No, the supreme court found the Individual Mandate constitutional.
Again, they did not. They upheld it despite finding it unconstitutional.
Funny thing about the supreme court- they may have no authority to cancel part of a law, but they also have no authority to say a law is constitutional or not.
It's an obvious implied power. What's the point of having a supreme court deciding matters of law, when they can't consider the most fundamental aspects of law and how they apply, namely, the Constitution? Deciding to cancel part of a law which Congress gave no provision for doing so is usurping the power of Congress.
Boehner is about as UNDEMOCRATIC as can be. This country is based on Democracy.. you rather live under some other system? MOVE.
I see you don't get it. This is democracy in action. People will not always agree with you on stuff and they'll often get creative in how they try to push their interests.
The US government is so absurdly screwed up -- giving state governers the electoral powers they have was idiotic. All aspects of elections should be run by completely non-partisan groups with no interfering with the state or federal political parties. From identifying districts to running the election itself.
I nominate myself as the sole non-partisan group needed to carry out this great mission and promise to execute my numerous foes, both real and imagined, as humanely and efficiently as I can given the unfortunate situation.
That same episode of the daily show had another good factoid -- 90% incumbency rate, 10% approval rate. It's broken.
You forget the most important aspect. Everyone votes for a single representation and a couple of senators. The rest of that august body doesn't serve your interests nor should.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled two parts of Obamacare were unconstitutional. They even overturned one of those two.
You're saying that they ruled it a "tax".
That is correct. The Supreme Court also ruled it wasn't a tax. Justice Roberts was the person who voted both ways.
They cannot make up a paradox like that
They did.
Congress passed it. The president signed it. It went before the Supreme Court and passed judicial review. It's the law, designed and built by democracy. The Republican party should respect that.
Just like the other parties above "respected" the Constitution? That's hypocrisy to demand of us to respect only laws that you want.
The mess should be reversed. It'll be cheaper and far less suffering to do it now than in twenty years or a century. Then we could do what Obama failed to do back in 2009 and craft some sort of health care law that is an actual reform of the industry.
ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
Actually, the Supreme Court noted that two sections, the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion that burdened states were unconstitutional. They upheld the former only. The latter was severed from the law despite the Supreme Court having no constitutional authority to do so (they've done this before, the precedent is some time ago).
(I got layed off today. There my Hope and Change right up my ass.)
Shortly for me. But I was close to end of season anyway. I'm dubious that the government shut down will fix anything, but if it does curb the harm of Obamacare, it will be worth losing my job.
How very fortunate, then, that you can't vote to spend somebody else's money.
It's worth noting here that the individual mandate of Obamacare is fairly unusual for federal law in that it actually applied a degree of coercion to force somebody else to spend their money. So in the establishment of that law via votes by Congress, we have an example of a vote to spend somebody else's money.
Local government often can require private parties with business before them to spend on construction or other activities while negotiating for zoning changes or infrastructure expansion. Those sorts of things are usually decided by vote as well.
So say, I wish to build an asphalt factory in an area. The board could require me to buy land around my property as a buffer for neighbors, upgrade the road to my property, or perhaps kick in to a traffic light sited at the entrance to my property.
The original question was "How do you punish a corporation?"
The US really does have laws where inanimate bits of property can be punished for crimes. Civil asset forfeiture targets the property not the person and it has a much lower burden of proof. So I suppose we could use that bit of law for the purpose at hand.
The only problem is that these laws happen to be horribly abusive, unconstitutional, and generates a massive conflict of interest (since for the war on drugs and some other stuff, the law enforcement agency gets to sell off the property and keep the proceeds).
So I guess I'm still where I was in this discussion. If you want to punish people for wrong doing, then do so. But if you're ranting about punishing "corporations" then you're not showing much interest in the task.
This video shows the beginning of this mess and I expected the GTA-style driving I saw in the video. I would say that the shooting shown in that video was warranted. If she had been killed at that point, I would have dropped the discussion.
My concern was based on news reports that claimed she was killed at the end of the chase after she had left her vehicle. At that point, she would be genuinely unarmed - at least according to the stories. That one needs looking into even given her reckless and criminal behavior to that point. Though I would, if I were on a jury in trial for these officers give a considerable benefit of the doubt because of this behavior.
Reading this PBS story, it appears that most (but not by any means all) of the law enforcement involved was Capitol police. My impression is that organization would have more appropriate training for the situation at hand. That eases my concerns a bit as well.
Your point was that the rest of the world is benefiting fine is just wrong.
Europe is part of the developed world. China is part of the world that is catching up.
The simple fact is that there is not enough work on the planet to support the large number of educated would-be professionals that want it.
An absurd claim since one can create more work. What is happening instead is that the developed world is discouraging employment of its educated, would-be professionals. China doesn't have this problem.
Such an observation is irrelevant to my comment. It's worth noting here that Europe has enjoyed a series of rather clever trade barriers, protecting their labor to some degree. China is in the process of overcoming these. For example, there are apparently a number of Chinese firms which meet the ISO standards for documented business processes and environmentalism.
Nah, it really is about the US population at this point. We need to keep in mind that globalization was a gradual thing. Most labor competition would have been internal to the US. This started to change in the 70s.
The "five dollar day" happened. Demand for labor increased during the Gilded Age, outpacing the growth in supply of labor. Eventually, the top industrialists had to offer substantially more in pay in order to attract and retain reliable workers.
Could be. I first heard about it from Reason.com and the writer attacked it on the basis that it restricted education choices, particularly, individually tailored learning. He did name some education businesses (Montessori and Waldorf) which would likely be affected adversely.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a constitutional amendment come out of this shutdown
You'd be the only one. I'd start looking for pod people, if that happened. It doesn't make sense to do so, especially since there's no other valid party to replace Congress.
It's also known that Obamacare violates several parts of the US Constitution, namely, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. And the US Supreme Court similarly illegally severed portions of the Obamacare law even though the Constitution didn't grant them the authority to do so. That latter point means that when the US Supreme Court found a portion of the law was unconstitutional, it should have overturn the entire law.
You speak of LAW when it suits you. It is legal to hold the REST OF THE GOVERNMENT hostage in order to block implementation of a law. It is not legal to violate the constitution.
There's a million things the federal government does that are useful.
Well, if there are two million things that the federal government does which are useless, then the original statement remains true. It's also worth noting here that some of those "million things" would be more usefully done by anyone other than the government.
I almost wish a real shutdown would happen so people like you would realize how many functions the government really does serve.
The problem we have currently is that there is a 20% minority (the Tea Party) that is laboring under the delusion that they are a majority, and therefore they think they have the right to coerce the rest of the nation into doing things their way.
Not much of a problem then. If we're going to talk about politics, I imagine things like the decades long declining competitiveness of US labor in the world (and the interesting political inability to address that issue) or the fact that entitlement spending is more than infrastructure spending, would be more useful issues to discuss. Complaining that there's 20% of the US voters who don't want to play ball with you just doesn't make that list.
It's also worth noting here that "getting in the way" is a fine US political tradition going back to well before the country was created. What are you going to give the Tea Partiers to get out of the way? If it's just empty words, then you might just have to live with a little disappointment.
It's increasingly becoming the case, especially in the US. Investment returns compared to work returns have skyrocketed, top marginal tax rates(and particular capital gains) have dropped absurdly, and mobility supporting institutions have been increasingly privatized, disestablished, or defunded.
I disagree. What is happening is that labor is just not as valuable as it used to be in the developed world, that is, your little corner of reality. That's the spur for all these imaginary problems. The rest of the world is benefiting just fine.
I wonder if he was advocating for Common Core at the time. It's an education standard which apparently attempt to create a system of K-12 education where schools are synched up so that a student could transfer across the country near seamlessly. Individual-based teaching, if it should take root on a large scale would screw that system up.
It predates Rush Limbaugh though it came in to usage shortly after the Second World War. My view on this is that it's a cheap rhetorical opportunity for me to say "fuck you" to a deserving group of people.
If this bothers you, then good. You are the kind of person I wish to bother by using this term.
I think the problem here is going to be that maybe they should have been trained for different scenarios. I don't see an idiot trying to drive into a barricade as all that different from an idiot playing real life GTA on the highway. Yes, those guys get shot and killed very often as well, but at least the cops try to take them alive first.
I know that there are some groups out there that think bombing the White House would be really cool. But if you're going to allow the public that close to the White House (or really to the National Mall as a whole), then you need to let up on the trigger even if that means the occasional bomb explosion (something which doesn't seem to happen very often).
It's also possible that taking that person alive would have given them valuable information. After all, if it is a group doing this, then you just captured one of the members alive. That's information you wouldn't have otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Youre losing your job because you're stupid
No, I'm losing my job because there is no business.
No, the supreme court found the Individual Mandate constitutional.
Again, they did not. They upheld it despite finding it unconstitutional.
Funny thing about the supreme court- they may have no authority to cancel part of a law, but they also have no authority to say a law is constitutional or not.
It's an obvious implied power. What's the point of having a supreme court deciding matters of law, when they can't consider the most fundamental aspects of law and how they apply, namely, the Constitution? Deciding to cancel part of a law which Congress gave no provision for doing so is usurping the power of Congress.
Boehner is about as UNDEMOCRATIC as can be. This country is based on Democracy.. you rather live under some other system? MOVE.
I see you don't get it. This is democracy in action. People will not always agree with you on stuff and they'll often get creative in how they try to push their interests.
The US government is so absurdly screwed up -- giving state governers the electoral powers they have was idiotic. All aspects of elections should be run by completely non-partisan groups with no interfering with the state or federal political parties. From identifying districts to running the election itself.
I nominate myself as the sole non-partisan group needed to carry out this great mission and promise to execute my numerous foes, both real and imagined, as humanely and efficiently as I can given the unfortunate situation.
That same episode of the daily show had another good factoid -- 90% incumbency rate, 10% approval rate. It's broken.
You forget the most important aspect. Everyone votes for a single representation and a couple of senators. The rest of that august body doesn't serve your interests nor should.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled two parts of Obamacare were unconstitutional. They even overturned one of those two.
You're saying that they ruled it a "tax".
That is correct. The Supreme Court also ruled it wasn't a tax. Justice Roberts was the person who voted both ways.
They cannot make up a paradox like that
They did.
Congress passed it. The president signed it. It went before the Supreme Court and passed judicial review. It's the law, designed and built by democracy. The Republican party should respect that.
Just like the other parties above "respected" the Constitution? That's hypocrisy to demand of us to respect only laws that you want.
The mess should be reversed. It'll be cheaper and far less suffering to do it now than in twenty years or a century. Then we could do what Obama failed to do back in 2009 and craft some sort of health care law that is an actual reform of the industry.
ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
Actually, the Supreme Court noted that two sections, the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion that burdened states were unconstitutional. They upheld the former only. The latter was severed from the law despite the Supreme Court having no constitutional authority to do so (they've done this before, the precedent is some time ago).
(I got layed off today. There my Hope and Change right up my ass.)
Shortly for me. But I was close to end of season anyway. I'm dubious that the government shut down will fix anything, but if it does curb the harm of Obamacare, it will be worth losing my job.
The selfish pricks agreed to being taxed
Show where this was done. Just because someone was forced to pay taxes doesn't mean that they agreed to it.
How very fortunate, then, that you can't vote to spend somebody else's money.
It's worth noting here that the individual mandate of Obamacare is fairly unusual for federal law in that it actually applied a degree of coercion to force somebody else to spend their money. So in the establishment of that law via votes by Congress, we have an example of a vote to spend somebody else's money.
Local government often can require private parties with business before them to spend on construction or other activities while negotiating for zoning changes or infrastructure expansion. Those sorts of things are usually decided by vote as well.
So say, I wish to build an asphalt factory in an area. The board could require me to buy land around my property as a buffer for neighbors, upgrade the road to my property, or perhaps kick in to a traffic light sited at the entrance to my property.
The original question was "How do you punish a corporation?"
The US really does have laws where inanimate bits of property can be punished for crimes. Civil asset forfeiture targets the property not the person and it has a much lower burden of proof. So I suppose we could use that bit of law for the purpose at hand.
The only problem is that these laws happen to be horribly abusive, unconstitutional, and generates a massive conflict of interest (since for the war on drugs and some other stuff, the law enforcement agency gets to sell off the property and keep the proceeds).
So I guess I'm still where I was in this discussion. If you want to punish people for wrong doing, then do so. But if you're ranting about punishing "corporations" then you're not showing much interest in the task.
This video shows the beginning of this mess and I expected the GTA-style driving I saw in the video. I would say that the shooting shown in that video was warranted. If she had been killed at that point, I would have dropped the discussion.
My concern was based on news reports that claimed she was killed at the end of the chase after she had left her vehicle. At that point, she would be genuinely unarmed - at least according to the stories. That one needs looking into even given her reckless and criminal behavior to that point. Though I would, if I were on a jury in trial for these officers give a considerable benefit of the doubt because of this behavior.
Reading this PBS story, it appears that most (but not by any means all) of the law enforcement involved was Capitol police. My impression is that organization would have more appropriate training for the situation at hand. That eases my concerns a bit as well.
Your point was that the rest of the world is benefiting fine is just wrong.
Europe is part of the developed world. China is part of the world that is catching up.
The simple fact is that there is not enough work on the planet to support the large number of educated would-be professionals that want it.
An absurd claim since one can create more work. What is happening instead is that the developed world is discouraging employment of its educated, would-be professionals. China doesn't have this problem.
Such an observation is irrelevant to my comment. It's worth noting here that Europe has enjoyed a series of rather clever trade barriers, protecting their labor to some degree. China is in the process of overcoming these. For example, there are apparently a number of Chinese firms which meet the ISO standards for documented business processes and environmentalism.
Nah, it really is about the US population at this point. We need to keep in mind that globalization was a gradual thing. Most labor competition would have been internal to the US. This started to change in the 70s.
The "five dollar day" happened. Demand for labor increased during the Gilded Age, outpacing the growth in supply of labor. Eventually, the top industrialists had to offer substantially more in pay in order to attract and retain reliable workers.
Could be. I first heard about it from Reason.com and the writer attacked it on the basis that it restricted education choices, particularly, individually tailored learning. He did name some education businesses (Montessori and Waldorf) which would likely be affected adversely.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a constitutional amendment come out of this shutdown
You'd be the only one. I'd start looking for pod people, if that happened. It doesn't make sense to do so, especially since there's no other valid party to replace Congress.
It's also known that Obamacare violates several parts of the US Constitution, namely, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. And the US Supreme Court similarly illegally severed portions of the Obamacare law even though the Constitution didn't grant them the authority to do so. That latter point means that when the US Supreme Court found a portion of the law was unconstitutional, it should have overturn the entire law.
You speak of LAW when it suits you. It is legal to hold the REST OF THE GOVERNMENT hostage in order to block implementation of a law. It is not legal to violate the constitution.
There's a million things the federal government does that are useful.
Well, if there are two million things that the federal government does which are useless, then the original statement remains true. It's also worth noting here that some of those "million things" would be more usefully done by anyone other than the government.
I almost wish a real shutdown would happen so people like you would realize how many functions the government really does serve.
Careful, we might decide we like it.
The problem we have currently is that there is a 20% minority (the Tea Party) that is laboring under the delusion that they are a majority, and therefore they think they have the right to coerce the rest of the nation into doing things their way.
Not much of a problem then. If we're going to talk about politics, I imagine things like the decades long declining competitiveness of US labor in the world (and the interesting political inability to address that issue) or the fact that entitlement spending is more than infrastructure spending, would be more useful issues to discuss. Complaining that there's 20% of the US voters who don't want to play ball with you just doesn't make that list.
It's also worth noting here that "getting in the way" is a fine US political tradition going back to well before the country was created. What are you going to give the Tea Partiers to get out of the way? If it's just empty words, then you might just have to live with a little disappointment.
It would be a sad day we would have to explain to later generations that we missed a launch window because of a childish fight of some politicians.
The good news is that you don't have to explain a thing. If they're not complete idiots, they'll understand because they'll be doing the same thing.
What sort of people complains about such a thing in the first place? Rocks and glass houses.
It's increasingly becoming the case, especially in the US. Investment returns compared to work returns have skyrocketed, top marginal tax rates(and particular capital gains) have dropped absurdly, and mobility supporting institutions have been increasingly privatized, disestablished, or defunded.
I disagree. What is happening is that labor is just not as valuable as it used to be in the developed world, that is, your little corner of reality. That's the spur for all these imaginary problems. The rest of the world is benefiting just fine.
I wonder if he was advocating for Common Core at the time. It's an education standard which apparently attempt to create a system of K-12 education where schools are synched up so that a student could transfer across the country near seamlessly. Individual-based teaching, if it should take root on a large scale would screw that system up.
It predates Rush Limbaugh though it came in to usage shortly after the Second World War. My view on this is that it's a cheap rhetorical opportunity for me to say "fuck you" to a deserving group of people.
If this bothers you, then good. You are the kind of person I wish to bother by using this term.
I think the problem here is going to be that maybe they should have been trained for different scenarios. I don't see an idiot trying to drive into a barricade as all that different from an idiot playing real life GTA on the highway. Yes, those guys get shot and killed very often as well, but at least the cops try to take them alive first.
I know that there are some groups out there that think bombing the White House would be really cool. But if you're going to allow the public that close to the White House (or really to the National Mall as a whole), then you need to let up on the trigger even if that means the occasional bomb explosion (something which doesn't seem to happen very often).
It's also possible that taking that person alive would have given them valuable information. After all, if it is a group doing this, then you just captured one of the members alive. That's information you wouldn't have otherwise.