(03-05-2014 09:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: (03-04-2014 11:46 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: (03-04-2014 02:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: The "fine" in the law as written is Constitutional under the Federal theory of taxation.
Perhaps clearing the wording up helps.
So "fines" are now "taxes". Nice new way to steal the fruits of our labors. Just wonderful....
Changing the words just makes it more tragic...Dixie.
I think a lot of folks are getting hung up on the wording because of the politics of it. Unfortunately for some, the politics aren't part of the Court's review.
You can call it a tax or a fine under the theory used. The theory of taxation used merely looks to analogize. The "fine" mentioned in the ACA has the purpose, intent, and effect of a tax therefore it is like a tax, or any other levy used, wether it truly is one is not the question. Thus, for purposes of the "fine's" Constitutionality it is treated LIKE a tax because it falls under that umbrella.
Still, it is not being called a tax in the strictest sense. So, arguing it is X or is Y is outside the question posed and answered. What it is exactly is political in nature.
ROTFLOL! After I stopped laughing at this post, I thought of a cat and a dog. Since the both the cat and the dog make sounds when they open their mouths, by your logic, we can now say all cats actually bark, since a sound is a sound and what it is exactly is political in nature. A rose by any other name, but the court is supposed to determine what it
is and
not what it was
supposed to be.
If you read my posts on this, you will find I have not disagreed that if the law had been formulated correctly it would have passed muster with the court and rightly so as constitutional. The problem was and is that this law was never formulated correctly, because to do that would have meant that it would never have received the necessary votes to pass the proper House of legislation it was supposed to have originated in.
This fact is the very basis for one of the suits on the legislation saying that: "well, if it
is in fact a TAX though it was not written that way, and not intended to be (theory of taxation is not relevant because it was not intended or written to be a tax--see the above posted discussions from others on the differences in taxes and fees) then it must have to have been originated in the House of representatives to be Constitutional, which it did not. Therefore, the law as interpreted (many would assert "changed", but whatever) means that it was not Constitutional because procedurally it was mishandled.
HOD,
if your position was correct and it does not matter whether it was a tax or a fee (which is a very dangerous precedent to wish to assert) then you are still wrong in that all taxes must originate in the House of Representatives which this was not, so it is therefore unconstitutional on those grounds.
And
if the opposing position is correct, that taxes and fees are different and that this law was written as a fee and later changed to be argued as a tax, then it is unconstitutional on the basis that the legislation, as written is not constitutional since the court did assert (provide guidance in its opinion explaining its decision) that a fee in this law would not be considered constitutional.
Either way, HOD, your position is incorrect.
With any income to speak of it is hard to imagine not having to pay any number of fees, fines, or licensing charges through out ones life.
