I should have put a :wink: in there. ; )
Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
I should have put a :wink: in there. ; )
For all of you who don't know....
Federal Tax revenue, according to the Constitution, is legally spent ONLY when it's for the "general welfare".... ie, national defense... federal courts, interstate highways, etc.
It's unconstitutional for the Feds to collect taxes from the populace and then distribute those funds to specific groups. IOW... ALL FORMS OF FEDERAL WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION AND OR SUBSIDIES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL... INCLUDING ODUMBOCARE... not that anyone cares.
Wealth Redistribution... via welfare, food stamps, and other subsidies... are (legally) state government functions.
Then again... As stated by one high-up muckety-muck (if I recall correctly, Henry Kissinger)... "The illegal we do immediately. The Unconstitutional takes a little longer.)
Federal Tax revenue, according to the Constitution, is legally spent ONLY when it's for the "general welfare".... ie, national defense... federal courts, interstate highways, etc.
It's unconstitutional for the Feds to collect taxes from the populace and then distribute those funds to specific groups. IOW... ALL FORMS OF FEDERAL WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION AND OR SUBSIDIES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL... INCLUDING ODUMBOCARE... not that anyone cares.
Wealth Redistribution... via welfare, food stamps, and other subsidies... are (legally) state government functions.
Then again... As stated by one high-up muckety-muck (if I recall correctly, Henry Kissinger)... "The illegal we do immediately. The Unconstitutional takes a little longer.)
"We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance," Judge Thomas Griffith said Tuesday. "At least until states that wish to can set up exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly."
And it says this where?
I think he put you on ignore awhile back.
I'm sure I'm not the only inquiring person who wants to know.
Article 1 section 8. And yes, Congress is supposed to be restricted to the enumerated powers listed in that section, and only to tax for these purposes (according to Madison, Jefferson and logic), if the govt wants more power then the right way to do it is through Amendment. Unfortunately that ship sailed a long time ago and now they do whatever the fuck they want anyway.
Those enumerated powers including "provid[ing] for the . . . general Welfare . . .." Whether it is limited to defense and highways and so forth is a matter of interpretation.
LOL! Right, a matter of interpretation. It's quite simple and detailed - if it's listed, it's the responsibility of the Federal Government. If not, it's the States'. The general welfare of the United States is referring to the welfare of the sovereign nation, not the individual welfare of each of it's inhabitants.
Here's some feedback from someone I know that's well connected in DC.
The thinking around here is that, since it was a split decision, the full DC Circuit will hear it en banc and since the court has been stacked with liberal Obama appointees as a result of Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option last year on judicial nominations, the full court will overturn it. However, since that decision will also be split, that gives the US Supreme Court (and John Roberts in particular!!) a chance to take the case and redeem itself/himself.
The thinking around here is that, since it was a split decision, the full DC Circuit will hear it en banc and since the court has been stacked with liberal Obama appointees as a result of Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option last year on judicial nominations, the full court will overturn it. However, since that decision will also be split, that gives the US Supreme Court (and John Roberts in particular!!) a chance to take the case and redeem itself/himself.