Considering the nature of the Interstate Commerce clause and the feds taking action on everything through it, Yes regulation of Comcast could come into play. But probably not due to their significant campaign contributions.
I hope you don't mind but I fixed that for you.
They raised your taxes, then gave certain people a tax break if you qualify. You choose NOT to qualify. They have not in any interfered in your transaction.
Can you tell me precisely how this passes muster in regards to article 1 section 8 or 9; or the Sixteenth Amendment as ratified by the states?
I'll save you the trouble and answer the question for you
The taxation on a lack of a health care plan is, in legal parlance, what they call a direct tax. And this tax is required to be issued pro rata as to the census.
I don't think you will be able to fool the courts into believing that this taxation simply an inverted rebate. Frankly, the courts are extraordinarily keen on pointing out that if it looks, swims, walks, quacks like a duck it's a damn duck.
Just as the government can put a tax on you doing something, they can put a tax on you not doing something.
Can you tell me percisely how this passes muster in regards to article 1 section 9?
"... even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
It does not matter if the commerce happens completely within the boundaries of the state, only so long as the activity has an effect on interstate commerce congress can legislate it.
Now what constitutes effect, how much effect on interstate commerce is necessary for it to land under interstate commerce clause has been argued (see US v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr), But I would say that if arguing on the merits that health insurance does not fall under the interstate commerce clause will ultimately fail. This is why the states are raising contest under the requirement to purchase and not solely on the legislations merits of necessary and proper.
It took me over a fucking week to get wifi working on linux. Then I gave up. Linux and Mac OS are the biggest fucking kludges I've ever seen.
Then you were doing it wrong, or doing it in 1997.
go spin your lies to someone else. a cylinder is more sturdy than a box... simple physics, moron. thanks for confirming the frequency of tube damage.
Yes, but a cylinder also has the property of being able to roll with ease. When a package rolls, it inevitably finds itself lodged under other cylinders called tires. The crush weight of whatever may roll over your tube will be considerably larger than what it is rated at. Something like this box will ship better than any cylinder and something like this will fare even better.
and force them to prove that the movie was downloaded,
Well, according to the complaint filed by ACHTE/NEUNTE they allege that "...each Defendant, without the permission or consent of the Plaintiff, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to distribute to the public, including by making available for distribution to others, the Copyrighted Motion Picture."
They are not simply complaining that people are downloading their material, but actively distributing it too.
Copyright law is constantly described as being "broken" around here, and posters are often on the side of music pirates and other pro-piracy entities, like Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party.
Well for one, the magazine is blatantly ripping off content for both fun and profit
8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss
