|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 15:22:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The government can and does force you to both pay for and use the Federal judiciary system if your goal is to lock criminals up in Federal prison. That's just one example of how your blanket claim that the government cannot force you to use government services is wrong. | I get your point and I think I agree, but I still think it is different than the healthcare because the court system is outlined in the constitution and is part of running the government.
That would be all of them. Or can you name a tax which is voluntary? | property tax, sales tax, car registration and safety inspection, gas tax, tobacco tax, transportation tax, communication tax.
Yes, you're saying that the Constitution itself imposes a tyranny, yet you wish people would abide by the Constitution (even though you got the whole rights thing backwards and so clearly don't fully comprehend the Constitution). | I have said some parts of the constitution imposes a tyranny. I don’t believe we live under a tyrannical government.
Through the Constitution, We, the People, gave Congress the power to levy taxes. Appropriate majority votes were passed to enact a whole boatload of different taxes, but one of the things the Constitution is intended to do is to protect minorities from "the tyranny of the majority," and so the Constitution also demands "checks and balances" on the power of the different branches of government. Taxes, especially income taxes, and especially progressive income taxes, have passed such tests many times. | So I have to agree with them? Or just accept that it can never change?
So, in an era of historically low taxes (thanks in no small part to Reagan's idiocy), you're saying that constitutionally enacted taxes which have been repeatedly legally determined to impose no undue burden are tyrannical. I certainly don't get it, unless you think, in general, that laws you just don't like are tyrannical, a standard that'd be nothing but hyperbolic. | I have said that the taxes we have are constitutional. I think it is idiotic that when Reagan took office the top tax rate was 70%, talk about tyranny.
And think about it this way: ultra-leftists think that "the minority" the Constitution is designed to protect is "the rich and the privileged." Most conservatives aren't anywhere close to "rich," but vote in favor of tax policy that does, indeed, protect the rich at the expense of their own welfare. Hell, in 2004, the average per-capita income of the "Red States" was 20% less than that of the "Blue States," yet conservatives voted to let the rich get richer by keeping taxes low. Either it's a bizarre form of economic and social suicide, or Republicans in general think that they're a hairs'-breadth away from becoming billionaires (much like inner-city kids have been deluded into thinking they've all got realistic chances to play in the NBA). | So are your saying that since some people are not rich, then they deserve to take it from the rich by force? Conservatives generally are not jealous of the rich, they respect that a majority of them actually worked hard for it and believe that they are not entitled to their money. Why do you deserve to use a majority of another person’s wealth for the government?
Actually, think about it this way: the people who make fewer charitable contributions than you do pay for you to be able to do so, Robb. The people with fewer kids than you pay more for your (and you kids') access to public services, including schooling. This liberal certainly doesn't mind, but with your "tyranny" talk, you're essentially saying that you'd prefer to experience more personal economic hardships in order to do nothing more than claim freedom from "tyranny." Is it just a matter of pride? | I don’t think I ever said that all taxes were bad or tyrannical. Only the ones I am forced to pay under penalty, mainly the income taxes. Property taxes are not tyrannical and I gladly pay them. But it is my choice to pay them or not. I think it is appropriate for all people to pay for our children’s schooling, because it benefits most people if we are all educated.
]There's been no evidence presented by anyone, anywhere, that Obama will simply ignore the ruling. He might be waiting for the legal questions to be resolved by the appropriate judicial bodies, but that's not nearly the same as "ignoring," now is it? | Then where are the reports that he is doing so? He is the transparent President right?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 17:51:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
I get your point and I think I agree, but I still think it is different than the healthcare because the court system is outlined in the constitution and is part of running the government. | The court system is minimally defined in the Constitution. The rest of it (like prisons) are mandated by normal laws.That would be all of them. Or can you name a tax which is voluntary? | property tax, sales tax, car registration and safety inspection, gas tax, tobacco tax, transportation tax, communication tax. | If those are voluntary, then so are income taxes because you live in this country voluntarily.I have said some parts of the constitution imposes a tyranny. I don’t believe we live under a tyrannical government. | You seem to be splitting hairs, here.So I have to agree with them? Or just accept that it can never change? | So everything you don't agree with, or want to change, you label a tyranny?!I have said that the taxes we have are constitutional. | But a constitutional tyranny, apparently.I think it is idiotic that when Reagan took office the top tax rate was 70%, talk about tyranny. | During and after World War II, the top tax rate was 94%, because the war needed to be paid for. We have an even more massive amount of debt today, but conservatives are against paying for it.So are your saying that since some people are not rich, then they deserve to take it from the rich by force? | No, I was wondering why the poor conservatives are in favor of tax policies which harm them. Income inequality causes harm on its own.Conservatives generally are not jealous of the rich, they respect that a majority of them actually worked hard for it and believe that they are not entitled to their money. | Conservatives really do seem to think that the motto of this country should be "Every Man for Himself."Why do you deserve to use a majority of another person’s wealth for the government? | Because the wealthy use more of the government's services, and get more opportunities to lower their tax bills than the poor.I don’t think I ever said that all taxes were bad or tyrannical. | I'm talking about income taxes.Only the ones I am forced to pay under penalty, mainly the income taxes. Property taxes are not tyrannical and I gladly pay them. But it is my choice to pay them or not. | If you refuse to pay your property taxes, you will pay penalties. They are not voluntary. Living on taxed property is voluntary, but the taxes are not. Just like like living in the U.S.A. is voluntary, but income taxes are not.I think it is appropriate for all people to pay for our children’s schooling, because it benefits most people if we are all educated. | Well, "all people" do not. People with many children pay less than people with fewer or no children.Then where are the reports that he is doing so? He is the transparent President right? | Obama's administration is about as transparent as a slab of steel. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 19:15:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by podcat
Actually, the judge in the case did not issue an injunction.
| Do you agree or not that this is an injunction? http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/MP3/ShowAudio/Florida-Healthcare-Summary-Judgment.pdf page 75
(5) Injunction The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added). There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary. |
|
It does not. It assumes that the Executive and Legislative branches will not further try to implement the law. Now, the fact that the portion that makes the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014 (if memory serves) makes injunctive relief moot until that time. As the Virginia and Florida courts have urged SCOTUS to pick up the case.
I have noted a rather disturbing trend in politics whereby the elected officials, despite being informed of the unenforcability of some ordinances and laws, have taken the position of "we'll let them sue us to stop us so we are gonna do it anyway."
The declaratory relief is against Congress. The Executive is expected (but not assured) to act as if there is an injunction. Chicago doesn't do that. They continue to perform acts until injunctive relief is granted. Obama is a Chicago politician and may have the same attitudes.
Sorry, folks. This is my backyard and history is not on that side. Chicago was interrogating the Secretary of State's office for owners of license plates for parking ticket enforcement including license suspension. They chose to not do due dilligence to determine who was owner of record at the time of the violation. When downstate Illinoisians got dunning letters and informed the Chicago department of revenue that they did not own the tags on the date of violation and had never been to Cook County, the department told them to send proof that they didn't own the tags.
Downstate counties filed a class action lawsuit against the city of Chicago and got injunctive relief. Previous cases filed by individuals had not obtained injuctive relief and merely cleared their records. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 15:17:03 [Permalink]
|
I do not agree that it was an injunction. As I noted earlier, the court presumed the executive branch will go by the decision of the court, therefore a separate injunction was unnecessary.
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” and “drastic” remedy. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.).
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary. |
|
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 15:42:10 [Permalink]
|
I think the bottom line is that a law passed by congress and signed by the president can't be held up or repealed by a federal court. They can rule against it, which begins its journey to that other body of checks and balances, SCOTUS. If that were not the case, any activist judge could knock down any law our congress and the president has passed and Robb could accuse every president of lawlessness on those grounds. Think about it. If every federal judge had that much power, no law would pass muster because there would always be one judge who opposes it making each and every federal judge one among hundreds of a fourth balance of power, if you see what I mean. And just like this case, there would be different rulings by other federal judges that don't agree. It would be chaos. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 16:21:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I think the bottom line is that a law passed by congress and signed by the president can't be held up or repealed by a federal court. They can rule against it, which begins its journey to that other body of checks and balances, SCOTUS. If that were not the case, any activist judge could knock down any law our congress and the president has passed and Robb could accuse every president of lawlessness on those grounds. Think about it. If every federal judge had that much power, no law would pass muster because there would always be one judge who opposes it making each and every federal judge one among hundreds of a fourth balance of power, if you see what I mean. And just like this case, there would be different rulings by other federal judges that don't agree. It would be chaos. | Well, then chaos is how it works, partly.
SCOTUS can simply refuse to hear any case, and what happens then is that the lower court rulings stand as the law of the land. At least for the district in which the ruling was given, but judges elsewhere will often use them as precedents, anyway.
So a single Federal judge can declare some law unconstitutional, and then a panel of three appeals judges might agree. If SCOTUS declines to hear the case, then that's it: the law is dead. For at least 1/12th of the country (there are 12 Federal regional appeals courts). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 16:58:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
I think the bottom line is that a law passed by congress and signed by the president can't be held up or repealed by a federal court. They can rule against it, which begins its journey to that other body of checks and balances, SCOTUS. If that were not the case, any activist judge could knock down any law our congress and the president has passed and Robb could accuse every president of lawlessness on those grounds. Think about it. If every federal judge had that much power, no law would pass muster because there would always be one judge who opposes it making each and every federal judge one among hundreds of a fourth balance of power, if you see what I mean. And just like this case, there would be different rulings by other federal judges that don't agree. It would be chaos. | Well, then chaos is how it works, partly.
SCOTUS can simply refuse to hear any case, and what happens then is that the lower court rulings stand as the law of the land. At least for the district in which the ruling was given, but judges elsewhere will often use them as precedents, anyway.
So a single Federal judge can declare some law unconstitutional, and then a panel of three appeals judges might agree. If SCOTUS declines to hear the case, then that's it: the law is dead. For at least 1/12th of the country (there are 12 Federal regional appeals courts).
| Right. But by virtue of the fact that SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, they are in essence ruling on it by saying nothing. They are allowing a lower courts ruling to stand. And as I understand it, they generally look to precedence to decide whether or not a case should be decided by them.
In other words, they still function as one of the three checks and balances, in accordance with the constitution, even when they refuse to hear a case. Until their refusal to hear a case that has been brought to them for consideration of a ruling, the ruling of the lower court is still in question. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 17:48:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
In other words, they still function as one of the three checks and balances... | Well, I should have mentioned in my previous reply that the whole judiciary system is the "check and balance" against the other two branches of government. SCOTUS may be the end of the line, but plenty of cases get decided at lower levels and simply aren't appealed by the government. Executive-branch lawyers can advise the President that, for example, there's no grounds for appeal, or that the government would surely lose. That's check enough without the government even asking SCOTUS to hear a case.
Other than that, I've got to disagree that SCOTUS refusing to hear a case should be seen as SCOTUS agreeing with the lower courts' ruling. At least a couple of times in the last few years, it's been pretty clear that SCOTUS has refused to hear a case because someone on the court simply doesn't want to answer the question(s) involved. As Wikipedia notes:A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four". The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the term that was most recently-concluded as of 9 June 2009, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1%... The Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which the Court has jurisdiction and which the Court considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources...
...The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court disagrees with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the Justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court. Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood to mean that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. Such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and that the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the region of jurisdiction of that court. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 21:20:44 [Permalink]
|
Okay. I see. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2011 : 08:55:40 [Permalink]
|
Robb said: I think it is idiotic that when Reagan took office the top tax rate was 70%, talk about tyranny. |
Yeah, a country working off its debt after WW2, Korean War, and Veitnam, and requiring the richest citizens (those who benefit most from our system) to pay a larger % than the rest.
That is exactly the same definition of tyranny I use Robb!
Its definitely not tyranny when republicans invented supply side and trickle down economics. Nope, those things don't use the force of government to fuck over the middle class and poor. Not at all!
Definitely not tyranny when tax rates on the rich become so low that the nation can't sustain itself, but the rich have so much banked after the last 12 years that they don't even give a shit that our entire economy is on the verge of death. No tyranny there!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. -- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n. The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2011 : 11:11:50 [Permalink]
|
Speaking of trickle down, which is off topic, it should be noted that there is absolutely no evidence that it works for the creation of jobs. All of our largest growth periods happened when the rich were paying a much higher rate than they are now. As it happens, the Bush tax cuts didn't result in job creation and his administration, that initiated the last round of income tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, seems to have only made those in the highest brakets richer. Conservatives clammer about a redistribution of wealth, but that's exactly what the tax breaks have lead to. The rich have gotten richer and the middle class is shrinking.
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record (I took this from the Wall Street Journal so that there could be no accusation of a liberal bias.)
Bottom line is that lower tax rates on the top 5% does not seem to correlate at all with job creation. Not at all! The conservative mantra that supply side works has been debunked. And yet it's still the mantra of the conservatives who are unwilling to accept hard evidence that Bush Sr. was correct when he called it "voodoo economics."
And with all the talk of the rising debt, what did the conservatives do about taxes? They held up every other important bill in the lame duck session until Obama capitulated. There are plenty of wealthy progressives willing to make the sacrifice of a higher tax rate in order to help bring down the debt. Conservatives are not willing to make that sacrifice for the good of the country. They will look elsewhere. They will look to trim or end programs that the wealthy don't really need because, you know... they're rich. Those changes won't hurt them. And then there are the less wealthy conservatives, the base that drank the kool-aid. They will go down waving the flag of freedom, because that's what they've been told that this is all about... And that's where healthcare and entitlement programs come in.
I don't understand what they don't understand...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2011 : 22:17:21 [Permalink]
|
Politics is like religion Kil. If rational arguments worked in politics, there would be no political parties.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. -- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n. The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|