Weird, this is clearly playing a large part in my current situation right now in 2 ways like a car crash that has pile ups and obstacles and closed roads everywhere you try to go. I've been the one that had all the responsibilities since my daughter was born. Before and after her dad kicked us out when she was 3. He left the state and came back about 3 years ago when he found out i was incredibly vulnerable and traumatized and he moved into my mom's house and began absorbing power and gathering incriminating evidence and using leverage along with coorsive control tactics. When i refused to do the 5am busstop commitment he told me to say goodbye to medicaid. The same medicaid that covers our daughter. The same medicaid that expanded and if you call everyone on the list none are accepting new patients. They are getting paid to be taking up all that space though. About 7 years of desperately needing medical attention and unable to make it happen. There's probably more in the pile up that ill see from a different angles as this unfolds.
Roberts was a sell out in this case. His opinion has no basis in fact in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is to interpret the law not make it up. Congress said time and time again that the penalty was NOT a tax, yet this is actually what Roberts made it.
As a penalty, it would not have passes because there is no option, it is a mandate. By rewriting it as a tax (which congress does have the power to do), it was able to pass.
@@HolyShitKat normally congress should write the law not the supreme court The individual mandate was not a Tax because it doesn't bring revenues to the government..... Even Barack Obama said the individual mandate was not a Tax.... This opinion by Robert was literally a huge humiliation for the judiciary and for the constitution.....
@@bestproto5117 That only became the case after a GOP-controlled Congress zeroed out the tax. At the time NFIB v. Sibelius was decided, the individual mandate was projected to raise revenue, as Roberts notes in his opinion: "This process yields the essential feature of any tax: It produces at least some revenue for the Government. Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017." 567 U.S. 519, 564 (2012) (internal citation omitted)
@@yohance35 So then why Obama himself said it was not a Tax? Robert and the other liberals wanted to save the act so they wrote something completely out of constitutional norms and turned a clear penelty into a Tax! The commerce clause doesn't give the government the right to punish people who chose to stay away from the market! Including the insurance industry The court made that clear multiple times.....
@@bestproto5117 I agree that reframing it as a tax was kind of reinterpreting the statute to bring the mandate out of the Commerce Clause power and into the taxing power, as the statute itself refers to it as a "penalty". The point I was making is that the mandate did, in fact, generate revenue through the IRS as originally conceived, one of its traits that led Roberts to deem it a tax. It wasn't until 2017-five years AFTER NFIB-that the mandate was zeroed out by Congress, so to critique Roberts's opinion on that particular ground is a mis-sequencing of historical events. It DID bring revenue to the government at the time NFIB was decided and for a few years thereafter until it was eliminated
Isn't this case the first time the Court held an exercise of Congress's spending power (the medicaid expansion) was unconstitutional? Why exactly did Roberts hold the medicaid expansion was unconstitutional? Was it the coercive nature of the expansion?
They deemed so under the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution because Congress does not have authority under the Spending Clause to threaten the states with complete loss of Federal funding of Medicaid, if the states refuse to comply with the expansion. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" Basically, I believe they're arguing that by exclusively denying pre-existing Medicaid funding to states which opt out of expansion, the Congress would not be uniformly providing for the general welfare. Congress is thus putting any opposing states at a systemic disadvantage which they shouldn't be doing.
The Court has implied before that Congress's spending power was not limitless, and that people could bring about lawsuits when it violated its spending power, when directly connected to another limit set to such power in the constitution, such as the establishment clause. Flast v. Cohen.
This is in general. Regardless how mad 😡 people are, to understand what any branch of give does, they have to read constitutional law and political science. Many that are indoctrinated seem to think one has to be in a college classroom to become educated.SMMFH!!!! That being said, i say this. Robert’s cited Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). The question in that case was “Was the carriage tax a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states?” In conclusion, and to be short, Robert’s voting for the ACA by amending the The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, you’ll also have to read Court cases, like Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and indirect versus direct taxes!!!! A lot to read. Robert’s was right!!!!
I'm an Italian student doing researches about Sebelius case for university. I thank you a lot for your clarity. Priceless explanation.
Weird, this is clearly playing a large part in my current situation right now in 2 ways like a car crash that has pile ups and obstacles and closed roads everywhere you try to go. I've been the one that had all the responsibilities since my daughter was born. Before and after her dad kicked us out when she was 3. He left the state and came back about 3 years ago when he found out i was incredibly vulnerable and traumatized and he moved into my mom's house and began absorbing power and gathering incriminating evidence and using leverage along with coorsive control tactics. When i refused to do the 5am busstop commitment he told me to say goodbye to medicaid. The same medicaid that covers our daughter. The same medicaid that expanded and if you call everyone on the list none are accepting new patients. They are getting paid to be taking up all that space though. About 7 years of desperately needing medical attention and unable to make it happen. There's probably more in the pile up that ill see from a different angles as this unfolds.
Roberts was a sell out in this case. His opinion has no basis in fact in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is to interpret the law not make it up. Congress said time and time again that the penalty was NOT a tax, yet this is actually what Roberts made it.
As a penalty, it would not have passes because there is no option, it is a mandate. By rewriting it as a tax (which congress does have the power to do), it was able to pass.
@@HolyShitKat normally congress should write the law not the supreme court
The individual mandate was not a Tax because it doesn't bring revenues to the government.....
Even Barack Obama said the individual mandate was not a Tax....
This opinion by Robert was literally a huge humiliation for the judiciary and for the constitution.....
@@bestproto5117 That only became the case after a GOP-controlled Congress zeroed out the tax. At the time NFIB v. Sibelius was decided, the individual mandate was projected to raise revenue, as Roberts notes in his opinion: "This process yields the essential feature of any tax: It produces at least some revenue for the Government. Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017." 567 U.S. 519, 564 (2012) (internal citation omitted)
@@yohance35 So then why Obama himself said it was not a Tax?
Robert and the other liberals wanted to save the act so they wrote something completely out of constitutional norms and turned a clear penelty into a Tax!
The commerce clause doesn't give the government the right to punish people who chose to stay away from the market! Including the insurance industry
The court made that clear multiple times.....
@@bestproto5117 I agree that reframing it as a tax was kind of reinterpreting the statute to bring the mandate out of the Commerce Clause power and into the taxing power, as the statute itself refers to it as a "penalty". The point I was making is that the mandate did, in fact, generate revenue through the IRS as originally conceived, one of its traits that led Roberts to deem it a tax. It wasn't until 2017-five years AFTER NFIB-that the mandate was zeroed out by Congress, so to critique Roberts's opinion on that particular ground is a mis-sequencing of historical events. It DID bring revenue to the government at the time NFIB was decided and for a few years thereafter until it was eliminated
Isn't this case the first time the Court held an exercise of Congress's spending power (the medicaid expansion) was unconstitutional? Why exactly did Roberts hold the medicaid expansion was unconstitutional? Was it the coercive nature of the expansion?
They deemed so under the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution because Congress does not have authority under the Spending Clause to threaten the states with complete loss of Federal funding of Medicaid, if the states refuse to comply with the expansion.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Basically, I believe they're arguing that by exclusively denying pre-existing Medicaid funding to states which opt out of expansion, the Congress would not be uniformly providing for the general welfare. Congress is thus putting any opposing states at a systemic disadvantage which they shouldn't be doing.
@@Yvädastra it's under the anti coorecion
The Court has implied before that Congress's spending power was not limitless, and that people could bring about lawsuits when it violated its spending power, when directly connected to another limit set to such power in the constitution, such as the establishment clause. Flast v. Cohen.
Fuck yeah!!!! Nothing gets me off like a good Commerce Clause strike down! NARROW THE SCOPE!!! LETS GO JUSTICE ROBERTS! GET EM!!
This is in general. Regardless how mad 😡 people are, to understand what any branch of give does, they have to read constitutional law and political science.
Many that are indoctrinated seem to think one has to be in a college classroom to become educated.SMMFH!!!! That being said, i say this. Robert’s cited Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).
The question in that case was “Was the carriage tax a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states?”
In conclusion, and to be short, Robert’s voting for the ACA by amending the The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, you’ll also have to read Court cases, like Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and indirect versus direct taxes!!!! A lot to read. Robert’s was right!!!!
Robert’s decision on this was pretty schizophrenic!
I hate people who just read in their videos. It's hard to understand when you do that.