22 Dec '13 00:20>
Originally posted by sasquatch672I can respond to crap directed at me.
Stop posting this - nonsense. You're a smart guy. Apply yourself to the question at hand.
Originally posted by sasquatch672I will try again.
No1 has read the bill in its entirety. I haven't. I'm well-informed, but I'm not a legal scholar. The Founders can't be experts on the ACA. They're dead. Perhaps I don't understand your question, because I thought I answered it.
The post that was quoted here has been removedAnd the Duchess does not think that al Husseini was a war criminal even though he knew about the Holocaust and continued to recruit for the SS and got on the radio to give propaganda messages to kill Jews. He was later accused of war crimes from which he escaped trial. None of any of that is worthy of being declared a war criminal by the Duchess.
Originally posted by JS357Information on this issue is not unavailable. The answer to the first question is that legal experts are somewhat divided on the issue. The statutory framework gives some credence to a claim that the delay of the mandate in these cases is allowed, but IMO a more persuasive analysis of the language is that it was designed to have the Secretary of HHS merely provide procedures for individual hardship cases to be evaluated not allow wholesale exemptions based on political expediency.
I will try again.
Question: Has there been any reported interview with constitutional experts (on the left, right, or center) on why the change of the mandate is or is not constitutional?
The answer would be yes, no, or you don't know. Ideally, if it is yes, you would tell me who it was.
Question: Which members of congress have objected?
The answer ...[text shortened]... 't answer the questions, I assume your general answer to questions like this is, you don't know.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeSo would should forget the legal BS when considering whether an action by the Executive is legal or not?
Let's forget the legal **** for a moment. The question is whether the exemption is arbitrary in the ordinary sense of the word.
Two scenarios, for the sake of argument:
1. People whose plans were cancelled can claim an exemption
2. People whose plans were cancelled and who believe other Marketplace plans are unaffordable can claim an exemption ...[text shortened]... im an exemption, nor can anyone else, even though an exemption (quote unquote) exists in letter.
Originally posted by JS357The list of people that have objected, as I'm sure you suspect, is a conservative roll call. I don't know that they qualify as constitutional scholars, but the very learned George Will and Charles Krauthammer are two.
I will try again.
Question: Has there been any reported interview with constitutional experts (on the left, right, or center) on why the change of the mandate is or is not constitutional?
The answer would be yes, no, or you don't know. Ideally, if it is yes, you would tell me who it was.
Question: Which members of congress have objected?
The answer ...[text shortened]... 't answer the questions, I assume your general answer to questions like this is, you don't know.
Originally posted by sasquatch672You know perfectly well that what was done is hardly what the Republicans were demanding in October. Why play this game?
I just want to understand why Obama went to war with Republicans over the individual mandate, and has now done what they wanted him to do.