Posted on 03/21/2014 9:53:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
There was a book a few years ago with the title:
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. A panda was involved.
“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.
In little barry’s case, it comes out “let’s eat, Dog.” or “Let’s eat dog.”
I think even a positive ruling would do no more than remove the birth control mandate.
Oops bad example; they could ban the sale of kosher and halal foods, crucifix , yamalkas .
And with those instructions another briefcase full of money to be deposited in the Bank of the Vatican on Malta.
So SCOTUS is going to conduct a semicolonoscopy?
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].
“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!
“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!
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?)
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'?
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.
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.