David Bernstein has a mischievous suggestion:
I’d schedule a new vote in the House on the individual mandate, but replace the “penalty language” with language specifically acknowledging that the “penalty” is actually a tax. If the Democrats vote “aye,” they’ve acknowledged breaking the Obama pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. If the Democrats–specifically those who already voted for the mandate–vote “nay”, what becomes of the tax argument in future litigation?
It’s going to be an interesting campaign.
…what becomes of the tax argument in future litigation?
I don’t think it will make a lick of difference. The mandate has already become this quantum phenomenon where it is both a tax and a not-tax at the same time.
My understanding of the Anti-Injunction Act is that it removes federal (including Supreme) court jurisdiction from federal tax matters until the tax is actually levied. The mandate doesn’t kick in until 2014 or so, so if the mandate were a tax, the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction to rule on it (though they could rule on other aspects of ObamaCare).
So the mandate was considered not-a-tax for purposes of jurisdiction but a tax for purposes of Constitutionality.
I’m not a lawyer, of course, so I may very well be wrong, but this whole ruling and Roberts’ role in it is getting curiouser and curiouser.
Meh, I like my idea better. Strip the tax language out and poison it.
If you replace the penalty language with “tax”, you strenghtened it in the eyes of SCOTUS. Further, you pretty much shot your wad on the issue. The votes you gain for saying Democrat politicians lied about raising taxes would likely be gained with a vote to “fix” the current law.
would likely be gained without a vote to “fix” the current law.
And Trent is right about what he says below…
I don’t understand why you suddenly think people care about campaign promises. There isn’t a voter left who goes to the polls thinking the guy they’re voting for is an honest fellow who will follow through on what he said to get their vote. Except maybe Ron Paul voters.
People who vote democrat think taxes are too low and willfully vote for people who they know will raise taxes. A new tax for health care is exactly what they want.
George H.W. Bush lost a second term almost solely because he allowed a Democrat congress to raise taxes after his famous “read my lips” vow not to raise them. So there’s that.
However, the recent revelations about Bee-Hoe’s fictional “memoirs,” uncovered by a sympathetic biographer, show that the Left explicitly and openly doesn’t care about what’s real and what isn’t. They can just assert, and that’s sufficient (see Jim, Chris, Thomas, Bob-1). Our problem is that we don’t know how many prospective voters not of a hard-core statist Left-wing persuasion can be swayed by that approach.
I’m not sure what unreality I’ve asserted, so I can’t defend myself. Maybe you’d like to explain. In the meantime, lets take a look at you, Mfk
t the Left explicitly and openly doesn’t care about what’s real and what isn’t. They can just assert, and that’s sufficient (see Jim, Chris, Thomas, Bob-1)
That’s pretty rich given the assertion you just made here:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43179#comment-280349
But maybe that’s nitpicky. So here’s a memorable assertion you shared with us:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43023#comment-279204
I’d say that’s a pretty good example of “explicitly and openly not caring about what’s real and what isn’t.” You just assert, and apparently that’s sufficient.
That’s the beauty of blogs Bob. People make assertions all the time. Others question those assertions and the people making them then support them or not. You’re doing it now.
You called it, MfK: the Left explicitly and openly doesn’t care about what’s real and what isn’t. They can just assert, and that’s sufficient
bob: Mfk, I don’t think that’s quite correct. While you might be correct (and Jim might be incorrect) about the Justices’ views regarding taxation, I don’t think you are correct
Yep, they don’t care, they just assert.
Is yanking a sentence fragment out of context your idea of a proper argument?
It’s a better argument than an assertion followed by a link. What I did was pull out of the link the relevant information. It was your link.
Bob-1, do you really want us dredging up your idiocies of the past few years? Just think about it for once. You tried right now to disprove said claim and just dug the hole deeper. You’re just not firing on all cylinders. We accept that. One can hold abominable ideas and beliefs, yet still be a productive member of society. Maybe you should spend less time talking and more time doing stuff that other people would value.
I linked to two cases where Mfk said “in fact” and then asserted things that were not factual at all.
So you assert