Should a law be considered valid if it is different than advertised?
kir
2012/06/28 16:24:49
|
|
|||||
|
5 votes
|
|
42% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
58% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
Obama promised no new taxes for the middle class; the penalty in the
individual mandate was argued to not be a tax and therefore it did not
break Obama's promise and yet when it was argued in front of the supreme
court, the ruling came down to the penalty indeed being a tax.
When we purchase a product, we can return it if it is different than advertised and that advertising was not in good faith; maybe the same should apply to bills.
If
the government when pushing a law advertises the measure as one thing
and then it turns out to be something different, should we have the
ability to automatically deem it a violation?
To clarify, the options are
Yes, we should be able to make it invalid
No, we should not be able to make it invalid
individual mandate was argued to not be a tax and therefore it did not
break Obama's promise and yet when it was argued in front of the supreme
court, the ruling came down to the penalty indeed being a tax.
When we purchase a product, we can return it if it is different than advertised and that advertising was not in good faith; maybe the same should apply to bills.
If
the government when pushing a law advertises the measure as one thing
and then it turns out to be something different, should we have the
ability to automatically deem it a violation?
To clarify, the options are
Yes, we should be able to make it invalid
No, we should not be able to make it invalid
Read More: http://politicoid.blogspot.com/2012/06/ppaca-ruled...
Top Opinion
-
flaca BN-0 2012/06/28 17:09:10Yes
+3the tax doesn't affect most people. The only people who will pay it are the spongers who expect other people to pay for their healthcare.
A clear message from Roberts -- Now we must vote the liar in the WH out!!
No I am well off, and I will never be faced with this crap --- I do, however know how it will affect the entire middle class and am deeply concerned about the destruction of same.
For any law to be considered on it's merits, whether in Congress, at the WH, or through SCOTUS. Attached to the bill, there is an analysis of what the bill does and it's intentions. This is how bills are classified before being voted on. No matter what a short narrative is, if a tax payer were to read the subject analysis said taxpayer would see the true intent of said bill/law. So by stating Advertising, you nod towards a statement that a politician says to the population and not th actually written intent of the law, correct?
Tomorrow morning this is the flag you will see fly over the White House.
The Tree of Freedom, it does thirst!