[nikoloslvy1041]

Tom ? Anyone ? Can we make this happen ?

[nikoloslvy1041]

bump

[nikoloslvy1041]

Now that Mr Trump has won i think this topic needs some extra attention.

[nikoloslvy1041]

Thank you .

[nikoloslvy1041]

Thank you.

[nikoloslvy1041]

Is there a video,lecture, or can someone explain this to me in laymens terms?

https://mises.org/library/great-depression-1946

[nikoloslvy1041]

I’m the second guy. Yes the audio is scratchy. We have to write the opinion for the case by Monday.I think I can handle the taxing clause portion but I must say the lefts constitutional logic basing their arguments on EMTALA has really got me in a loop.
I’m pulling my hair out. They may have a constitutional point if we are viewing it from the wickurd/raich point of view. The federal government may have legally bound us all in commerce through EMTALA in the 80’s. Now what.Square zero.

If this werent a courtroom setting i’d rail on about how this is exactly why we cant trust the federal government with anything but alas im here trying to argue against obamacare on legal grounds not on policy grounds …perhaps there is some leeway for slight policy arguments …but only slightly.

What have have they done to my country.How the hell did we get to where the state thinks its being nice by providing free emergency room coverage to every one and supposedly binding everyone into commerce. Then forcing us into commerce to pay for it. All because of the commerce and necessary and proper clause? Lord have mercy on us all.Were doomed.MF’ing doomed.

http://yourlisten.com/channel/content/16985908/oral_argument

[nikoloslvy1041]

Liberty University challenges Obamacare Employer Mandate on religious and origination clause grounds.

L.U. can not in be forced into a health plan that provides for abortions.

All taxes must originate in the house. Harry Ried simply renamed and amendment and replaced the content making this originally formed in the senate.

http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/pr_4th_appeals_obamacare_supplemental_reply_042413.pdf

[nikoloslvy1041]

I’m basing my oral argument on Landmark Leagal’s brief:

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Legal%20Foundation%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

My understanding is that they claim that the employer mandate must fall into a criteria of proper authority for taxation. It must either be a direct tax (which must be apportioned amongst the states) an excise tax (based on activity) or an income tax (which it clearly isn’t).

According to Landmark it can not be an excise tax because there is no activity however can employment alone be considered ceaseless activity? is the act of employing someone alone activity? if not what is the precedence proving it.

Of course i understand that modern law is based on precedence on top of precedence of bad law but for a legal class this is the hoops that I must jump through. Of course the founders never intended for inactivity to be taxed but after years of trampling on the constitution using bad precedence I worry that the court may actually be able to legally get away with it.

Again, does the act of employment alone constitute activity?

[nikoloslvy1041]

Well Roberts was asinine as well on the commerce clause. according to him the government cant regulate commerce in this case but can tax it.Whatever happened to “to tax something is to destroy?”

He let me pick unconstitutional. I could argue that there is no precedent for taxing something for inactivity but I wonder of its the strongest argument. The judges may ask me about Wickard v Filburn to which I would reply that if this were to apply then Wickurd could force Filburn grow wheat. There is no commerce here ie as if there was no wheat being grown.I wonder if this is the strongest argument since he said start with your strongest argument.

your correct in assuming that arguing principle would go nowhere. My opposition will not be arguing principle either. We will both try to find precedent and use court proceeder, constitutional interpretation ,etc, just like a real court.

I’m unaware what uncompensating takings is but I will look into it. I could argue due process but I would rather not use something the left has always used to grow federal power and, there is a ton of precedent of them doing that if I recall.

Thanks for the feedback.

[nikoloslvy1041]

I think the Idea is that the case is being appealed.Do i stand with the decision or do i stand with appeal is the question.Looks like I agree with the court and am against appeal barring a serious constitutional flaw in the decision.

[nikoloslvy1041]

Thanks gents.

[nikoloslvy1041]

The book talks about a realization of the city (pushed by the medical community) that something had to be done in regards to the amount of filth being dumped into the streets and river by local butchers anytime a new outbreak of yellow fever or cholera broke out .Political intransigence caused by private butcher interests however led to all laws and regulations enacted during the outbreak to be ignored once the epidemic was over. The argument (the authors don’t really make arguments but merrily write about history) if there is any seems to be that we need government to regulate us for if left to our own whims we are likely to poison ourselves.While its heavily documented and historically accurate its quite an odd reading suggestion. Up to page 53.

In regards to the professor: Well thats a shame.I’m sory you feel that way, I and I’m sure many others were enjoying the back and fourth sir.

[nikoloslvy1041]

Thank you as allways…(In regards to the other subject..the professor responded…the words “dead white men” were used…ugh…as opposed to an alive black men today that compares? Will post soon )

[nikoloslvy1041]

Thank you.

[Author]

Posts