[ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"

[spike]

>... On Behalf Of Mirco Romanato
Subject: Re: [ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are
"asinine"

Il 28/10/2013 22:28, Kelly Anderson ha scritto:
...

>>...     And the Judiciary Branch?

> ...Almost zero power over the money. Though they did find Obamacare to be 
> constitutional. I don't follow how they managed that, but whatever, 
> it's done...

Kelly keep reminding yourself: the Supreme Court declared the individual
mandate unconstitutional as a mandate.  But they declared the opt-out fee a
tax, which is legal under the 16th amendment.  The Federal government may
charge you a tax based on a behavior, even if that behavior is passive (not
doing something.)  This will have enormous consequences as soon as they get
to the SCOTUS with the argument that this oddball tax does not give the
employer the authority to withhold funds from the paycheck (in all those
pages of the ACA, that wasn't in there) and the IRS has no authority to
collect the tax, as they do with income tax.  Reasoning: as written, the tax
applies to those who do not make enough money to require a tax return.  

So now what does the IRS do?  What happens when we see burn-your-W2 rally, a
modern echo of the 1960s burn-your-draft-card rally and the
burn-your-feminine-undergarment rally?  Does the IRS raid the place and
arrest everyone?  And what does the SCOTUS do as soon as someone shows up
for an IRS audit claiming US constitution, Article 1, section 7 clause 1?
That clause very clearly says a tax must originate in the house.  But the
ACA originated in the senate, the law can stand, the penalty for opt-out
cannot.  The opt-out tax is unconstitutional.  That isn't just a
technicality, it's the highest law in the land.  That SCOTUS decision that
made the ACA opt-out fee a tax will have enormous consequences.  If the
opt-out tax is struck down because of non-compliance with USC1.7.1, there
are cross references to it all over the ACA and no isolation clauses, these
having been intentionally and carefully omitted or removed, by the insurance
companies exactly for this reason: they figured all this out back in 2009,
and didn't want to be left with a mandate to insure zombies while the track
team goes free.

Do stand by, this will be interesting.


>...IIRC correctly, many judicial ruling have caused enormous expenditures
by the federal and local governments and indirectly to all individuals and
private enterprises.  For example, when a judge mandate school busing and
forced integration the cost fall on the local government and the local
people... Mirco

Ja, well sort of.  Judges do not legislate.  Legislatures legislate.  (In
real life, judges do legislate, bad ones do, but they are not legally
entitled to that power.)  In the case you cited, the state legislature
mandated busing, it was immediately challenged in court, a judge had to make
a decision not on whether it was a good law (it wasn't), but rather if it
was within the state's authority to do it (it was.)  The judge read that
state's constitution (Alabama) and decided the state had the authority to do
it.  So the judge didn't mandate busing, the state legislature of Alabama
did that.  States can do things like that.  Their constitutions are easier
to modify.  We had a wave of Alabama expatriates to Florida in the early 60s
as a result of that ruling.  We also had busing, and I was part of it, but
Florida dealt with it more effectively and sanely than did Alabama.

That case demonstrates why I have always thought health care reform must be
done at the state level rather than the Fed.  The states have more power in
those kinds of matters.  The states have more space to experiment and change
things if they fail.  Otherwise, I would suggest step one in health care
reform is to get a constitutional amendment to empower the Fed to do it.
That would cause an immediate change of attitude in congress, for the two
major parties need to work together to get an amendment.

spike