decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

This is a crossing of a line | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
This is a crossing of a line
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 03:00 AM EDT
As a retired Federal Civil Servent, I have been under
ObamaCare for more than 40 years. If you will recall, he
stated that his goal was to extend to everyone the kind of
insurance system enjoyed by Congress.

Under this setup, companies compete to offer affordable
plans. The individual has the option to choose among the
various offerings to select the plan/cost that best fits
their needs.

What congress passed is a long way from the kind of plan
they personally enjoy, but it is a good start. The
insurance industry is afraid of Obamacare because it works.

Obamacare was patterned after Romeycare, which works (62% of
those entolled like it).

Remeber also that it was the insurance industry that
insisted that mandatory participation be a part of Obamacare
(it's in Romeycare, too).

You do not have to buy health insurance. If you choose not
to do so, you are puttimg the cost of ER visits on the
American taxpayer and Congress has the power to correct that
by specific language in the constitution.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is a crossing of a line
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 04:01 AM EDT
I'm not aware of any circumstance where it's been seriously argued that
compulsory licensing schemes like those used in Canada would fail to meet
constitutional muster (yes, I realize the difference, but I don't think it's
really significant to the type of argument being made).

Subsidizing the entertainment industry at taxpayer expense does not have to be
unconstitutional to be a bad idea. Nor is it subject to the same defenses of
deemed necessity (Not everyone needs to consume music or movies at some point in
their lives). Most certainly, there is no constitutional prohibition against
passing laws that are 'bad', 'stupid' or that 'I' (for any given applicable
value of 'I') as a rare possessor of common sense disagree with.

If this law chooses a strange path to get at its goals, consider that taking a
matter of public interest, turning it into a profit center, and then trying to
push it back toward serving the public good without overly disturbing said
profit center, involves balancing some significantly conflicting interests.
There's plenty of details about the process to feel disgusted over. But Congress
has the authority to tax you just because you exist and earn money within its
territory. That you are personally offended that it would do so in a way
designed to incentivise behavior you'd rather not engage in has no bearing on
constitutionality, and is most certainly not remotely novel, as anyone who has
filed their own taxes should be well aware...

My apologies for drifting a bit into heated language here, but I really did want
to emphasize that there is a big difference between political ideals and what
the law allows.

(Incidentally, some taxpayer revenue is in fact used to subsidize the arts,
albeit perhaps not in the areas bearing significant commercial interest.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is a crossing of a line
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 07:57 AM EDT
The crucial thing here, is that the tax is there to force you to pay for a
product you are likely to consume anyway - healthcare.

And as for crossing a line, I don't know if it's been crossed in the US - it's
certainly been crossed in Canada and plenty of places in Europe (not here in the
UK), but what exactly is this levy on blank CDs if not crossing that exact line
you postulate?


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )