quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yup, you got that right, and therefore they will not pay the penalty, now you are catching the drift, you are almost at a gradeschool level of comprehension in this matter.

quote:

The original commerce clause has no prohibition on the government forcing you to buy something you don't want.....so that argument is puerile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom

quote:

Because fifty percent of Americans pay no taxes now.

You do realize that 27% of the population is made up of children and 13% of the population is over 65 right? So this 50% of the population that don't pay taxes that certain groups keep talking about is made up mostly of people who are outside of the generally accepted working age group. I claim my kids as dependents. I pay their taxes. I don't consider them freeloaders.

ETA: Sorry Ron, I just saw you already covered this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The General Welfare clause was not intended to mean what liberals are claiming, so PPACA isn't a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal Government. And, since it's not an enumerated power (nor is it a necessary and proper extension of an enumerated power), the Feds can't lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

And the 2nd Amendment was never intended to allow crazy lunatics free and uncontrollable access to muskets that could fire 30 musket balls in under 3.4 seconds and being reloaded with another 30 musket balls 8 seconds later. In fact, they never intended anyone to have access to a musket; only those that belonged to 'A well regulated militia...' whose purpose was "...to the security of a free state..."; not for some phony 'neighborhood watch' idiot wasting a teenager with a bag of skittles and a can of ice tea!

quote:

With the historical context set above, a look at the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are appropriate.

These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias...

Both contemporary interpretations are correct, in a way. As illustrated in the first section, the amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun. The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?

quote:

If conservatives are going to be 'liberal' with the viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment, Liberals can be 'liberal' with the ACA. One thing the founding father did understand is that as the country grew, so to should the constitution. As we better understood ourselves, the land beneath our feet, and what it meant to be a free nation....the constitution would grew with the nation. If we applied your view point that the constutution is unable to change and it is in fact, set in stone, then we have created 17 amendments that shouldnt be there. Why not go tell all the women they are now second class citizens and the blacks they are 3/5th of a white person.

quote:

The goverment back in the late 18th century was to be a limited goverment for two reasons: 1) They didnt like goverments in Europe lording over the peons without mercy and 2) The USA wasn't exactly sitting on any huge deposits of gold, silver or precious stones (aka, they were dirt poor). Compare that to the USA of 2012, and it has a budget worth $3.2 trillion dollars. More than any nation in Europe's budget. Bigger than....ANY....other nation on the planet! If the foundering fathers were alive today, would they wish to see fellow Americans suffer when there was an easy solution at hand? They were God fearing men (well, most of them) that believed fellow Americans should take care of one another as per the 'Good Book'. The founding fathers didn't believe in a standing army for the country, and yet, we have the world's most ass-kicking military for the last seventy years!

quote:

There is no way the founding fathers could even forsee the future with perfect accuracy. Nor any of the obstacles we would face as a nation. However, they did state the US Constitution could be changed to keep up with said times. If most Americans feel 'Provide for the General Welfare' means 'Take care of Americans with good health coverage', so be it.

quote:

I'm curious DS. Which side of the health care 'fence' are you on?
A) The side that says we should have the best laws and rules to govern good health care for all Americans.
B) Allow only 'for profit' organizations to 'tax' the ill or eldarly and laugh all the way to the bank regardless of people's misery.
I wonder what the founding fathers would say.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

You have miss-understood the Constitution. It is positive not negative in that it specifies what you can do and only what you can do. It need not even attempt to do "though shalt nots" because the Founders believed in limited Goverment and so it specifies what powers the Goverment can have and not what they cannot have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since I've already posted the portions of the 2014 provisions that show that's not the case, and you simply chose to pretend it doesn't exist, I think you're not interested in understanding it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since I've already posted the portions of the 2014 provisions that show that's not the case, and you simply chose to pretend it doesn't exist, I think you're not interested in understanding it.

Are you seriously suggesting that a law requiring ALL Amercians to buy insurance or face penalties does not have a civil incarceration option to provide the teeth to inforce this law? That somehow Obama just pretended to require "ALL" Americans to buy the insurance and that those who cannot will just get a pass and a letter saying "it's Okay, we did not mean it".

Interesting. Are you seriously suggesting that when one must pay a fine currenlty under civil law that when you do not pay that fine then nothing happens?

I think you have intentionally denied what is basic to civil law fines and so need not be proscribed in the Obamacare law, for political reasons I suppose. After all, who would want such a thing if you were poor and subject to "fines" you could not pay?

Nice try.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The self-styled constitutional scholars of the right are an interesting (if extremely uninformed) bunch, ain't they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The self-styled constitutional scholars of the right are an interesting (if extremely uninformed) bunch, ain't they?

quote:

You should read it some time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

You have miss-understood the Constitution. It is positive not negative in that it specifies what you can do and only what you can do. It need not even attempt to do "though shalt nots" because the Founders believed in limited Goverment and so it specifies what powers the Goverment can have and not what they cannot have.

You have misunderstood spelling. And this is a silly argument.

The very first words in the very first amendment of the Bills of Rights, passed right on the heels of the Constitution, all the Founders still around, starts with:

"Congress shall make no law . . . "

That's pretty clearly what they cannot do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom

quote:

Because fifty percent of Americans pay no taxes now.

You do realize that 27% of the population is made up of children and 13% of the population is over 65 right? So this 50% of the population that don't pay taxes that certain groups keep talking about is made up mostly of people who are outside of the generally accepted working age group. I claim my kids as dependents. I pay their taxes. I don't consider them freeloaders.

ETA: Sorry Ron, I just saw you already covered this.

40-50 percent of working age Americans. Nice try.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The self-styled constitutional scholars of the right are an interesting (if extremely uninformed) bunch, ain't they?

Are you asking me? I'm not a scholar but I do know the Consitution and Amercian history as do many Americans. You should read it some time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
When you buy health insurance you get a tax credit. Am I the only one who sees this?

See, now you're not telling the whole story, here.

quote:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. But, only for the enumerated purposes. Congress can't just collect a tax simply because it wants to.

The General Welfare clause was not intended to mean what liberals are claiming, so PPACA isn't a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal Government. And, since it's not an enumerated power (nor is it a necessary and proper extension of an enumerated power), the Feds can't lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

No, Arturas is complaining that 50% of Americans are so poor they don't pay income taxes, while ignoring the fact that they still pay FICA taxes, FICAMED taxes, Gas taxes, state taxes, county taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, sin taxes, luxury taxes, etc.
Therefore they don't pay taxes...

Let me remind those posting here that the OP suggests a credit for buying insurance. Next, let me educate you in how credits work. Credits pertain only to Income Tax. In other words, theree are no sales tax credits, credits agains sales tax or county taxes or anything else mentioned. So, meantioning sales and other taxes has no bearing on the subject. Naturally. But it is a good dodge for a minute or two.

So, back to the OP, what do we do with those who pay no taxes and therefore will have nothing to credit?