EXAMPLE USAGE: JMJ claimed the etymology of the phrase “politically correct” can be traced at least to 18th Century America.

ETIOLOGY: 1: cause, origin; specifically: the cause of a disease or abnormal condition; 2: a branch of knowledge concerned with causes; specifically: a branch of medical science concerned with the causes and origins of diseases
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/etiology

EXAMPLE USAGE: Determining the etiology of grandiose dissembling is unlikey to be achieved by the casual observer but is better left to a forensic psychiatrist.

CHILDHOOD RHYME (Adapted):
“Poor little dissembler sitting on a fence, trying to make a dollar out of ninety-nine cents.”

–Am Ende–

I don’t know why you quoted Wilson, as though the quote supports your argument. It does not. He clearly indicates that he finds the example given “inaccurate,” and therefore, “not politically correct.” Did you read my earlier post? “Politically correct” in its current use is not concerned with accuracy; it is concerned with implication and presentation. That is exactly what I argued. You make my point.

Happy Fourth, DB.

“The states, rather than the people, for whose sake the states exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention… Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language… ‘The United States,’ instead of the ‘People of the United States,’ is the toast given. This is not politically correct.”

— James Wilson
With no cut-and-paste for effect

P.S.: Etymology not etiology

A tax or revenue bill must originate in the House but a bill that may/will require new or additional taxes MAY originate in the Senate. The individual mandate falls into the latter category, thereby making moot any argument concerning the legality of mandate based upon its containing bill’s origin.

It is fit and proper for the Court to determine the nature and, more importantly, the Constitutionality, of the individual mandate irrespective of the verbiage used in its presentation or argument.

The States’ and Federal governments have concurrent powers to tax, levy, excise, it being recognized early as The Articles of Confederation that a state or national government without that power would be ineffectual. The Court has often abridged those powers to tax, etc. I am unaware of an instance where it created a new one, which it certainly did not with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

You assert that, “To tax a man’s decision to not engage in commerce is an unreasonable seizure of his income.” That argument resonates with me but I lay it aside when considering the following analogy: If I chose not fully to insure my car and wrecked it, you and society would feel no compulsion to fix it for me. However, if I also chose not to medically insure myself, drove that car, wrecked it AND myself, you and society WOULD feel a responsibility to fix me. Well, except maybe DB.

Doesn’t the commonweal override our shared outrage?

The conservatives’ Great Right Hope, Mitt Romney, thought so when he signed into law an individual mandate bill in 2006(7?)

Although this law is flawed and the Court correctly found provisions of it un-Constitutional. However, PPACA provides a solid base upon which we can stand, argue, debate and compromise. Crazy as this Country sometimes seems, we’ll work it out eventually. We usually do.

So, just as you abuse the Bard’s “Hamlet” in this thread, you decided to use “politically correct” in it’s 18th century context? And then you conclude WE are confused by our ignorence? In that case, here’s another current phrase I like, which you can take any way you like: Oh, WHATEVER….

But FYI, even in the 18th century context you seems to prefer, your suggestion that the Birther issue is a conservative PC position doesn’t stand, as I point out in my second post of this thread. It is not a “prevaling” position on the right.