What should the penalty be turned out as?
We have that the world as we know it has been at stake - is at stake in ways not considered by its political authors.
Some matters are not as simple as a “two-fer” of “BOGO”.
We have real legal precepts and the soul of our Constitution at stake and a timely and fair call to consider/reconsider the 80th Congress of our United States of America. We have 2010 electoral sweep that was great. We have, I believe, that the 2010 Republican national sweeping against nationalism was greater than the historic clean up by the 80th Congress’.
As we have masses and masses of citizens engaged now in hearing our Supreme Court Justices and Constitutional scholars and professionals we have a rare consummation metaphysically about privately and publicly expressive not just to our rights but to how they are echoing from kitchen tables all across the world - the world as we think we know it.
Today’s matter before our honorable Justices has been an early serving of so much long anticipated.
This is not as corruptible as a political power coupling consummated decades on decades at a singular dynamic now still as much a threat to “the world as we know it” — a “buy one get one” a “two-fer” where the suitors united contractually as one preface and amend willy nilly to a singularity plating and as well a duplicitousness feasting.
We have that our 80th Congress post haste, did convene and get to business to make corrections and craft protections from the type of “BOGO” that was the Roosevelts. We have that our 22nd Amendment was maybe the greatest accomplishment of our 80th Congress. They stuck to proper procedure for amending our Constitution to effect matters specific to rights essential to protect and preserve our home world as it was known by its founding documents.
With the jurist vacuums out offering to clean up our nationalism for a open and free participatory conversation now matter the where or what of your kitchen and its table we have that we are able to hear how our Powers and power resonate and even echo at and through and from our Supreme Court and its jurisprudence and charge.
In matters related specifically to our benches today and our bars we have the differentiation between “tax” and “penalty” and our AIA (anti-injunction act). This is a little simpler than a “two-fer” amending as of the 80th Congress and its adherence to proper procedure for their work to serve or dish change of such mass and flavor.
It seems that though related at least as per Congressional process we have that our AIA seems appropriate for “taxes” but not for “penalties” so for as with a “tax” the concern to such as an anti-injuction act was to preserve the funding necessary for the revenue sufficient for the specific plan and budgeting deemed politically proper if proper procedure adhered to for matters of such mass.
But our 80th Congress had to find a way to write about Presidential spouses and “two-fer” or BOGO power coupling natural corruptive temptations and risks. They had a charge and nation wanting to fight back from Roosevelts a with a full on serving of the potpourri that is our 22nd Amendment specifically concocted about a concern of shared Presidential power practiced selfishly by Franklin and Eleanor and even as well some say their daughter.
A “penalty” is not thought to be a threat to the essential revenue stream as a “tax” for a program so budgeted and bolstered by proper process in the world as we know likely is justly considered to be. A bar to refuse to pay a tax where a process for appeal is set to be pay first and then litigate to get it back if you can establish proper cause is not the same as being of an allowance for a “penalty” such that a failure to pay shouldn’t be a primary and real threat to the massness, especially where process minor to a our major process to “taxes” and as well to amended “rights”.
Our 80th Congress had it more procedure “proper”. After the Roosevelts multi-term run and excesses with a New Deal Court a national upheaval happened quite about term limits and especially a consideration, how & why, as to spousal rights.
We seem to have our 22nd Amendment to secure a right for women of a marriage to be electable to hold our office of the President - as to be expected by such an honorable Congress as our 80th.
We seem to have that though a right for a spouse to be electable to our office of the President works for either spouse it in the world as we know it seems specifically as per our 22nd Amendment to be assured to respect the laws of unions of marriage and all laws specific to husband and wife even to home ownership and nesting and so ratified to be a right for either spouse but not for both spouses.
Again, in the world as we know it, we have that a “penalty” as per AIA import as per “in the same manner as taxes” is a much lesser dish served so with questionable process for the purport of Pelosi Congress deed of “Obamacare” and so for it needed be of “injunction” reach for it so separated to “minor” realm as if not a threat that a refusal to pay “taxes” would be to thought essential nationalized budgeting.
I don’t know how they could have written a single sentence or paragraph for a proper amending of our Constitution to effect an actually legal vast expansion of federal powers so otherwise of their over-reaching with Pelosi Congress’ “Obamacare.
I do admire the 80th Congress for its common erudity mastering for our 22nd Amendment such that when consumed time and place historically rendered such that with use of “hold” and import of “holding” did parse for their world and our world as we know it that a spouse has a right to be elected to a holding of our office of the President but that both spouses cannot have same right after two terms for one as if a “two-fer” or BOGO kept to being the is that of the is it was meant in it is.
Hillary Clinton was an illegal candidate for President? Goes to figure? If she had been the named holder of our office of President for eight years then “Bill” as her spouse secured in their rights in marriage union as one for many specific and general jurisprudent factors would have been of those eight to having been by election to a holding of our office of the President - maybe even so soulful of a legal union in marriage to “one that acted as President” during such time at least in times of sickness and health.
And so in yet another related legal conundrum concern we have that we can illuminate the Clintons’ “BOGO” and as well the Roosevelts’ “two-fer” as per a Constitutional and general legal practice where one law cannot be to undermining another established law in the world as we know it. We have we are touching on the knowing personal “holding” of marriage and all the selfish and temptatiousness naturally quite unique and special at the level of holding of office of our Presidency - our White House with its home office situation.
To allow both spouses of a marriage union to exceed the eight years expected of two term limiting even if not as of such selfish political power plotting and machinations of either the Roosevelts or the Clintons is still too great a risk in this the world as we know it - or think we know it as “proper”. We don’t have to set all our kitchen tables to discussing the natural temptation of granting a married couple too much power - the power of a separation unreasonable due to the 24-7 nature of our representative expectations for all holders of our office of the President.
To allow our 80th Congress’ masterpiece that is our 22nd Amendment as to respecting all marriage union laws with its ratified language reminiscent of married vows as appropriate for its charge from the excesses of the Roosevelts is to a wise and prudent jurisprudence. For it is that to be to not undermining or violating any other law we have that our 22nd Amendment isn’t allowed to violate the sacred laws pertinent to all matters of commerce, privacy and rights specific to protections and rights for married coupling. We have that our 22nd Amendment speaks to a person elected to hold our office and yet our marriage contracts has a spouse regardless of their sex in such marriage to having also been to a holding of office of presidency. We can not separate that a spouse is also only by the election of the other spouse to having been due to the marriage laws oneness of a contracted also holding of our office.
It seems the “penalty” is not a “tax” and that we have much Un-Constitutionality still to discuss.
It may help to understand the echoes of Un-Constitutionality arising like as if from Roosevelts and their New Deal Court machinations. It may be that the Clintons plotted and plotted and effected political machinations for decades thinking they would be allowed extra-Constitutional temptations far more dangerously to our world as we know it than even the Roosevelts. In the case of the Clintons we may have a need still to look into such machinations for they may have long considered and then effected attempts to hold on to executive powers of our office of the President in the interim they thought would be manageable and brief.
It is a rare opportunity for a nation like ours to have an American Spring or even an American “RESET” such as this courtly nationalized and globalized airing is mashing. We have that there are other related matters maybe even more concerning and now though easier to a mass a fair and broad general discussion forthwith about.
We have that it may only make sense that our 22nd Amendment is meant to be appropriate to a determination that Hillary Clinton was an illegal candidate for President and may now be an Un-Constitutional holder of an office within our line of succession to the primary holding of office of our presidency as it is allowed so uniquely and specially within our White House and home office “kitchy” attitude.
We have that it is a related matter that our 80th Congress carefully did follow proper procedure for Constitutional amending.
We have that Pelosi Congress with “Obamacare” thought they could work around proper procedure.
We still have that the Clintons were both as per a reasonable interpretation of our 22nd Amendment term limited when the named holder of office became term limited for by marriage the other spouse was legally and contractually inseparable from their marriage union. A spouse regardless of their sex is also to by election to “a holding of our office of the President” - a very personal and important and intimate holding in sickness and in health through all the times that try their soul.
It would violate our marriage laws to otherwise consider that a spouse regardless of their sex, and with all these related matters, is separable from the holding of the other. And, we have that we are talking about our White House and all about its consideration as proper to a home for both with a home office for our “parenting” 24-7.
As per “penalty” >>> Really!!! If a BOGO sold as an is a “two-fer” shouldn’t it stay legally an is a “two-fer”?