DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**eFDMBwKH** · 06-28-2012, 05:02 PM

Headlines should read

"Supremes confirm they are bought and paid for"

They're probably right that it should be allowed to exist as a tax. However, the key thing is they should have struck it down since it wasn't a tax to force congress to actually write a bill that says it is a tax. It would have never made it through congress. I fail to see how congress can pass something and it "transforms" at the supreme court into something else. The court can either accept or reject what congress passed, they can't change it.

06-28-2012, 05:02 PM	#29
eFDMBwKH Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 515 Senior Member	Headlines should read "Supremes confirm they are bought and paid for" They're probably right that it should be allowed to exist as a tax. However, the key thing is they should have struck it down since it wasn't a tax to force congress to actually write a bill that says it is a tax. It would have never made it through congress. I fail to see how congress can pass something and it "transforms" at the supreme court into something else. The court can either accept or reject what congress passed, they can't change it.
	Quote