HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Considering the unconstit...

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 11:08 AM

Considering the unconstitutional way the tax bill went through is it possible for a judge to step

in and nullify it?

13 replies, 1978 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Considering the unconstitutional way the tax bill went through is it possible for a judge to step (Original post)
Maraya1969 Dec 2017 OP
OliverQ Dec 2017 #1
davsand Dec 2017 #9
Kirk Lover Dec 2017 #10
MousePlayingDaffodil Dec 2017 #2
meow2u3 Dec 2017 #3
MiniMe Dec 2017 #4
meow2u3 Dec 2017 #13
Meowmee Dec 2017 #5
DavidDvorkin Dec 2017 #6
sarisataka Dec 2017 #7
moondust Dec 2017 #8
Codeine Dec 2017 #11
tammywammy Dec 2017 #12

Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 11:09 AM

1. No, although I predict the fetal personhood clause

 

will see a constitutional challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OliverQ (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 04:05 PM

9. I think every woman should start taking a child exemption on her taxes.

Here's the logic: They just declared a fetus is a person. No requirement for actual birth (under that law anyway) for that to be considered a child. Thus every woman should be allowed to claim a "fetal" child deduction.


"We can say that the majority of early pregnancy loss appears to be unrecognized," said Dr. Allen J. Wilcox, who directed the study. His work suggests that 22 percent of all pregnancies end spontaneously in the first month. Another 9 percent result in miscarriages after the pregnancy becomes apparent.Jul 28, 1988

MOST MISCARRIAGES GO UNRECOGNIZED, STUDY SAYS - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...miscarriages...unrecognized.../d06d3b92-bb2d-4162...


Watch the Republican heads explode with this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davsand (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 04:23 PM

10. YES!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 11:47 AM

2. Nope . . .

I think this would be the very essence of a "non-justiciable" issue. An Article III court is not going to get into the business of telling an Article I legislative body how to go about its business.

This is not to say that how the Senate has conducted itself here is not contrary to the Constitution. But not every constitutionally-defective action admits of a judicial remedy. That's not how our system of government, a "representative democracy," works. In this case, if the people don't like what their representatives have done, then their recourse is to select different representatives. There is a mechanism for doing that, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 12:41 PM

3. I also think the repeal of the Johnson amendment will face a court challenge

This is a blatant violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and must not be allowed to be upheld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 02:49 PM

4. What is the Johnson amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 06:25 PM

13. That's the IRS amendment...

...which does not allow politicking from the pulpit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 02:57 PM

5. I hope so

They didnít follow proper procedures so surely something can be done about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 03:47 PM

6. How was it unconstitutional?

Normal Senate rules of procedure aren't specified in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 03:53 PM

7. BINGO. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 03:55 PM

8. What if the IRS

tossed it in the trash and moved on as if it never happened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 04:24 PM

11. No, because nothing unconstitutional actually occurred.

I think we get carried away with our definitions here sometimes.

Was it a horrible bullshit crime against all fiscal and social propriety? Yes.

Did the passage violate the Constitution? No, probably not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 04:27 PM

12. Exactly. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread