c*****r
发帖数: 8227 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Stock 讨论区 】
发信人: catcher (Can I?), 信区: Stock
标 题: 判定Obamacare违宪，几成定局
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Mar 28 19:09:18 2012, 美东)
关键就在这位大法官Anthony Kennedy的这一段话：
“The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do
an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law, has been
that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger.
The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to
stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral
criticisms of that rule but that’s generally the rule. And here, the
government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the
individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have
in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal
government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” | y*****d
发帖数: 4451 | 2 I am wondering what Scalia says. | c**d
发帖数: 3888 | 3
Do you really need to wonder?
【在 y*****d 的大作中提到】
: I am wondering what Scalia says.
| c*****r
发帖数: 8227 | 4 I only care what Justice Kennedy says. :)
【在 y*****d 的大作中提到】
: I am wondering what Scalia says.
| s**x
发帖数: 7506 | 5 Is taxing constitutional? We can always revise the constitution if needed.
IMO, us need a 全民公决 for this. | P*O
发帖数: 4324 | 6 选总统不都是全民公决的？
还是精英比愚民好。
【在 s**x 的大作中提到】
: Is taxing constitutional? We can always revise the constitution if needed.
: IMO, us need a 全民公决 for this.
|
|
