Powered by TypePad

« And On The Spanish Border... | Main | A Math Puzzle »

July 25, 2014

Comments

Bori

Theo,

I was following the carrot and stick analogy, where the States would get tax credits for creating the Exchanges (carrot) and no matching Federal funds for not adopting O-Care (stick). It seems to me that the intent was clear, my way or the highway.

clarice

As I said, Theo, DoT was technically correct, but not practically so. I just proved there are ways around it.

Theo

Ignatz --

It is the politics that will determine whether states would rush to set up exchanges if the panel decision is upheld.

One can clearly see the argument. No matter how red the state and how much the citizens there do not like ObamaCare, it will be hard to overcome the argument that (a) like it or not, our state's citizens pay taxes to support it and (b) without a state exchange the people in other states get freeeeeeeee! money that our citizens do not get. The counterargument has to be if enough states still refuse, the whole thing goes down eventually. I am not super confident that ObamaCare does not win that argument.

There was a similar calculation on expanded Medicaid, but with a critical difference. The feds were saying that if you, state, agree to expand Medicaid, we will pick up the tab FOR A LIMITED TIME. While the argument is that our state is missing out on freeeeee! money available to other states by not expanding Medicaid, the counter was simple. Eventually the fed money goes away and the expanded Medicaid never does.

Danube on iPad

"Does the plain language discuss children of Foreign Ambassadors?"

See, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Threadkiller

See it in the civil rights act?

Ignatz

--In my view the plain language of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is so crystal clear that no inquiry into congressional intent would be undertaken.

Posted by: Danube on iPad | July 25, 2014 at 04:11 PM--

Perhaps, but the dissent in Wong Kim Ark which I find considerably more persuasive than the majority opinion indicates they should have.
Not only were they legally correct, they were practically correct too.
As Chief Justice Harlan presciently put it later;

.....Harlan stated his opinion that vast numbers of Chinese "would have rooted out the American population" in the western United States.....

Change Chinese to Hispanic, Latino or whatever your flavor is and it's a pretty good description of the western US today. Thanks Wong.

Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself

I say put Kerry in the tunnels until this is over.

Excellent idea!...or in a UN school. They are safe, right? No weapons stored in UN schools?

Danube on iPad

I see it in the 14th Amendment. As I said, it's meaning is quite clear in my view. It will clear to any court that is asked to consider the issue. As we have seen, if it is not clear to you there is nothing I can do to help you.

Threadkiller

You have to thank people who interpreted Wong with a very liberal reading of the opinion, Ig. . Even Danube agreed that the narrow holding applied to the child of parents that were permanently legally domiciled here.

Threadkiller

Quite clear? What did the court say in The Slaughter House?

henry

Yike! Time to change the subject. 7th Circuit deny's GAB intervention in John Doe appeal.

Danube on iPad

"Even Danube agreed that the narrow holding applied to the child of parents that were permanently legally domiciled here."

Not exactly. I said that those were the facts of the case before the Court. Any future litigant is thus free to argue that the domicile and it's duration were necessary to the outcome. I do not believe that is a winning argument, and I don't believe I could make it with a straight face. But there it is.

Threadkiller
"If being domiciled in the US isn't a factor, why mention it at all?"

They simply set forth the facts that were presented to them. Those were the facts on which they were asked to rule, and they did so. Per the principle of judicial restraint they issued the narrowest ruling that would resolve the case.

Posted by: Danube on iPad | July 15, 2014 at 02:56 PM

Thomas Collins

Is anyone aware of places in the Internal Revenue Code in which the statute mentions "State" but the regulations include matters done on behalf of a State by another entity? I am aware of one. Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code excludes interest of "an obligation of a State or political subdivision thereof" from gross income. Section 1.103-1(b) of the Treasury Regulations provides for the exclusion of interest on obligations issued by or "on behalf of" States and political subdivisions. Thus, for example, State and local public instrumentalities, and certain nonprofit corporations, are able to issue tax-exempt obligations notwithstanding that such entities are corporate entities separate from the State on whose behalf they are issuing obligations, and do not possess sufficient taxing, police or eminent domain power to constitute a political subdivision. However, the IRS does not take, and never has taken, the position that the Federal Government is able to issue tax-exempt obligations on behalf of a State or political subdivision thereof if a State decides not to issue such obligations and if State law prohibits political subdivisions of a State from issuing such obligations. It is clear that specific statutory authorization would be required for the IRS to take such a position.

He's alien.

39% approve of Obama and 35% want him impeached. Probably two different cohorts.

Danube on iPad

My July 15 statement stands. Any future litigant can argue that if the ten-year domicile had not been present the Court would have ruled against citizenship. I know of no basis for reaching that conclusion, but it's the only argument I can see against birthright citizenship. I think it would lose.

Threadkiller

I appreciate that, Danube.

narciso

How long before the Palestinians give up Lurch, I would say 12 hours tops

clarice

You have a point, narciso. If he were my hostage--12 minutes, tops.

Skoot

In the Adler and Cannon piece in WSJ they stated no examples of legislative record to support the gov't case were offered. They had almost 2 years to find some. They don't exist. More and more examples like Baucus' are yet to be uncovered by busy interns in the coming months. Go figure.

narciso

the piece, Neo, linked from March, from the same authors, showed exactly where Colonel Mustard struck with the candle stick

Ignatz

It's not the length of the domicile it's the legality of it.

Bori

Igz,

I would agree with you but squatter laws say otherwise. There are people who are making the comparison.

clarice

Today's top story:ww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2705644/Underpants-bomber-failed-mission-blow-airliner-wore-pair-underwear-two-weeks.html


Also, Hamas is crumbling--morale stinks, once again the commanders are abandoning thee men in the field.

clarice

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2705644/Underpants-bomber-failed-mission-blow-airliner-wore-pair-underwear-two-weeks.html

Ignatz

Bori,
I don't have a problem with jus soli except an unconditional one. As the dissent in Wong put it anyone passing through the country can drop a citizen along the way.
As far as the ECL being the basis of it I'll skip the exceptions the Wong dissent noted from long ago and just point out the "England" in English Common Law has for the last 30+ years or more required at least one parent be a citizen or legally living in the country.

As far as I know the USA and Canada are the only two advanced/developed countries with unconditional birthright citizenship.
I suspect if Canada was also being overrun by tubercular Hondurans as we are we would be the last one in the advanced world in short order.

AliceH

via twitter, "In a letter to Gov. Daniels [dated November 15 2012], Gov.-elect Mike Pence today reiterated his recommendation that Indiana should not develop a state-based health insurance exchange as part of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. "

http://mikepence.com/exchange

Includes this: In addition to uncertainty about costs and benefits, there are legal uncertainties such as whether the employer tax penalty even applies to businesses in the absence of a state-based exchange.

Guess Pence wasn't convinced by the incremental rewrites the IRS regulators were creating.

henry

Clarice, that is a very strange link. It was a very strange bomb design, I guess they forgot to wrap the explosives in plastic.

Threadkiller

To add to the conversation with my incredibly limited knowledge of ECL, there was an incredible jus sanguinis component to birthright subjecthood.

If you were born on British soil to 'infidel' parents, automatic subjecthood did not happen.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

Ignatz

I would TK, but I have to follow clarice's DailyMail link so I can see what Kimye are up to today. :)

Threadkiller

LOL, Ig!

Jane

Henry, what does that mean in terms of the pending case.

Clarice, not only does morale stink, so does the bomber after 2 weeks in the same panties.

narciso

I think that obscures my contention, that Asiri
flunked their version of shop, the first bomb
killed his brother, but not the target, the second failed to detonate, the third was intercepted in route:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2705953/PICTURE-EXCLUSIVE-Kate-Upton-shows-famous-bikini-body-lilac-two-piece-enjoys-relaxing-break-pals.html

Jane

I am seeing liberals openly supporting Hamas. I really can't believe it.

Oh yeah and comparing Christians to Islamic terrorists.

Danube on iPad

"It's not the length of the domicile it's the legality of it."

Could be, but no court has ever said matters, to my knowledge. Certainly the Amendment does not.

narciso

this guy will probably end up a footnote in the next detainee case or worse;

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/07/review_board_rules_t.php

Ignatz

-Could be, but no court has ever said matters, to my knowledge. Certainly the Amendment does not.--

True, but the second amendment doesn't mention legality either.
The courts when asked have had no problem with laws barring felons from owning guns.

Danube on iPad

""English Common Law has for the last 30+ years or more required at least one parent be a citizen"

English (and American) Common Law can always be amended by statute. Any common law that preceded the enactment of the 14th Amendment and was contrary to it was to that extent superseded by the Amendment.

Let me make it clear that I wish it were not the case that children born on U.S. soil to parents not legally here are deemed citizens. I think it is very bad policy, for the reason pointed out in the Wong dissent. I'm just stating my understanding of what the law is.

Danube on iPad

"The courts when asked have had no problem with laws barring felons from owning guns."

And perhaps the Congress will pass a law banning birthright citizenship to the children of illegals, and perhaps that law will be upheld.

Captain Hate

I say put Kerry in the tunnels until this is over. If he's taken hostage, he can give us a first hand account of what it was like.

Posted by: clarice | July 25, 2014 at 03:40 PM--

Hamas was saying they were short on concrete. There's gotta be at least three yards in that giant hopper he calls a head.

The quack that shoved mashed potatoes into that lantern jaw so Sarah Palin would stop saying those mean things about his long face probably displaced some of that massive vacuum. Tell me, is going from being a horse face to the reincarnation of Clutch Cargo an upgrade? Btw he and the palis deserve each other.

Ignatz

--Let me make it clear that I wish it were not the case that children born on U.S. soil to parents not legally here are deemed citizens. I think it is very bad policy, for the reason pointed out in the Wong dissent. I'm just stating my understanding of what the law is.--

I know. I'm always saying what it should be and you're always saying what it is. :)

Ignatz

--Tell me, is going from being a horse face to the reincarnation of Clutch Cargo an upgrade?--

LOL, Cap.
He just needs Terezzzzaa to smear a little lip rouge around those plumped lips and he might as well start wearing a polo and khakis, a pair of combat boots and get his hair buzzed..

Jane

I may have already said this - it's been a long day. I read this morning that 10 days before WW1 no one knew it was coming.

I feel like we are at the same place now.

Danube on iPad

Haven't seen any TV news coverage in a couple of days (won't until Monday). Was Kerry captured on TV going through the metal detector?

narciso

It's a Confederacy of Dunces (and knaves) the
Crimean War started over much less.

Captain Hate

Iggy, I think Miss Marple has the situation ID'd; Lovey probably can't stand the sight of Thurston Howell the Turd.

Ignatz

new-solution-to-border-crisis-send-u-s-officials-to-honduras-to-give-kids-refugee-status.
Here's an idea; how about we send some guys to Iraq to qualify as refugees any jews who are left and the thousands of Christians threatened with genocide in no small part because of our involvement in Iraq?

Captain Hate

Has 404 ever said word one about the Christians being eliminated in Iraq?

clarice

Henry, make me glad I wasn't the forensic examiner.

It has occurred to me that had it not been for those dopes murdering the three kids, the Israelis would not have known ot Hamas' years long plan to tunnel into their country on Rosh Hashonah (the holiest of days), slaughter thousands and kidnap and hold hostage hundreds more. Is there not something biblical in this?

Ignatz

--Iggy, I think Miss Marple has the situation ID'd; Lovey probably can't stand the sight of Thurston Howell the Turd.

Posted by: Captain Hate | July 25, 2014 at 09:50 PM--

Even better then; outfit him like Clutch and she'll never see him again as he heads out for the deepest jungles of the upper east side and wrestles boas in Liza Minnelli's boudoir.

Ignatz

It's a bit reminiscent of the two spies Joshua sent to spy on Jericho clarice.
Not exactly the same but Hamas's walls are sure tumblin down as a result.

Ignatz

--Has 404 ever said word one about the Christians being eliminated in Iraq?--

Yes, Cap he has. Just today he called for the complete repeal of the Iraq war resolution so that even if we needed to send troops in for some reason we couldn't.
I've made no secret of my displeasure with attempts to make mideast latrine trenches into nations but why handcuff yourself unless you like to be beaten?

Captain Hate

It has occurred to me that had it not been for those dopes murdering the three kids, the Israelis would not have known ot Hamas' years long plan to tunnel into their country on Rosh Hashonah (the holiest of days), slaughter thousands and kidnap and hold hostage hundreds more. Is there not something biblical in this?

History is rife with fortuitous occurrences which result in positive things happening. Maybe they're offset by things going the other way but they don't seem to exist in equal numbers. That's not to say that very bad things don't happen.

Captain Hate

I didn't see where he or that nitwit Rice addressed them at all, Iggy; just them trying to make sure that they have no hope from us.

Kind of like the opposite of what a real leader would do.

narciso

that previous image might require neuralization

narciso

One might say they are the one percent:

www.globes.co.il/en/article-the-phenomenal-wealth-of-hamas-leaders-1000957953

narciso

the Bojinka plot, one of the first heads up we got with AQ, was unraveled, because of a fire
in the kitchen of one of the plotter, KSM left town without a forward address, guess where he ended up, in the Water department of that same
city, where Hamas and the Taliban have offices

clarice

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/192318/


More on how IRS shifted the regs on subsidies at WH insistence.

Ready, aim, fire.  Damn that Damascus.

OK, I could use a little background here. Why is it that so many states refused to set up their own exchanges? Clearly, Gruber et al expected the states to fall in line. The bluff failed, but why? Obviously there were billions on the table.

I do like the irony of the feds holding a gun to the heads of the states, and shooting themselves in the foot with it when it went off.

Why did they think this would work?

So who at HHS provided the cover, and why did the IRS think the cover was sufficient?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame