Then you're blind. Links are always in bold.
So you really have no understanding of the case at all. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that the Fed law was criminal. Whether or not the Fed law could stand was solely a function of whether it had the power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. That's because the federal government has no inherent police powers. They can only exercise those powers if it's incidental to another power -- in this case the power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, your reasoning was completely circular and without merit.
The nature of the law was different than the on this case, ducky. You can keep pretending I was arguing something other than I was, but it will never mean that I was.
:2wave:
Tell me you don't actually have a law degree. Or tell me you do -- I wouldn't believe you anyway. :lol:
:roll: Pfff. Couldn't possibly care less what you believe. But at yours, did they not teach you how to maintain a coherent and consistent point throughout an argument? If not, I'd ask for your tuition back. If so, were you absent on those days?
Or is equivocation and weaseling simply the style of argumentation you plan to employ in your work?
Anyway, if you don't believe it, then it must sting pretty badly, getting schooled on Bush v. Gore.
Skipping the repetitive junk....
It's
all been repetitive, tedious, and tiresome, sparky. "But but but . . . is not!!!" is pretty much all I've gotten from you for the last several go-arounds.
The Ryan plan, as the article I cited pointed out, demonstrates how the mandate is funtionally the same as a tax, which is obviously relevant to the AIA argument. As you obviously didn't read ... or understand ... it, I'll give you the nutshell version: Ryan's plan imposes a large tax on everyone, which can be eliminated via a tax credit if someone can show that they have health insurance. That, in effect, imposes a larger penalty on the uninsured than the AHCA penalty, "forcing" everyone to buy insurance in exactly the same way (except moreso).
Yes. I understood that perfectly fine. It's still absolutely, 100% irrelevant to the disposition case, and to any word I've said, thus, I don't give a ****. People can propose similar laws all day long; it has no bearing on this case and has no bearing on anything I said. It's a proposal, nothing more, period. It has no effect on anything, at all. And if it works the same, then hey, it should go down in flames, too.
What, have you got it in your head that I'm some kind of Republican, that Ryan is my hero, and I support his proposal? Therefore I have a duty to reconcile it in some way? Get ready, because you're going to be hearing this objection quite a bit if you try this kind of argument in court: "assumes facts not in evidence."
