Oh, I have no doubt that the appeals court will issue a stay, and then we'll have to wait to see what SCOTUS does.
But it looks like he was saying that the original SCOTUS decision was that the law wasn't permissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause, but it was permissible under the Congressional Tax Power. Since the tax is gone, the law is no longer Constitutional because it violates the ICC.
We'll see. I've no faith left in the power of the Constitution to restrain government.
She won only with the support and backing of the GOP. Also, when I was up there, I learned that hundreds of Natives voted for the first and only time, turning in registrations all in the same handwriting. They all voted for her.
I would rather see the insurance companies forced out of routine care and back into catastrophic-coverage-only. Make people pay out of pocket and watch prices drop like a stone.
There's no stopping the Democrats. I wish there was a way to prevent them from taking over healthcare, but both sides now talk about having a plan, and neither side is saying "Let the states work it out."
Barney Frank explained early on that Obamacare was merely a necessary steppingstone to Medicare for all.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-texas-strikes-strikes-down-affordable-care-act-n948306
The left is already cheering the opportunity to go to a "Medicare For All!" plan.
Yes, but that's a quote that gives me evidence I didn't have before.
The Botox analogy is absolutely not good in any way shape of form because it's already considered a personal expense. The segue to "what about clothes and wristwatches!!!" just indicates that the person making the analogy knows nothing about campaign law, and therefore isn't a credible source for an opinion.
Not my example. But that's pretty what exactly Trump did.
You know I hate the Botox analogy. Here's a better one you can use:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/?fbclid=IwAR14u4boL0cHzbDYiaQTadvBdVEeDfVed7zH2be8RpGiSm61n-HFGesgNOo
Here's another paragraph I found very interesting:
That ol' freedom lover John McCain tried to limit that, but SCOTUS nixxed it. A candidate can spend unlimited amounts of his/her own money on the campaign.
Since you're geeky like me, note that McCain kept Senate filers from electronically filing. All filings had to go through the Senate first, via hard copy, then to the FEC As soon as he was in the ground, they finally changed the law so that Senate reports didn't have to be submitted via hard copy. But not before.
Nope. You can't use campaign funds to buy clothing unless we're talking about t-shirts for the staff and such. You can't buy food unless it's a dinner for a fundraiser or staff. You can't buy jewelry unless it's a gift to a non-family member. They have all been definitively addressed, both by statute and by precedent.
I'd abolish all the spending restrictions. But you should stop using Adams' Botox and clothing examples, because the law (which exists whether or not we agree with it) clearly addresses those issues. This isn't that.
This also is WHY analogies suck.
Ah. I see where I lost you. The money was donated but not to the campaign. It never went through the campaign coffers, so it was never campaign money, so he was never charged with embezzling campaign funds for personal gain.
He was charged with failing to report the money as campaign donations, and also failing to report the expenditures. He was acquitted on one charge and the jury hung on the other counts. So at this phase, the money was never campaign money.
Find latest posts
View Articles
View Blog Entries
Connect With Us