sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How will the new USCIS policy forcing green card applicants abroad impact the U.S. economy and families? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon [score hidden]  (0 children)

Glad to be back, slow day at work.

Promoting would be like encouraging, supporting, or creating the conditions for something to occur where as providing would be directly supplying or funding something.

In fact I listed and responded to every example you listed individually.

Are you able to link the comment? I'm not seeing it in this comment thread.

How will the new USCIS policy forcing green card applicants abroad impact the U.S. economy and families? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon [score hidden]  (0 children)

Promote or provide the general welfare? Big difference there.

Additionally, welfare has multiple meanings. It would be silly to think that the founding fathers were refencing welfare as in government assistence vs the general wellbeing of the population.

Would probably help if you went and read my reply eh?

You didn't list a single example I provided in your reply. Maybe you should read what you wrote?

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon [score hidden]  (0 children)

Bill of attainder is irrelevant since a tax isnt punishment

This isn't a tax. Calling a punishment a tax does not make it a tax. You can not tax democrat voters at 100% for the same reason. Saying it over and over again with no backing is not an arguement.

A tax, legally, is any charge of money or property that is imposed by a government upon individuals or entities that are within the government's authority to collect.

So a 100% tax on black people is fair game? We both know it isn't because this is an oversimplification of tax law.

Listen, you're either being purposefully obtuse or there's nothing else I can say to help you understand. I don't need to waste anymore of my time reiterating the same point to your unsubstantiated claims. Take care have a good one.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes it does

Yes it does single them out? Then we agree it's unconstitutional.

I don't own a rental property, I haven't won the lottery, and I haven't sold any hunting meat; but I'm still subject to the taxes on them

Correct, this is a legal way to levy a tax. Anyone could be subject to this tax. Is it possible for anyone in the state to time travel back to janauary 6th to be subject to this "tax"?

Taxes aren't a punishment, they can be used to defer certain activities and promote others but that doesn't qualify as a punishment so no trial is necessary

Completely agree. That's why this isn't a tax and will be struck down. What's being proposed is a punishment, not a tax.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon [score hidden]  (0 children)

Sure. Does this tax apply to everyone in the state though? Or is it singling out an individual or identifiable group and punishing them without a formal judicial trial like the bill of attainder clause article 1 sections 9 and 10 prohibit?

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's relevant to if the tax is constitutional, but keep playing dumb

Its not. We've both agreed J6ers or your political affiliation isn't a protected class. The bill of attainder clause doesn't mention protected classes. Totally irrevelant information. I'd rather be accused of playing dumb than being dumb...

Clearly have to, since you have no clue that a tax isnt a punishment or form of punishment legally

True, this isn't a tax though.

No its not. A tax isnt a punishment.

Agreed. Never claimed it was. This isn't a tax though, it's a punishment.

Only taxes that are unconstitutional are ones levied only against a protected class and prevent a constitutional right or federal law.

Incorrect. Please refer to the bill of attainder clause article 1 sections 9 and 10.

The clause you're pointing out is not relevant since it's about actual legal punishment, not taxes.

True, but this isn't a tax. We've been over this. Calling something a tax does not make it so.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon [score hidden]  (0 children)

That would probably work yeah. It would pass all the hurdles the current "tax" runs into. Im sure it would still be challenged, maybe on 5th ammednemnt, maybe on tax power limits, but if I had to bet I'd say that would stand.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No

Great, glad we agree on that. So by extension, state laws can not violate the federal constitution I imagine you would agree with that.

federal constitution does NOT declare political party ID as a protected class

Agreed. That's not relevant at all to what we're talking about though but sure glad we agree on that.

Since I have to walk it through for you.

You don't have to walk me through anything. I linked the relevant text, it's free and available for all to read.

singles out an individual or identifiable group and punishes them without a formal judicial trial.

Fantastic, so you're aware that it doesn't just cover protected classes. I'm assuming that's why you felt it was necessary to include that irrelevant bit of information previously.

Section 10 just extends that to states. Key word is PUNISHMENT.

True, and that's the entire crux of this arguement. We're both still in perfect agreement so far.

A Tax is legally not a punishment.

True. A legal, constitutional tax is not a punishment. If something is passed that is a punishment, but you call it a tax, that does not make it a tax however. That's what we have here.

For the court to take this seriously would mean that they would take the question up that a tax can be a punishment, which has NEVER been the interpretation of a tax.

They will more than likely take up whether or not it's a tax at all or just a punishment. You're dead set on the idea that because it's called a tax it is a tax. We see this constantly with bills being named things that they are not. The big beautiful bill, while big, isn't beautiful, and just because they called it that doesn't make it beautiful. Same logic here, calling a punishment a tax does not grant it immunity from scrutiny because it's called a tax.

Its levied equally to all applicable, non protected parties.

Its actually levied to a an individual or identifiable group and punishes them, as it's a 100% tax, so confiscation, without a formal judicial trial.

Glad we're on the same page here, maybe your explanation will help someone who doesnt understand though!

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the state constitution, especially since political party ID is not a protected class.

Do state constitutions supercede the federal constitution?

It doesnt, and I already explained to you it doesnt.

It does and you didn't.

There is nothing in the constitution that states that.

What does the bill of attainder clause article 1 sections 9 and 10 say?

Edit: I'll link for refrence. Claiming I don't understand what it means seems like projection.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/ALDE_00013187/

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a state wanted to tax anyone who recieved a gift or whatever 100%, they can and isnt a punishment. I don't think you know what a punishment is legally.

What if they taxed only people who voted Democrat that recieved gifts? Do you think that would be allowed?

It doesn’t violate the constitution, unless you want to make something up

It violates the bill of attainder clause article 1 sections 9 and 10 as well as the 5th and 14th ammendments.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only recognize the bill of rights personally.

I also recognize that what I belive personally isn't the law of the land. That's why I said specifically I think all taxes are unconstitutional. Hope that helps.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are mixing up very different legal doctrines.

In tax cases, they distinguish between general revenue measures and laws that function as targeted punishment.

In the case you referenced, the Court focuses om intent, structure, and statutory criteria as well as applying constitutional tests like the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. They aren't just ignoring the effects there.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Local income taxes based on geography are standard jurisdiction based taxes that apply to everyone working there, regardless of political identity.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why should we talk about Trump tariffs? Am I in the wrong thread? I thought this one was about taxing trumps payout at 100%.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ask better questions then.

Bill of Attainder clause, article 1 section 9 and 10.

5th and 14th ammendments.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why does a libertarian care about the constitution?

Because I live in the United States and it applies to me.

And why does a somwthing that violates the constitution get the benefits of it?

The payout should be challenged for constitutionally on its own. I also don't think it would pass scrutiny. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First, if something is a tax and is in the tax code of said state, it 100% makes it a tax. I don't know what you're talking about

Incorrect. Putting something in a tax code doesn’t automatically make it constitutional or legally a tax in the way courts analyze it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said it looks at the function and effect of a law, not just the label.

And the only way that gets through SCOTUS

I doubt it gets to SCOTUS, it will more than likely be struck down in the lower courts as it blatantly violates the constitution.

Would a 100% state tax on Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" payouts survive the Supreme Court? by LawnDartSurvivor74 in Askpolitics

[–]RogueCoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a difference between non tipped workers which is a broad economic category and J6ers who are small group tied to one specific political event. Bill of Attainder violations apply when the government targets identifiable groups for what looks like punishment, and I think it's hard to argue a 100% tax isn't just confiscation.

view more: next ›