Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could Citizens United and a semi-colon undo Obamacare?
yahoo ^

Posted on 03/21/2014 9:53:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: Quality_Not_Quantity
I remember that one from when I was a kid. Supposedly if a teacher gave a class the sentence without punctuation, the girls would punctuate it one way and the boys the other.

There was a book a few years ago with the title:

Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. A panda was involved.

61 posted on 03/21/2014 12:17:08 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“We are not persuaded that the use of a semi-colon means that each clause of the First Amendment must be interpreted jointly.”

By that logic a state could ban the printing and sale of bibles; individuals could print there own bible but a business could be banned from selling bibles.


62 posted on 03/21/2014 12:19:08 PM PDT by Bulwinkle (Alec, a.k.a. Daffy Duck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quality_Not_Quantity

In little barry’s case, it comes out “let’s eat, Dog.” or “Let’s eat dog.”


63 posted on 03/21/2014 12:20:37 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rllngrk33

I think even a positive ruling would do no more than remove the birth control mandate.


64 posted on 03/21/2014 12:24:03 PM PDT by zeebee (There are no coincidences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Oops bad example; they could ban the sale of kosher and halal foods, crucifix , yamalkas .


65 posted on 03/21/2014 12:34:17 PM PDT by Bulwinkle (Alec, a.k.a. Daffy Duck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

And with those instructions another briefcase full of money to be deposited in the Bank of the Vatican on Malta.


66 posted on 03/21/2014 12:40:47 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

So SCOTUS is going to conduct a semicolonoscopy?


67 posted on 03/21/2014 2:12:55 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Screw the farmers. I can get everything I need at the grocery store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
In answer to your question, before the ruling,they already had all of their rights as individuals.

Not so — by a certain law (McCain-Feingold, IIRC) they could not publish/produce a political video as a group [within X amount of time of an election].

68 posted on 03/21/2014 2:33:24 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
Citizens United was about a group of people banding together and pooling resources for political ends — to restrict this is to force everyone to work on their own "with no one to help them when the fall"... or to put it another way, to prevent them from hanging together so that they could be hanged separately.
69 posted on 03/21/2014 2:35:32 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Why Not! The whole Obamacare premise was based on HORSESH*T.
70 posted on 03/21/2014 2:40:48 PM PDT by jetson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“John? Hussein here. Just remember our little conversation about your kids. Be a shame is something happened to them. Has you wife ever flown on Malaysian Air? So do the right thing like last time and you’ll find the usual payoff in your briefcase. Don’t be stupid. You f___ with me and your whole family is dead!


71 posted on 03/21/2014 3:00:15 PM PDT by Doc Savage ("I've shot people I like a lot more,...for a lot less!" Raylan Givins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“John? Hussein here. Just remember our little conversation about your kids. Be a shame is something happened to them. Has you wife ever flown on Malaysian Air? So do the right thing like last time and you’ll find the usual payoff in your briefcase. Don’t be stupid. You f___ with me and your whole family is dead!


72 posted on 03/21/2014 3:00:43 PM PDT by Doc Savage ("I've shot people I like a lot more,...for a lot less!" Raylan Givins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

In practice, only a few elites in the corporation control these decisions. What we get is more influence for a few who may or may not even be citizens and less less influence by individual citizens. It’s just another step toward fascism.


73 posted on 03/21/2014 3:18:25 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

What I see there is a list of entities, of which; all are subjected to the clause that follows (IOW it applies specifically to those entities - even if they are an individual; that offer insurance.

The clause that follows being: “offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.”

That’s my nickel on it. I’m not A-one at punctuation, but the way you explain it in the several responses you have posted since doesn’t track with my understanding of how that section should be read and understood.

From what I see, you are in the minority in your understanding of the clause that you are quoting here. I’m not saying this means you’re incorrect here, but I’ll take my chances with the people that agree with my interpretation of it for the time being.


74 posted on 03/21/2014 4:07:47 PM PDT by jurroppi1 (The only thing you "pass to see what's in it" is a stool sample. h/t MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1; rjsimmon

Also note the last portion of the sentence “and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.”

Why would they restrict the Fed gov’s ability to fine issuers of insurance alone if it was meant to protect individuals buying insurance (not issuers)?

I’m pretty sure that issurers participate in the exchange, and individuals purchase insurance from the exchange or through other means as they see fit - this doesn’t apply to the individual mandate to have a minimum federally approved level of coverage to avoid the individual mandate penalty/tax.


75 posted on 03/21/2014 4:14:05 PM PDT by jurroppi1 (The only thing you "pass to see what's in it" is a stool sample. h/t MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1

“Why would they restrict the Fed gov’s ability to fine issuers of insurance alone if it was meant to protect individuals buying insurance (not issuers)?”

because, they needed to get the buyin from big insurance companies to get their backing and money to lobby for ACA’s passage? do you believe that this administration was actually concerned about protecting the average jane or joe when crafting this monstrosity? i’m not so sure.


76 posted on 03/21/2014 4:36:43 PM PDT by IWONDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: IWONDR

My point was that the subsection of the statute that was quoted had to do with issuers of policies (insurers), not those that would purchase individual policies as the person I was responding to had been asserting. The statute he/she was quoting in their opinion was in regards to individuals (not individuals issuing an insurance policy)... I argued that it was the other way around.

The post you replied to was a follow-up post to my previous one on the subject.


77 posted on 03/21/2014 5:16:59 PM PDT by jurroppi1 (The only thing you "pass to see what's in it" is a stool sample. h/t MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
In practice, only a few elites in the corporation control these decisions.

So? Not everyone ought to be leaders... some people are much better at striving for goals then setting/determining good goals, esp. when a group is involved.

What we get is more influence for a few who may or may not even be citizens and less less influence by individual citizens.

Except there's nothing indicating that was the case in the Citizens United case which, IIUC, was a group of citizens banding together to make a political documentary/video (regarding Hillary Clinton, IIRC) — should a group have fewer rights than an individual? If so, doesn't this fly in the face of the First amendment?

It’s just another step toward fascism.

No, fascism is when the government dictates the actions of the corporations. If you look at the amount of regulations imposed by the federal government I'd argue that we're already in a fascistic society. (EPA anyone?)

78 posted on 03/21/2014 5:45:23 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1
From what I see, you are in the minority in your understanding of the clause that you are quoting here. I’m not saying this means you’re incorrect here, but I’ll take my chances with the people that agree with my interpretation of it for the time being.

So you are a consensus type? Global Warming must be big with you.

As for the structuring I presented, try your logic with the 2nd Amendment and see if you do not change your thinking to how I have demonstrated:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Your logic suggests that the right of the people is anchored upon the militia. SCOTUS and I disagree. Now look at how it was originally approved by TJ:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice the lack of a couple of commas? These folks were very smart and understood that commas separate clauses which is why it was ratified with the additional commas. 42 U.S. Code § 18115 also contains clauses, all separated by commas. My logic is sound. You, yourself admit to not being A-one on punctuation but weigh in for 'consensus'?

79 posted on 03/21/2014 5:53:46 PM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Ah, free speech and free excercise of religion are linked. Otherwise you could forbid religious speech and does that make sense. But with the Anarchists on the Supreme Court, logic, law and justice are just text to be twisted around to fit the current need.


80 posted on 03/22/2014 8:22:58 AM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (You can have a free country or government schools. Choose one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson