then why did SCOTUS even have to say "its unconstitutional for it to be a penalty, but its legal for it to be a tax." That was basically the premise behind the swing vote. I thought it was originally written to be a penalty.

maybe i need a history refresher but why does a company have to be part of a dealership program to sell cars?

What I don't get is that the bill that was written had it as a PENALTY. Thats what was voted on in congress. SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional as a TAX yet I find it odd that congress didn't have to go back and vote on the bill with the clarity of it being a tax.

Perhaps a dumb question but: How is it that the Affordable Care Act is being implemented when the congress voted on it based on penalties but that was found to be unconstitutional....and congress didn't have to re-vote on the bill to be passed after the SCOTUS ruling that said it had to be a tax?? I've been wondering that now for some time.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

I dont see anywhere where it says , No bill... shale be passed... except when talking about Copyright. Did they just make that part up on a whim? I know that they have made up things in the past, like declaring that somehow there is a "separation of church and state" in the constitution where that phrase never is mentioned in any founding document. Not only did they have to go outside of the any of the founding documents to declare this clause part of the constitution but the intent behind the Danbury letter had a totally different context/meaning/circumstance that is well documented in history and they, (SCOTUS) chose to ignore/were ignorant of the facts.

Again, in the Ashcroft case, it looks like they just made up laws on the whim which is not their job anyway.

I cannot believe that the law didn't say something to the effect, limited in nature and not to exceed "X" amount of years. The non-dissenters argued that as long as the copyrights werent perpetual then that wasnt a problem. What the heck does perpetual even mean? As long as it's not "forever"? That is, as one dissenter stated, virtual perpetual extensions.

Orca

This is a movie you should watch :)

"The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games"

Why would you want to take the fun out of making video games? Did he not get the memo that happy employees means better products, better team spirit, better morale in the office etc etc etc ?

He, under oath, swore to enforce laws passed by her constituents. It isn't her job to determine where something in unconstitutional or not. People always complain around here about a theocracy and this sounds like a pure theocratical power grab by the AG. And yes, you can vote the AG out, eventually, but the AG in the case should be downright impeached for not upholding what he vowed to uphold.

The people complaining just wasnt about them bring *screwed but all the of the people of the state of california being *screwed as well. Why have an amendment that the people of california vote on that can so easily be refuted? That doesn;t seem like something the founding fathers would have wanted or approved of. On top of that the very same people (and a small group of people in question here that was sent to represent everyone else who voted for Prop 8.) can't even defend what was voted on because the AG refuses to enforce it? This just wasnt about harm to the 6 or 7 individuals before the court but to rest of the people of california and harm to amendment system as well.

As bjdevil said earlier, this is WRONG. He should be at least impeached. At least. And this is a BAD precedent. Next thing you know some other law will get passed and the AG will say, "hey i don't llke that law, *screw it!, I am not going to enforce it.

if they didnt have a sufficient interest then why were the group of citizens in question formed in the first place? What is the court now? Mind readers? They are all of sudden experts in determining whether people are 'genuinely' interested or not? Obviously someone was genuinely interested. And it wasnt the Attorney General, even though he swore to uphold the laws of the state of California. I dont think there is a clause in there that says that he doesnt have the obligation and oath to people of California to not argue in the peoples place if he doesnt like the law. As i stated earlier.. what does that do as precedent to future citizens? If your AG doesnt like the law, even though the people passed the law and the law is questioned in court, they have no right to defend said law if the AG doesnt do his duty? Thats dangerous. REALLY dangerous.

I see where the gay marriage ban in California will be overturned because the found that the people didnt have the right to appeal to a lower court. Why did the people do this? Because the AG refused to appeal because he didn't like the gay marriage ban. So what kind of precedent does this set? If the officials of the state don't appeal a ruling then the citizens are pretty much screwed? What kind of crap is that?

they (we as a whole) havent done anything about it because everyone is sitting at home, eating bon-bons, watching soap operas, jersey shore, dancing with the stars (while texting and playing on their other devices) and keeping up with kardashians without a care in the world about whats going on around them. Everyone will wake up tomorrow, go to work, mow the lawn, go shopping and pay bills and think about what other useless TV shows they will be watching without a care for anything else.

My twitter account, like all my others(like banking etc) are tied to my various gmail accounts, which are also two-factor authenticated. So in order to change my password for example on my twitter account, you would need to hack into my twitter account then hack into my gmail account(password + 2-factor auth.) to check the email so that you can change the password.

I don't know if this makes it more difficult or if i should hold out.

"An AT&T spokeswoman said the fee covers 'certain expenses, such as interconnection and cell-site rents and maintenance."

So my question is, is then why have you just now started to add this fee? Haven't you always had to pay for cell-site rents and maintenance? Simply adding the "surcharge" because you feel like it should be illegal.

there is no separation of state and religion. there is no such clause. not even the words "separation", "church" or "state". the supreme court redefined what the meaning of the first amendment even means in that regard and had to look to a document outside of the confines of the constitution to even have something to go by(and they even got the intent of this phrase wrong). Even so, the document or paragraph by Jefferson regarding "separation of church & state" referred to a state Church - whereas all of Great Britain was under one denomination and they did not want that for American was one of the main reasons why they fled their old country to begin with. "In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a letter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state." "The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ That wall must be kept high and impregnable." is the quote from the court in 1947 not taking into account the whole context of Jeffersons letter but only a small phrase for which they would coin all their rulings against, asserting for themselves what the Founders wanted without taking the full letter and context into consideration. Since then people have been programmed to believe that this phrase is in the constitution which it is not.

how does providing benefits or recognizing heterosexual marriage interfere with federal law? there is no federal law concerning marriage at all..and again marriage is not a right anyway. never has been, before states assembled and back even further than that.