4 ms·
Fair enough point, it'll be interesting to see this pan out. It seems to me, though, that there are two distinct categories here. On the one hand is what the
by gameman144 5y ago
Fair enough point, it'll be interesting to see this pan out.
It seems to me, though, that there are two distinct categories here.
On the one hand is what the criteria are under which one can exercise their rights. This is where your age criteria for guns, or "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" exceptions, or not being able to practice cannibalism just because it's your religion, come into play.
On the other hand, though, is penalties that exist solely because you're exercising your rights. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right of an individual to buy a gun) isn't permissible is one thing, which is what I think you're referring to above. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right to buy a gun) is permissible, but that the government will penalize you for saying it anyway seems like an absolute breach of your rights.
- krapp 5y agoI have to buy health insurance, even if it mostly subsidizes people less healthy than myself. I have to buy car insurance even if I'm a good driver. When a legally allowed activity can have significant negative effects on society (as gun ownership does) it's not uncommon that society requires compensation through taxes or insurance.
- prepend 5y agoEveryone has to buy Heath insurance. I think the issue here is that only gun owners are paying this new tax.
- pyuser583 5y agoWasn’t there a SCOTUS case recently that said this isn’t the case? The fine is $0.
- jimmygrapes 5y agoThe way it currently stands is that as a U.S. Citizen/Permanent Resident you are required by law to have a documented health insurance with a defined minimal set of coverage based on your circumstances; however, there is no penalty, fee, or other legal method of enforcement of this law, which makes it effectively meaningless. It is on this basis that SCOTUS in recent weeks ruled that there is no reason to change the law, since there is no harm caused by it. A bit screwy, but it's logically sound.
- abduhl 5y agoWhich of your examples are constitutional rights?