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

To: sickoflibs
no the law cant be retro-active LOL

The Superfund Law retroactively imposed strict, joint, and severe liability on firms that disposed of wastes long before the bill was passed in 1980. Bill Clinton's retroactive tax increase in 1993, is the most obvious. In fact, as retroactive tax increases go, Clinton's was not so bad and certainly not unprecedented. There have been far, far worse retroactive tax increases. In the early 1980s, Congress created a tax deduction to encourage people to sell stock in a company to that company's employee stock option plan (ESOP). To get the benefit of that deduction, Jerry W. Carlton, the executor of the estate of Willametta K. Day, sold stock to an ESOP at a loss. Engaging in what Justice Antonin Scalia later called "bait and switch" taxation, Congress in 1986 repealed the tax deduction and applied the repeal retroactively, costing the estate more than $600,000. Justice Scalia's comment notwithstanding, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the government's assessment of the tax.

So, I guess that you might agree with me sickoflibs, that the Supreme Court, the Congress and even the President have and continue to often ignore the US Constitution. Do you believe that that is a good thing?

 

47 posted on 09/17/2009 3:30:29 PM PDT by antonia (A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. - Edward R. Murrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: antonia
RE :”So, I guess that you might agree with me sickoflibs, that the Supreme Court, the Congress and even the President have and continue to often ignore the US Constitution. Do you believe that that is a good thing?

Scalia is one of my heros because he is articulate and brilliant and can explain why we would want to follow the original intent of the constitution (not strict construction) rather than have judges make up law rulings, That being said, Scalia himself has given into temptation himself on occasion(but not often). Temptation as in Bork's book, the rulings because of politics or personal desires.
(Bush vs Gore is an example and Levin's Men in Black has a chapter on it, so it's not just liberal wishing .)

Just like Liberals Ginsburg types move away from the constitution in increments, the Robert's type rules must take it back in increments. Roberts and Alito explained why in their confirmation hearings over and over. You cant just make make dramatic changes departing from current law (prior rulings) that throws the country into chaos and in the case of birthing, a possible revolution. The public has a legitimate expectation of stability in the law.

My only suggestion is to pass a law detailing the validation of citizenship prior to taking office, and a process if the elected president fails. And it cant throw Obama out of office. That is responsible and defend-able.

51 posted on 09/17/2009 8:12:27 PM PDT by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, redistribution is the government spending you demand")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

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