As if exempting Nebraska wasn't insulting enough to "equal protection"...

[FlamingMoe]

Ok, PLEASE give me a legal theory to go with your legal conclusion.

The fourteenth amendment provides that no one shall be deprived of equal protection of the law. Exempting members of special clubs is not applying the protection of law equally to all individuals.

You want me to make it even simpler? Fine. We can imagine the conversation that led to this horsecrap idea of exempting union members from the tax as having gone something like this:
"Well, it looks like the 'Cadillac plan' tax will hit some union members and the union members won't support the bill if that's the case. We could really use the support of union members on this issue, so my idea is to exempt union members from the tax."

Now, tell me if you think any court in the nation would uphold the law if we replaced "union members" with "white people." There's no difference.

 

[FlamingMoe]

You most certainly did not ask anything. You made a statement in the imperative mood. You were polite (you said "please"), but it was clearly not a question.

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but where I'm from the addition of "please" to a statement means you're asking someone to do something.

(I saw it as incidental to your complaint that the unions shouldn't be allowed into these negotiations.)

And where did I make such a complaint? Oh, that's right, I didn't.

 

[bpesta22]

Would this really be a constitutional issue as "union status" is not a protected class, like race or sex?

 

[KingMerv00]

The fourteenth amendment provides that no one shall be deprived of equal protection of the law. Exempting members of special clubs is not applying the protection of law equally to all individuals.

You want me to make it even simpler? Fine. We can imagine the conversation that led to this horsecrap idea of exempting union members from the tax as having gone something like this:
"Well, it looks like the 'Cadillac plan' tax will hit some union members and the union members won't support the bill if that's the case. We could really use the support of union members on this issue, so my idea is to exempt union members from the tax."

Wait, I thought you originally said you opinion was a moral one, not a legal one? Guess you changed your mind.

Anyway, that's not a terrible start. Now tell me, have you actually read any court cases involving the equal protection clause or are you just trying to look at the Constitution and suss out your opinion? Constitutional law IS precedent. You can't simply ignore it because you have an idea in your head. That means your next step is to read a bunch of cases and tell me how the past affects the present.

Now, tell me if you think any court in the nation would uphold the law if we replaced "union members" with "white people." There's no difference.

It wouldn't because race (along with religion etc) is considered a "protected class" by the Supreme Court. I read it in one of those "court opinion" thingys. It seems you have no idea how constitutional law works.

 

[KingMerv00]

Would this really be a constitutional issue as "union status" is not a protected class, like race or sex?

Way to ninja me bpesta.

*Looks a timestamp*

OK you ninja'd me be like 4 hours.

 

[bpesta22]

Woot!

I can even discuss mutable classes and whatnot.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The fourteenth amendment provides that no one shall be deprived of equal protection of the law. Exempting members of special clubs is not applying the protection of law equally to all individuals.

You want me to make it even simpler? Fine. We can imagine the conversation that led to this horsecrap idea of exempting union members from the tax as having gone something like this:
"Well, it looks like the 'Cadillac plan' tax will hit some union members and the union members won't support the bill if that's the case. We could really use the support of union members on this issue, so my idea is to exempt union members from the tax."

Now, tell me if you think any court in the nation would uphold the law if we replaced "union members" with "white people." There's no difference.

And again, my prediction has come true:

Well said, and I predict we will not see a legal theory of why the healthcare bill represents a violation of the 14th Amendment beyond the arm waving we've seen.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but where I'm from the addition of "please" to a statement means you're asking someone to do something.

That's not linguistically correct. "Please do not smoke," is not a question. It is a polite command (in the imperative mood).

But please, talk about your legal theory instead of this quibbling over your desire to banish KingMerv from your thread.

Though I am glad you recognize that you've made a legal assertion and have dropped your "request" that KingMerv either consider your assertion to be something else or "get out".

You seem unable to distinguish between a legal opinion and a philosophical one. Until you can do this, please just get out.

 

[KingMerv00]

That's not linguistically correct. "Please do not smoke," is not a question. It is a polite command (in the imperative mood).

But please, talk about your legal theory instead of this quibbling over your desire to banish KingMerv from your thread.

Though I am glad you recognize that you've made a legal assertion and have dropped your "request" that KingMerv either consider your assertion to be something else or "get out".

FlamingMoe gave one opinion that he claimed was a moral opinion and then gave the exact same opinion in a legal context. It seems he is unable to distinguish moral from legal as well. Perhaps he should "get out"?

 

[Alt+F4]

You want me to make it even simpler? Fine. We can imagine the conversation that led to this horsecrap idea of exempting union members from the tax as having gone something like this:
"Well, it looks like the 'Cadillac plan' tax will hit some union members and the union members won't support the bill if that's the case. We could really use the support of union members on this issue, so my idea is to exempt union members from the tax."

Now, tell me if you think any court in the nation would uphold the law if we replaced "union members" with "white people." There's no difference.

Again, what you describe has happened time and time again in American history. Why is it ok to give Cuban-Americans, straight people and parents certain rights and/or privileges that all the other Americans have been denied?

I would think the legal argument here would be precedent. The courts have repeatedly ruled that some Americans are entitled to certain rights and/or privileges and others aren't. How is the union issue involving the health care bill any different?