human"status of an LLC is, of course, disingenuous at best indicating there could be no LLC without a living body. SCOTUS, Congress, the US would not exist without living beings. The Bill of Rights is by definition a delineation of individual rights of a citizen or defined limited group of citizens. No item in the list defines a business/corporation/LLC/S Corp/C Corp/company........states and individuals and militias are mentioned. To use a standard conservative mantra, how can a strict interpretation expand those Rights? That's judicial activism in the most devious sense.
And I see no harm in getting you to confirm your vaunted support for union money in elections along with their political influence too. Hmmmmm maybe the Koch brothers are really just a "union".
Marcus,
I challenge you to find a reference from Olbermann or anyone else who uses the label Faux Snooze or cookie cutter conservative. The media has no copyright on "fair and balanced" observations.
FYI...... If the Foo s*its wear it. Conservatives have no dibs in repeating labels. Otherwise you would not see so many trashy blogs calling liberals commies and socialists etc.
Maybe I will just refer to Fox as Ho Hum TV from now on.
Ecgberht,
Gee, I read and reread the Bill of Rights and found zilch about the infamous Commerce Clause..........or are you doing some judicial activism of your own.
Tsk...tsk.
LibVet wrote:
"Gee, I read and reread the Bill of Rights and found zilch about the infamous Commerce Clause..........or are you doing some judicial activism of your own.
Tsk...tsk."
OK, a little remedial Constitution 101 is needed here first.
The "Bill of Rights" is a familiar term for what is actually the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution allows for itself to be modified through the amendment process. Once added, an amendment becomes, as it were, part and parcel of the Constitution itself. It becomes part of the supreme law of the land, with all the power and force of the original body of the document.
So while you do not find the Commerce Clause in amendment 1, you do find it elsewhere in the Constitution, in fact, in Article 1, Section 8 enumerating the powers of Congress and stated as follows: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
It is important to note that while Amendment 1 does not mention corporations, it does not mention individual citizens either with respect to religion, speech, or the press, it just says, "Congress shall make no law". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ...."
Arkus Duntov on June 26, 2012 @ 9:18 am wrote: “When I had an LLC I still bled and required food to survive as does the members of any type of corporation. . . . While the forming of a corporation does offer certain protections it does not eliminate liability completely, case in point the tobacco companies. . . Interesting how no one responds to the fact in my first comment that ‘corporations’ pose no real threat to democracy or the electoral system.”
1) The issue isn’t whether you bleed, but whether the artificial “people” known as corporations bleed. If this is an attempt to raise the point that corporations are composed of people, and to therefore question whether they should lose their rights simply because they chose to “do business” as corporations, I actually addressed that in my earlier Comment (at 6:06 AM). Just read the last two paragraphs, and note the only conclusion I drew was that it's too complex a subject to be resolved by mere rhetoric about corporate “personhood”. Talk about it being “too difficult” to let go of something! Your insistence on returning to that rhetoric is a prime example.
2) I’m always amused when people who are ignorant of the law (and, apparently, incapable of comprehending standard English) try to engage in “intelligent” debate. As the very quote you employ from my Comment shows, I never said corporations escape liability for their wrongdoing. Nor did I say shareholders never suffer any loss. I said the corporate fiction allows shareholders (and others) to escape personal liability - a very important advantage to the corporate form of doing business (and the main reason for adopting it).
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Let me give you a classic example. Suppose those tobacco companies you mentioned had been organized as partnerships. Every partner (an investor in the company) would be “jointly and severally” liable for all debts and obligations of the partnership. Now suppose the partner in charge of selling “Death’s Head” cigarettes chose to package the product with a label that announced: “There are no carcinogens in this product, and the Surgeon General has determined it completely safe to smoke”. It wouldn’t matter whether the other partners knew of the lie or not. It wouldn’t even matter if they believed the lie themselves in good faith. It wouldn’t matter if, by internal agreement among themselves, they had no say in the selling of that particular product. As partners they are each responsible, individually for the actions of every other partner and the partnership itself. Therefore any one of them could be sued and forced to pay the full damages caused by that one partner’s misconduct. (The unlucky defendant would have to try to bring the other partners into the case, or sue to recover from the others their “fair share” of the judgment paid.) That is what “joint and several" liability means.
But, with a corporation all that changes. Because of the legal fiction, the corporation is considered a “person” separate and apart from the shareholders, and the corporate officers. They can only be held responsible for their own individual conduct (if any). Only the corporation faces liability for its actions. Thus, the people harmed by the tobacco companies can only sue the corporations - not the shareholders. (I know this not only from legal training, but from experience. I own shares in Phillip Morris, and no one has even tried to sue me - because the case would be swiftly dismissed.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
Yes, the value of my shares in Phillip Morris might decline, but that’s simply the normal risk of investment. I face the same risk every day when the Standard & Poor’s or Dow Jones fluctuates. What I don’t face is the direct, personal, and sole liability Phillip Morris faces for the cancers its products may (or may not) have caused. And that’s entirely due to the fiction of “corporate personhood”.
3) I didn’t respond to your opinion (not a “fact”) of the “real threat” caused by corporate participation in the electoral system, because I wasn’t interested in addressing it. I’m still not. But if you want to play “Pollyanna”, wear “rose colored glasses” and ideological blinders, while skipping merrily off a cliff, fine. Just don’t ask the rest of us to follow you!
P.S. - In case you didn’t notice, I critiqued uselesseater’s tirade too. Don’t assume I agree with the “all corporations are evil” side of this debate either. As I said at the start of my first Comment about this: “As is often the case, I find both ‘sides’ in this argument to be simplistic, and therefore wrong.”
stlaw on June 26, 2012 @ 9:50 am asked: “Also, has the decision on the Arizona Immigration law shed any light on the outcome in the Healthcare case?”
Although there are some who will doubtless offer speculation on that question, the answer is no.
While both cases involve the legal topic of Federalism, the division of power between the Federal and State governments, the two cases arise under entirely different fact patterns, and involve different areas of the Constitution.
The case just decided involved Immigration, an area over which Congress enjoys “plenary power”. The courts rarely intrude into that power, and there is no authority for the States to do so either. (Which is what the decision resoundingly proclaimed.)
The health care case involves questions about the reach of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. While that has also been interpreted broadly, it is a very close question whether it can sustain the new law. (I might add that other parts of the Constitution should come into play, but for some reason the Obama Administration didn’t invoke them, or at best underplayed them - for which it has been criticized by some legal scholars.)
As for me, I think anyone who tries to predict the future thereby proves themselves fools, especially where the Supreme Court is concerned. (Recall all the members of the punditocracy and commentariat who were certain Arizona would win completely.) I’ll just point out that those who believe “States’ Rights” and the Tenth Amendment allow States to do whatever they wish, and require a weak Federal government, have been proven wrong - again!
Ciao, for now.
Eggie,
As Ronnie would say, "Now there you go again!"
Reread the "commerce clause" and you will find NO reference to corporations/companies as people. In fact, the clause has been argued as describing the balance between the states and the fed, or alternatively, part of the balance among parts of government.....legislative vs executive. In fact, scholars often argue whether the original writers even meant trade in the modern sense but rather the exchange of anything, not just goods or finance.
Ironically, you hit on the very clause that is to be the crux of whether part of AHA stands or falls......if corporations are people they could be interpreted to be subject to the insurance mandate........ maybe businesses will be subject but not people as individuals.......what a snap that would be.
If you check the Preamble, you will find it begins, "We the People" with literally no mention of business. I assure you that no modern dictionary of the English language defines "people" as a business........but isn't it ironic the lengths to which you will stretch to align yourself with literally EVERY gaffe your robber baron candidate and his puppet justices make?
When the very bases of democracy bow to Mammon, mankind and freedom are up for ransom. This Court is shameful in its allegiance to the wealthy.
In the discussion on Arizona's immigration law, Fawn Johnson said when she was in Tucson to discuss this matter, "...the entire immigrant community" was alarmed. Sorry, no, that is a gross exaggeration. I live in Tucson, and I am an immigrant, but I'm certainly not alarmed. I came here legally, and I'm in favor of strict enforcement of immigration laws.
Perhaps she meant that the illegal alien community was alarmed, as well they should be since they are here, you know, illegally.
It quite baffling to Americans that Justice Roberts appears not to notice what is plain to everyone else, that if a corporation spends large amounts of money on behalf of a politician, the politician becomes obligated to the corporation -- the very definition of corruption.
This issue is nothing to do with free speech; it is about the right to buy politicians. In Canada, corporations can't give any money to politicians, even so they still have way too much power by owning the press and media.
The point is we are assuming Mr. Roberts himself is above reproach. He was political appointee, a sort of mole inserted by George W. Bush to corrupt the supreme court and hand over power after power to corporations. He was not picked for his reputation as a brilliant jurist, but for his unshakable Republican ideology.
Roedy Green wrote:
"... Mr. Roberts ... was [a] political appointee, a sort of mole inserted by George W. Bush to corrupt the supreme court and hand over power after power to corporations. He was not picked for his reputation as a brilliant jurist, but for his unshakable Republican ideology."
Hey Roedy, don't look now, but the paranoids are watching you.
strudel wrote:
"I’ll just point out that those who believe “States’ Rights” and the Tenth Amendment allow States to do whatever they wish, and require a weak Federal government, have been proven wrong - again!"
" I’m always amused when people who are ignorant of the law (and, apparently, incapable of comprehending standard English) try to engage in “intelligent” debate. "
Yes, we know you're a lawyer, strudel as you are always quick to remind everyone - and as we have surmised - a poor one. That's what makes your second statement so ironic!
The strawman "the Tenth Amendment allow States to do whatever they wish" I don't believe anyone here has proposed. In fact the Tenth Amendment speaks specifically AGAINST that notion! That's what the phrase "prohibited by it (i.e. the Constitution) to the States" means! If you were more familiar with Article 1, Section 8, you would know that immigration and naturalization is a power given specifically to the FG. Section 9 speaks to same. The "weak" Federal government has nothing to do with the AZ law! The powers of the FG with respect to immigration were simply certified by the High Court in this case. But retention of the immigration check under SB1070 was retained as it ALSO should have been. States must be free to enforce federal regulation, which the check confirms, but not prosecute under power given to the FG. The case was decided exactly correctly by SCOTUS.
LibVet wrote:
"In fact, the clause has been argued as describing the balance between the states and the fed, or alternatively, part of the balance among parts of government.....legislative vs executive."
I wouldn't go there if I were you, LibVet. You will end up invalidating much of the corpus of law justified by the CC for the past 80 years. The fact is the power of the FG under the CC has been wrongly inerpreted by the High Court for several generations. Under the powers enumerated in Article 1, the great majority of what Congress enacts is justified because of a poor interpretation of the CC.
A simple example is the Department of Education at the federal level. Justify that according to Article 1! What is Congress "regulating" here? Inter-state sale of pencils? Of desks? You cannot reasonably justify the DOE under the Constitution. In fact, the way the CC has been interpreted, it is essentially a "get out of jail free" card for Congress. It essentially says, "Congress can spend on anything it wants and regulate anything it wants" since virtually everything today involves interstate commerce in some form. The original intent of the CC was to allow Congress to "rule" in cases where one state attempted to gouge another one via tarrifs, etc., which was the basis of this phrase in Article 1. This has not only been lost, but is at the root of our "big government" problem today, IMO.
Part deux.
"If you check the Preamble, you will find it begins, "We the People" with literally no mention of business."
You don't want to go there either LibVet. The preample also states the purpose of the Constitution, and therefore the government it forms is to "provide for the COMMON defense", and "promote the GENERAL welfare". So where does it say that the FG is authorized to provide for (read: give money to) any INDIVIDUAL citizen? It doesn't. It must protect their RIGHTS. But it is nowhere authorized to give them stuff. The purpose of the FG is to protect ALL the people, and promote the GENERAL welfare, and every duty under Section 8 of Article 1 reflects that; roads, coinage, patents, etc. If the Constitution were interpreted correctly on this simple point, there would be no HUD, there would be no HHS, there would be no welfare, there would be no SS, there would be no Medicare. And we would be a much more free, independent, self-reliant, and strong people because of it. Now for states to offer such benefits is another matter entirely. They would have the right to do so depending on their individual constitutions. The FG? No way.
"but isn't it ironic the lengths to which you will stretch to align yourself with literally EVERY gaffe your robber baron candidate and his puppet justices make?"
Why must you include a personal attack in virtually every post, LibVet? Do you see me attacking you in that way? Generally, when the ad hominem attacks come out, someone has recognized that their argument is weak.
ecgberht,
Check the Preamble again.
a. One cannot imagine a law that goes further to "Promote the General Welfare" than ensuring ALL have ACCESS to buy health coverage. Nobody asked for free coverage - just the ability to buy it. YOU know every UNcovered person who seeks treatment jacks up the costs for ALL by a minimum of $1,000. My career includes 42 years health care software development: insurers, providers, pharma. I personally saw insurers morph from not-for-profit (operated on 4 cents per premium $) into current profit-at-all-measures (only about 60 cents per $). For-profits are routinely sued by actual providers for slow-pay/non-payment. In fact a looming payback is owed by insurers (thus far failed to pay at the required 80% level) - they OWE citizens BILLIONS.
I would prefer single-payer private-gov collaboration along the lines of TaiWan or Switzerland - AHA will have to be the starting point.
Explain to us how the "young man" mentioned in the Republican debates (healthy guy who lacked insurance) might benefit our General Welfare if he died rather than buy his own coverage.
Our Constitution is a human document, not scripture or engineering schematic; it's to SERVE We The People.
b. Again, the "welfare" of every citizen is "promote"d by an educated citizenry, citizens who are not homeless, who can safely breathe, drink, recreate, with assurances that foodstuffs and drugs are safe and that businesses cannot exact unscrupulous practices on citizens. The fact the Roberts Court has yet to roll back DOE, HUD, DOA, and EPA should be proof even they lack the Constitutional standing to do so.
c. CHILL. Reread my "ad hominem" attacks. They do NOT describe YOU - rather the current etch-a-sketch "conservative" candidate and those members of the Court who sold out to the one percenters. My comments were ad altera - aimed at others. Quod erat demonstrandum. Quid me vexare ?
Shame on Diane for turning a review of the SCOTUS into the typical political horse race coverage we get from the rest of the media. As an independent voter, I found that the panel leaned very heavily left, and I don't think I heard a single discussion from these "scholars" on the actual Constitutional merits of the cases mentioned. Instead, they all focused on politics politics politics. Pathetic. This show used to have some substance.
bluzader on June 26, 2012 @ 8:47 am asked: “1. Can laws be passed to tax corporations as individuals? Can there be some legislative or prosecutorial actions taken against a corporation as if it were a person? 2. Can the recent Arizona alien decision be the cause of a "Rosa Parks" moment? Some one sets them self up as a test case that will result in the law being totally rejected?”
Actually, despite your numerical system, you’ve asked 3 questions (the last sentence being simply an elaboration of the “second” question). Allow me to answer all three.
A) Corporations already are taxed “as individuals”. It’s known as the Corporate Income Tax.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
B) Corporations are “subject” to legislation the same as anyone else, and must obey the same laws as everyone else. In addition, they must obey certain laws governing their corporate status, such as the Securities and Exchange Act, and various State “Blue Sky” Laws. Prosecutions are a trickier question. Generally if corporate employees engage in criminal conduct, they will be prosecuted as individuals (that includes the corporate officers). Corporations can also be “prosecuted” (such as under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and can be held both civilly and criminally responsible for crimes committed by their employees (though, obviously, they can’t be sent to jail). At one time there was a concept in the law known as ultra vires under which if a corporation abused its corporate existence, or operated in ways beyond the power granted by its certificate of incorporation (such as criminally), the certificate of incorporation could be voided or rescinded, the corporation abolished (a kind of “execution”), and the shareholders would then become personally responsible for the debts of the corporation as if it had never existed. Today this doctrine is rarely used, mostly because modern certificates of incorporation allow the corporation to do “anything a corporation may be legally authorized to do”.
C) Challenges of the type usually brought by “test cases” are already underway (for example: on the question of racism), but they were placed “on hold” pending the outcome of this case. Why? Because if SB1070 had been struck down in full, those cases would be moot - and Federal courts have no jurisdiction to decide moot cases. As it is, the Supreme Court has (almost literally) “invited” such future cases, so this decision isn’t the end of the matter. It’s merely “Round One”!
Hope this was of assistance.
"One cannot imagine a law that goes further to "Promote the General Welfare" than ensuring ALL have ACCESS to buy health coverage"
Nonsense. How does my paying for your gallbladder surgery benefit me? That's what you (should) have insurance for.
"Again, the "welfare" of every citizen is "promote"d by an educated citizenry, citizens who are not homeless, who can safely breathe, drink, recreate, with assurances that foodstuffs and drugs are safe and that businesses cannot exact unscrupulous practices on citizens"
Those things that benefit ALL citizens DIRECTLY support the general welfare; safe food and drugs, clean air and water, which, by the way, Republicans are NOT against, contrary to the charges of some. But my federal tax money paying to educate your kids, does not benefit me. It benefits them. It doesn't support the GENERAL welfare, it supports YOUR welfare (or your kids). Now if the FG wants to run PSAs touting education, fine. That benefits everyone. But paying for specific kids does not benefit the general welfare. And this is the reason that the items enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, as I have listed, CLEARLY apply to the general welfare and not individual citizens.
As with the commerce clause, the position you take can justify ANYTHING. Subsidies for growing cabbages in AZ supports the General Welfare because it will make Arizonans healthier which is good for the country! It's madness.
"but isn't it ironic the lengths to which you will stretch to align yourself with literally EVERY gaffe your robber baron candidate and his puppet justices make?"
" My comments were ad altera - aimed at others"
Sorry, I was confused by the use of the words you, yourself, and your. A simple "my bad, shouldn't have done that" would have been more effective.
stlaw on June 26, 2012 - 9:50 am asked: “. . . haven't corporations had a personhood status since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819? . . . . Campaign reform should be the goal and has been a recurring issue for nearly a decade. . . . Also, has the decision on the Arizona Immigration law shed any light on the outcome in the Healthcare case?”
1) Actually, the Dartmouth College case had little (if anything) to do with corporate personhood. The main issue was whether the State of New Hampshire could alter the corporate charter (and take control of the institution). The Supreme Court ruled that the charter constituted a contract (in this case with the King of Great Britain, who originally issued it), and therefore couldn’t be altered because of the constitutional provision which forbids States from “impairing the obligation of contracts”. Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1.
See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward, for a fuller discussion.
The issue in Citizens United was whether, as artificial persons, corporations could enjoy the full range of First Amendment rights as “natural” people, especially regarding free speech. (This was an application of the doctrine that money = speech, created in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo)
Both of those decisions limited the power of the government to regulate campaign contributions, and Citizens United also focused on (so-called) “independent expenditures” by non-candidates or political organizations. Thus the drive for “campaign reform” has been limited by this line of cases, and is one reason the this “has been a recurring issue for nearly a decade”.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
2) Although both the SB1070 and the Affordable Care Act cases involve the same topic (Federalism - the allocation of power between the national and state governments), there is little “light” one can shed on the other. One reason: the issues in the two cases are almost mirror images of each other. In the Immigration case the question was whether the States (Arizona in this case) have the power to legislate in that area, or whether it is an invasion of and interference with Federal authority. In the health care case, the issue is whether the Federal government has any power to legislate in that area, or whether it is exclusively a State matter.
The second, and related, reason is that the latter case turns on a different Federal power: to regulate commerce “among the several States”. Much of the Affordable Care Act can be sustained under that power, but the part at issue (the individual mandate) is another matter.
A third reason is that there are other Federal powers under which the mandate could, arguably, be sustained. However, the Administration didn’t raise such arguments (supporters of the Act criticize that failure), but the Court could still consider the issue on its own. (Technically it shouldn’t, and probably won’t, but it considered issues not raised by the parties in Citizens United, so it could do so here.)
A fourth reason is that there are other issues involved, such as whether the courts can even hear the case, under what is known as the Anti-Injunction Act. This strips the Federal courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to tax laws until the tax has been paid, and the taxpayer files for a refund. The mandate is enforced through the Income Tax, so it is possible the Act applies.
TO BE CONTINUED
Ecgberht,
For clarification, IF my tax dollars and my service in the military in any way protected you or made it possible for you, fellow citizen, to have a good life, then that pleases me and should be satisfying to you and your family. I doubt seriously that you or the finest team of CPAs could trace my tax dollars or yours down to whether they paid for my kids or yours or any other individual. In fact my kids mostly went to private schools for religious reasons and were all great students and serve the country well, including paying tax for you et al. Your taxes have paid ZIP to my health care or my kids......in fact my $1,908 per month premiums demonstrate that. Moreover I have paid Medicare and Social Security taxes my whole life which makes me ENTITLED to use those facilities that I PAID for in advance, just like I was entitled to see a movie last week since I paid for the ticket.
Some have said "love it or leave it" but I believe our country is better off if we all stay and hammer out our optimal future via discourse and reason.
Time to leave this topic. SCOTUS has ruled and we move on, hoping that we and Congress and whatever Pres we have can work out improvements and facilities for our future. See ya next time!