Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Ted Cruz born in Canada; Hilarious!"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote]That's not actually what the Supreme Court said, so we can stop reading you now.[/quote] Oh, really? I don't believe that I ever stated that the Court "said" anything. What I said was, "Second, the Court held that regardless of what the fine was called, it operated as a tax." The court employed a “functional approach” to assessing whether the fine should be considered a tax, for constitutional purposes. If you believe that is wrong, please point me to language in the decision that contradicts it. What the opinion does hold, by the way, is: “The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.” Oh, and: It is of course true that the Act describes the payment asa “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress’s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax." Then there’s this: “The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty:” Finally, “The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold §5000A as a tax because Congress did not “frame” it assuch. Post, at 17. In effect, they contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels. An example may help illustrate why labels should not control here.” I can go on embarrassing you all night, but perhaps I should give you an opportunity to respond. Whatcha got? [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics