How many cases has the Supreme Court found were not within the regulation of commerce? I'll give you hint. The answer is essentially one.
As an aside, that wasn't the real holding in the ObamaCare case (upheld as a tax). But the decisions of Wickard and progeny have made acts of commerce construed by doing as little as operating a vehicle. If you think decisions haven't been made that are essentially a compelling act, you need to relook at the cases. You are engaging in commerce by pretty much everything you do.
That is non-responsive. You and I both know that a finding by the court that someone is, in fact, engaging in commerce, is very different from the court compelling or forcing them to do something, which was your claim. That assertion cannot be defended and it would surprise me if you didn't know that.
How many cases has the Supreme Court found were not within the regulation of commerce? I'll give you hint. The answer is essentially one.
As an aside, that wasn't the real holding in the ObamaCare case (upheld as a tax). But the decisions of Wickard and progeny have made acts of commerce construed by doing as little as operating a vehicle. If you think decisions haven't been made that are essentially a compelling act, you need to relook at the cases. You are engaging in commerce by pretty much everything you do.
That is non-responsive. You and I both know that a finding by the court that someone is, in fact, engaging in commerce, is very different from the court compelling or forcing them to do something, which was your claim. That assertion cannot be defended and it would surprise me if you didn't know that.
That is non-responsive. You and I both know that a finding by the court that someone is, in fact, engaging in commerce, is very different from the court compelling or forcing them to do something, which was your claim. That assertion cannot be defended and it would surprise me if you didn't know that.
Were that the central holding of this case, you may have an argument. It was, however, not.
With that being said, upholding laws where people are compelled to engage in commerce (like travelling) by nature of the act isn't a whole lot different from a law compelling people to the same.
That is non-responsive. You and I both know that a finding by the court that someone is, in fact, engaging in commerce, is very different from the court compelling or forcing them to do something, which was your claim. That assertion cannot be defended and it would surprise me if you didn't know that.
Were that the central holding of this case, you may have an argument. It was, however, not.
With that being said, upholding laws where people are compelled to engage in commerce (like travelling) by nature of the act isn't a whole lot different from a law compelling people to the same.
DJ here is a question I have for you ...the statute that Congress wrote and signed by the president ..declares Obamacare to be a requirement with a penalty...Judge Roberts determined it to be a tax not a penalty..
But,the Obamacare law was not rewritten to say it is a tax..so in effect the Obama administration in trying to enforce a law that says penalty and as written is unconstitutional...no?
Should not this law have been returned back to Congress and rewritten to say it is tax and than that reworded law voted on again by Congress?
DJ here is a question I have for you ...the statute that Congress wrote and signed by the president ..declares Obamacare to be a requirement with a penalty...Judge Roberts determined it to be a tax not a penalty..
But,the Obamacare law was not rewritten to say it is a tax..so in effect the Obama administration in trying to enforce a law that says penalty and as written is unconstitutional...no?
Should not this law have been returned back to Congress and rewritten to say it is tax and than that reworded law voted on again by Congress?
Were that the central holding of this case, you may have an argument. It was, however, not.
With that being said, upholding laws where people are compelled to engage in commerce (like travelling) by nature of the act isn't a whole lot different from a law compelling people to the same.
Central holding of what case ? This is all nonsense. I repeat--the Supreme Court does not compel people to do anything. Not travel. Not wheat growing. Not anything. They review the constitutionality of laws. A simple "I misspoke" response would be more impressive.
Were that the central holding of this case, you may have an argument. It was, however, not.
With that being said, upholding laws where people are compelled to engage in commerce (like travelling) by nature of the act isn't a whole lot different from a law compelling people to the same.
Central holding of what case ? This is all nonsense. I repeat--the Supreme Court does not compel people to do anything. Not travel. Not wheat growing. Not anything. They review the constitutionality of laws. A simple "I misspoke" response would be more impressive.
Central holding of what case ? This is all nonsense. I repeat--the Supreme Court does not compel people to do anything. Not travel. Not wheat growing. Not anything. They review the constitutionality of laws. A simple "I misspoke" response would be more impressive.
Of course the SC doesn't write the laws. If you are trying to debate semantics, that's silly. Its like when right wingers criticize the Court for allowing abortions. The Court doesn't 'allow' abortions so to speak, but in a way they do by allowing the laws.
Central holding of what case ? This is all nonsense. I repeat--the Supreme Court does not compel people to do anything. Not travel. Not wheat growing. Not anything. They review the constitutionality of laws. A simple "I misspoke" response would be more impressive.
Of course the SC doesn't write the laws. If you are trying to debate semantics, that's silly. Its like when right wingers criticize the Court for allowing abortions. The Court doesn't 'allow' abortions so to speak, but in a way they do by allowing the laws.
DJ here is a question I have for you ...the statute that Congress wrote and signed by the president ..declares Obamacare to be a requirement with a penalty...Judge Roberts determined it to be a tax not a penalty..
But,the Obamacare law was not rewritten to say it is a tax..so in effect the Obama administration in trying to enforce a law that says penalty and as written is unconstitutional...no?
Should not this law have been returned back to Congress and rewritten to say it is tax and than that reworded law voted on again by Congress?
The only time the Court will do that is if they find the act cannot be construed as constitutional, under the theory of constitutional avoidance.
DJ here is a question I have for you ...the statute that Congress wrote and signed by the president ..declares Obamacare to be a requirement with a penalty...Judge Roberts determined it to be a tax not a penalty..
But,the Obamacare law was not rewritten to say it is a tax..so in effect the Obama administration in trying to enforce a law that says penalty and as written is unconstitutional...no?
Should not this law have been returned back to Congress and rewritten to say it is tax and than that reworded law voted on again by Congress?
The only time the Court will do that is if they find the act cannot be construed as constitutional, under the theory of constitutional avoidance.
Of course the SC doesn't write the laws. If you are trying to debate semantics, that's silly. Its like when right wingers criticize the Court for allowing abortions. The Court doesn't 'allow' abortions so to speak, but in a way they do by allowing the laws.
In response to the ACA Supreme Court opinion, you stated that the Court has always been a unit that compels people to do things. Those are your words. And under your " compulsion " theory, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and the rest have been "compelling people to get abortions since Roe met Wade ". Finding that the state cannot restrict abortions is a FAR CRY from compelling people to have an abortion. It is not semantics. It is a statement that you made that is absolutely false. And you know it.
Of course the SC doesn't write the laws. If you are trying to debate semantics, that's silly. Its like when right wingers criticize the Court for allowing abortions. The Court doesn't 'allow' abortions so to speak, but in a way they do by allowing the laws.
In response to the ACA Supreme Court opinion, you stated that the Court has always been a unit that compels people to do things. Those are your words. And under your " compulsion " theory, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and the rest have been "compelling people to get abortions since Roe met Wade ". Finding that the state cannot restrict abortions is a FAR CRY from compelling people to have an abortion. It is not semantics. It is a statement that you made that is absolutely false. And you know it.
In response to the ACA Supreme Court opinion, you stated that the Court has always been a unit that compels people to do things. Those are your words. And under your " compulsion " theory, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and the rest have been "compelling people to get abortions since Roe met Wade ". Finding that the state cannot restrict abortions is a FAR CRY from compelling people to have an abortion. It is not semantics. It is a statement that you made that is absolutely false. And you know it.
I remember having these bizarre conversations with a poster by the name of SteveShane.
Of course, the Supreme Court technically doesn't compell anyone to do anything except if it directs a lower court on remand. When I use verbage with the Court as an entity engaging in an action, it is simply done based on its assent to legislative activity (or finding it unconstitutional as well).
The transportation example I used is analogous to ACA because the SC is upholding acts that have specific requirements for Americans (and yes, they both compell people to pay a fee).
I never said the Court compelled abortions, rather I used that as the example to show how the Court's actions are often verbalized as if it is they who are issuing the directives/restrictions.
Should you want to debate the actual Act or the SC's use/misuse of the Commerce Clause to uphold laws, I welcome it and enjoy it. This debate over verbiage is silly and juvenile.
In response to the ACA Supreme Court opinion, you stated that the Court has always been a unit that compels people to do things. Those are your words. And under your " compulsion " theory, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and the rest have been "compelling people to get abortions since Roe met Wade ". Finding that the state cannot restrict abortions is a FAR CRY from compelling people to have an abortion. It is not semantics. It is a statement that you made that is absolutely false. And you know it.
I remember having these bizarre conversations with a poster by the name of SteveShane.
Of course, the Supreme Court technically doesn't compell anyone to do anything except if it directs a lower court on remand. When I use verbage with the Court as an entity engaging in an action, it is simply done based on its assent to legislative activity (or finding it unconstitutional as well).
The transportation example I used is analogous to ACA because the SC is upholding acts that have specific requirements for Americans (and yes, they both compell people to pay a fee).
I never said the Court compelled abortions, rather I used that as the example to show how the Court's actions are often verbalized as if it is they who are issuing the directives/restrictions.
Should you want to debate the actual Act or the SC's use/misuse of the Commerce Clause to uphold laws, I welcome it and enjoy it. This debate over verbiage is silly and juvenile.
I remember having these bizarre conversations with a poster by the name of SteveShane.
Of course, the Supreme Court technically doesn't compell anyone to do anything except if it directs a lower court on remand. When I use verbage with the Court as an entity engaging in an action, it is simply done based on its assent to legislative activity (or finding it unconstitutional as well).
The transportation example I used is analogous to ACA because the SC is upholding acts that have specific requirements for Americans (and yes, they both compell people to pay a fee).
I never said the Court compelled abortions, rather I used that as the example to show how the Court's actions are often verbalized as if it is they who are issuing the directives/restrictions.
Should you want to debate the actual Act or the SC's use/misuse of the Commerce Clause to uphold laws, I welcome it and enjoy it. This debate over verbiage is silly and juvenile.
I'd have had more respect for you had you been willing to acknowledge an obvious misstatement. I have no interest in debating the commerce clause. Nearly all of that law is well settled. And, debating anything with someone who takes such bold license with words and issues is not something I care to do. Good day.
I remember having these bizarre conversations with a poster by the name of SteveShane.
Of course, the Supreme Court technically doesn't compell anyone to do anything except if it directs a lower court on remand. When I use verbage with the Court as an entity engaging in an action, it is simply done based on its assent to legislative activity (or finding it unconstitutional as well).
The transportation example I used is analogous to ACA because the SC is upholding acts that have specific requirements for Americans (and yes, they both compell people to pay a fee).
I never said the Court compelled abortions, rather I used that as the example to show how the Court's actions are often verbalized as if it is they who are issuing the directives/restrictions.
Should you want to debate the actual Act or the SC's use/misuse of the Commerce Clause to uphold laws, I welcome it and enjoy it. This debate over verbiage is silly and juvenile.
I'd have had more respect for you had you been willing to acknowledge an obvious misstatement. I have no interest in debating the commerce clause. Nearly all of that law is well settled. And, debating anything with someone who takes such bold license with words and issues is not something I care to do. Good day.
I'd have had more respect for you had you been willing to acknowledge an obvious misstatement. I have no interest in debating the commerce clause. Nearly all of that law is well settled. And, debating anything with someone who takes such bold license with words and issues is not something I care to do. Good day.
All of this because I used the words 'Court compells' as opposed to 'Court uphold legislation which compells.'
I'd have had more respect for you had you been willing to acknowledge an obvious misstatement. I have no interest in debating the commerce clause. Nearly all of that law is well settled. And, debating anything with someone who takes such bold license with words and issues is not something I care to do. Good day.
All of this because I used the words 'Court compells' as opposed to 'Court uphold legislation which compells.'
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.