Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

2012-06-29T01:14:02Z

America37: /* No */

'''[[ObamaCare]] is upheld by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] (5-4) ''as a tax, not as a valid exercise of government power under the [[Commerce Clause]]'':

{{cquote|The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of [[Congress]]'s power under the [[Commerce Clause]]. ... In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes ...."}}

=Yes=

The Supreme Court did not say that Obamacare is a good piece of legislation, or that it is right for the country. It merely said it is legal, which is hard to deny. It may be job-killing, it may not solve our health care problems, but it doesn't violate the Constitution. [[User:Jpope14|Jpope14]] 11:55, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

As bad as this law is, SCOTUS was right to say that, as a ''tax'', it is constitutional. On a personal level, I'm glad for this ruling, because it will force Congress to act to repeal it; and given the fact that they have been ceding their power to the executive and legislative branch for the last 30 years, this would be a good time to retake some of it. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:14, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

==No==

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
1.8.3

Even if it was a tax it would mean those who have healthcare would be getting a deduction, therefore making taxes non uniform, in violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States;"
1.8.1

Also, regardless of whether or not it is a tax, it is clearly in favor of those who purchase healthcare and is an attempt to force people to get healthcare, which is in violation of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 6, suggesting that individuals are also included (which they aren't because it is specifically stated earlier that individuals are not to be subject to regulatory clauses at all) in regulatory clauses which is clearly what the Obama admin believes:
"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of
Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of
another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be
obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
1.9.6

:Interesting points, but couldn't your argument equally apply to mortgage interest deductions? Or the child care deduction? Or charitable giving? I'm inclinded to agree with you, but given that our tax system is so screwed up, this tax isn't that different. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:11, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:You are misreading the very portion of the law that you are citing. "Duties, Imposts, and Excises" shall be uniform. Taxes do not have to be uniform. For example, the more money I earn, the higher percentage of taxes I pay. Taxes have never been "uniform" because the law does not require them to be. [[User:Jpope14|Jpope14]] 15:58, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
::No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 1.9.4. Also this isn't even a tax question, the tax code has not been changed at all. There was no raise in taxes and there was no deduction added for people who have healthcare, this is clearly nothing more than a penalty. Back when this was going through congress Obama laughed at the notion that it was a tax hike and said critics only said that to make it look like a commercial regulation was a tax, but now that its constitutionality has been questioned its a tax!?

Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

2012-06-29T01:10:52Z

America37: /* No */

Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

2012-06-29T01:09:56Z

America37: /* No */

Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

2012-06-28T19:00:40Z

America37: /* Yes */

Book of Daniel

2012-02-14T22:44:52Z

America37:

The book of '''Daniel''' [Hebrew: '''דניאל'''] Is ranked by the Jews in that division of their Bible called the [[Ketuvim]], or Writings.<ref name="d"/> It consists of two distinct parts.<ref name="d"/> The first part, consisting of the first six chapters, is chiefly historical; and the second part, consisting of the remaining six chapters, is chiefly prophetical.<ref name="d"/>

The historical part of the book treats of the period of the Captivity.<ref name="d"/> Daniel is "the historian of the Captivity, the writer who alone furnishes any series of events for that dark and dismal period during which the harp of Israel hung on the trees that grew by the Euphrates.<ref name="d"/> His narrative may be said in general to intervene between Kings and Chronicles on the one hand and Ezra on the other, or (more strictly) to fill out the sketch which the author of the Chronicles gives in a single verse in his last chapter: `And them that had escaped from the sword carried he [i.e., Nebuchadnezzar] away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia'" (2 Chronicles 36:20).<ref name="d"/>

The prophetical part consists of three visions and one lengthened prophetical communication.<ref name="d">{{Easton|Daniel}}</ref>

==Prophecy==
'''Statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream'''
The statue of this dream had a head of gold, body and arms of silver, thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay. Daniel interpreted this to be kingdoms, with the head of gold being Neo-Babylon, and other kingdoms not as rich but stronger after. These kingdoms are often viewed as (starting with the arms of steel) Medo-Persia (2 arms for 2 peoples but still connected by the upper body as 1 nation), Alexander the Great's Grecian empire, pagan Rome (2 legs for 2 empires, western and eastern.) and the feet being Europe after Rome.
'''Four Beasts'''
Daniel saw 4 beasts. They were a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a beast. These prophecies are often viewed as the same as the vision of the statue, with the lion being Neo-Babylon, the bear being Medo-Persia, the leopard being Greece, and the Beast being Rome.
'''Ram and He-Goat'''
These visions are of a Ram, a He-Goat, and a little horn. These are viewed often as Medo-Persia, Greece, and papal Rome.

==Dispute on Authorship==
Due to the fact that the book contains prophecies that were fulfilled in the 4th century BC, many [[modernist]] scholars have asserted that this book was not written by Daniel the 6th century BC, but by a later person. However, both Scriptural and textual arguments support the traditional view.<ref name="d"/>

# Jesus (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and His apostles (1 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3) testify that the book was written by "the prophet Daniel", and that it is authoritative.<ref name="d"/>
# The prophet Ezekiel testifies that Daniel was known for his wisdom and righteousness (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3).<ref name="d"/>
# The character and records of the book are also entirely in harmony with the times and circumstances in which the author lived.<ref name="d"/>
# The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such as might be expected.<ref name="d"/> Certain portions (Dan. 2:4; 7) are written in the Chaldee ([[Aramaic]]) language, and the portions written in Hebrew are in a style and form having a close affinity with the later books of the Old Testament, especially with that of Ezra.<ref name="d"/> The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee, passing from the one to the other just as his subject required.<ref name="d"/> This is in strict accordance with the position of the author and of the people for whom his book was written.<ref name="d"/> That Daniel is the writer of this book is also testified to in the book itself (7:1, 28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12:4, 5).<ref name="d"/>

Additionally, findings in the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] dating to the 2nd century BC referred to Daniel as a prophet, which supports the traditional view, as it is unlikely that Daniel would have been accepted as a prophet had the book been written several years previously rather than several centuries previously.<ref>http://www.harvardhouse.com/Daniel_date-written.htm</ref>

{{Old Testament Books}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Biblical Books| b7]]
[[Category:Old Testament Books| b7]]