Do We Still Need the SCOTUS to protect the constitution?
Is probably a better question.
We already have lobbyists and politicians to shred it.
No...it serves no real purpose.
Yes..we must have something to protect our Constitution.
We only need it when they agree with my guys.
It's not that simple...I'll explain
The SCOTUS should briefly review each law as it is passed, BEFORE it is signed into law, to assure it meets constitutional muster. The big problem is that once billions are spent that the SCOTUS is very reluctant to make a purely "legal" or "constitutional" assessment of the law, a perfect example is that the ENTIRE DOEd, the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal dept. is NOT based on ANY constitutional power, as education appears NOWHERE as a constitutional federal power, in fact, there are NO federal schools, just a bunch of income redistribution and mandates placed upon the state's schools. The states, recieving ample federal "bribes" will not sue over this, as they are willling to accept the "free" funding as long as the "strings attached" are not too bad to abide.
Once ANY federal dept./agency is started it morphs into some ever larger beast given more money and power every year with NO review at all, either by congress or the SCOTUS. The PPACA is a prime example of smoke and mirrors law, that even in "outline" form is over 2,400 pages of nonsense, much of it describing panels, committees and boards that will "supply details later" making it virtually impossible to define its EVENTUAL true cost/effect on anyone. This law should have been rejected on that basis ALONE.
We have now established that the federal gov't may levy a tax (or fine or fee) upon any citizen (or business) for NOT complying with an unfunded mandate to purchase gov't specified PRIVATE goods and services. This has NO constituional basis and certainly no precedent. Even a moron can see the difference between taxing (or exempting from taxation) an ACTION TAKEN or a CONDIDTION MET and taxing an ACTION NOT TAKEN or CONDITION NOT MET.
Allowing a tax break for having minor children, is FAR different from assessing a tax on those that DO NOT have minor children. Some argue that the net effect is the same, but that is NOT so, that is akin to saying instead of allowing an extra personal exemption for those 65 or older we will subtract a personal exemption for all those under 65. The amount of tax money involved is the same, but all can see a clear difference in that instead of 2% getting a $2K tax break 98% got a $2K tax increase, and for something entirely out of their control, their date of birth.
The PPACA law says, in effect, those that have employer provided medical care insurance, get not only that tax free benefit in their job compensation package, but that those that DO NOT must pay a tax to help subsidize those that DO; they are, in essense, being taxed twice ONLY because their job compensation package includes only salary and other benefits. This law, if made "right" would expose the great LIE of PPACA, those already rewarded with FREE medical care insurance provided as a job benefit (and, by extension, those INSURANCE COMPANIES that now profit from them), will get extra rewards by gov't mandated taxation of those that do not choose to buy (OR provide to their employees) "private" medical insurance.
Since the taxation rate on employer provided medical care insurance was already ZERO, (for both the employer and the employee) it was IMPOSSIBLE to go any lower so Obama, and the left, decided to tax those (both employer and emploee) now NOT getting that tax break, for simply NOT getting that tax break. Yes they did!
Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-02-12 at 09:30 AM.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
without the SCOTUS, we will become a dictatorship.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius