Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Codeine

(25,586 posts)

11. No, because nothing unconstitutional actually occurred.

Reply to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 04:24 PM

Dec 2017

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Considering the unconstitutional way the tax bill went through is it possible for a judge to step [View all] Maraya1969 Dec 2017 OP

No, although I predict the fetal personhood clause OliverQ Dec 2017 #1

I think every woman should start taking a child exemption on her taxes. davsand Dec 2017 #9

YES! Kirk Lover Dec 2017 #10

Nope . . . MousePlayingDaffodil Dec 2017 #2

I also think the repeal of the Johnson amendment will face a court challenge meow2u3 Dec 2017 #3

What is the Johnson amendment? MiniMe Dec 2017 #4

That's the IRS amendment... meow2u3 Dec 2017 #13

I hope so Meowmee Dec 2017 #5

How was it unconstitutional? DavidDvorkin Dec 2017 #6

BINGO. nt sarisataka Dec 2017 #7

What if the IRS moondust Dec 2017 #8

No, because nothing unconstitutional actually occurred. Codeine Dec 2017 #11

Exactly. n/t tammywammy Dec 2017 #12

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Considering the unconstit...»Reply #11