1
   

OBAMACARE is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 11:09 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
You've got to be a pretty scummy person to do what you continually attempt to do here, Finn. Constant misdirection, unbelievable levels of hypocrisy, outright lies.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:40 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency, less freedom and reduced liberty.
We should be able to depend upon our government, and if we could depend upon our government for justice we would not be reduced to depending upon the government for some form of welfare.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:43 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency, less freedom and reduced liberty.
We should be able to depend upon our government, and if we could depend upon our government for justice we would not be reduced to depending upon the government for some form of welfare.


Today's Obama government is not one you can depend on for anything good.
parados
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:00 am
@H2O MAN,
Did the terrorists blow up your outdoor toilet again?
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:11 am
@parados,
http://www.theangrypatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fuckobama.jpg
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:18 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Fido wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency, less freedom and reduced liberty.
We should be able to depend upon our government, and if we could depend upon our government for justice we would not be reduced to depending upon the government for some form of welfare.


Today's Obama government is not one you can depend on for anything good.
It was always a house divided, but there has always been so much of America, and so much opportunity that most of us, enough of us could do well even if we did not have justice from our government having justice as one of its goals... Now you see us fighting amongs ourselves, locked in bitter hatred in some cases and advocating a sort of social cannibalism, of taking from the weak because the rich and powerful have already secured the best and the rest, and where is the government to give us the promised justice???

You say Obama's government, but his government like all the rest has existed to serve the rich... He has to put on the appearance of serving the poor, but the facts are that his a bought negro... He is not going to give us justice, and no people should actually rely upon their government for justice... We should never allow our government to deny us justice as our government have always done, or eventually it will get to the point as it has in medicine where whe poor will want and wait for good health so the rich can have theirs as they wish... Look at the bastards in government... They serve themselves for a few years and when fired by the people they have health insurance for life... Why should they care what we must suffer... They will not care what we endure unless they themselves also endure it... Their wages must be the same as our wages and then we can see both go up together... Their health care must be the same as our health care if we expect improvement of our own... It should be our government and we should expect from it all and everything it has promised when it set itself up in business...
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:27 am
@H2O MAN,
Gosh squirt, is that the last picture you took of your girlfriend?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:40 am
@Fido,
Fido, Obama democrats talk of leveling the playing field and making thing equal for everyone. They lie.
They are actually attempting to make the dumbmasses equally miserable while they increase their wealth and power at our expense.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 11:23 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency,
less freedom and reduced liberty.
Yeah; I have long had a low opinion of McCain,
but I voted for him against oboy.

It boggles the mind
that anyone coud think that Congress had the authority
to make all American citizens buy health insurance.

That concept, in effect, repudiates the Constitution,
specificly the 9th and 10th Amendments; naked usurpation.

Interestingly, Judge Vinson didn't base his opinion primarily on 9A and 10A - unless they're indirectly referred to and I missed it:
Quote:
[T]here are lots of markets—especially if defined broadly enough—that people cannot “opt out” of. For example, everyone must participate in the food market. Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market. Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile—now partially government-owned—because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business....
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 03:14 pm
@High Seas,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
A vote for Obama was a vote for more government dependency,
less freedom and reduced liberty.
Yeah; I have long had a low opinion of McCain,
but I voted for him against oboy.

It boggles the mind
that anyone coud think that Congress had the authority
to make all American citizens buy health insurance.

That concept, in effect, repudiates the Constitution,
specificly the 9th and 10th Amendments; naked usurpation.
High Seas wrote:
Interestingly, Judge Vinson didn't base his opinion primarily on 9A and 10A - unless they're indirectly referred to and I missed it:
Quote:
[T]here are lots of markets—especially if defined broadly enough—that people cannot “opt out” of. For example, everyone must participate in the food market. Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market. Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile—now partially government-owned—because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business....
The Court is using the means of reductio ad absurdum,
to champion the filosofy of the 9th and 10th Amendments, that the federal government
is limited to its explicitly granted authority
and that the interstate commerce clause
was NOT intended to be an engine of despotism over American citizens.

I 'd have been tempted to throw the 13th Amendment
into the argument.





David
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:07 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Fido, Obama democrats talk of leveling the playing field and making thing equal for everyone. They lie.
They are actually attempting to make the dumbmasses equally miserable while they increase their wealth and power at our expense.
While saying I agree that basic equality of opportuhity and services is essential to democracy; let me state that to treat everyone equally does an injustice to all... People are different, and all deserving of individual recognition which takes into account their ability and needs... If they have honor they will demand no more from society than they give, nor take more than they deserve; and honor too is essential to democracy... Unfortunately, our society denies the value of honor at every turn and rewards dishonor to such an extent that it is an empty word.. Judges and politicians take oaths, but hide behind the very rights they are meant to defend... No wonder we hold them in such contempt, and heap them high with contumely....
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 06:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
It is the judge's argument that is absurd. Forcing people to buy broccoli is not the same thing as health coverage. Broccoli is one kind of food just like Viagra would be one kind of health coverage need. The government isn't forcing everyone to buy Viagra.

If you want to make a comparison, health care is like food. Everyone will need it in their lifetime. We don't allow people to get free food. Either they pay for it or the government subsidizes those that can't afford it. Is the judge arguing that we can't make people pay for food? If the government required that all persons be able to get groceries from a grocery store whether they can pay or not would we still feel the same way?
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 06:18 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
It is the judge's argument that is absurd.
It is the OPPOSITE of absurd.
The judge is aware that there is NO
jurisdictional predicate. Therefore, it is an ultra vires act of USURPATION.



parados wrote:
Forcing people to buy broccoli is not the same thing as health coverage.
In BOTH cases,
government has NO jurisdiction to make anyone buy it against his will.





David



Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 06:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
The judge is aware that there is NO
jurisdictional predicate.


You are perfectly incorrect. What more, the first bill which mandated that citizens buy items - whether they like it or not - was signed by George Washington himself. The Militia act of 1792.

Federal mandates have been around forever and the vast majority of legal scholars recognize this. You're simply talking out your ass here.

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 06:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:
The judge is aware that there is NO
jurisdictional predicate.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are perfectly incorrect. What more, the first bill which mandated that citizens buy items - whether they like it or not - was signed by George Washington himself. The Militia act of 1792.

Federal mandates have been around forever and the vast majority of legal scholars recognize this. You're simply talking out your ass here.

Cycloptichorn
That was in furtherance
of a GRANTED and unquestioned power of Congress: the War Power.

Buying insurance is not in furtherance of the War Power;
i.e., there is no jurisdictional predicate,
unlike the Militia Act.





David
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 06:47 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Are you saying owning a gun isn't healthy David?
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 06:51 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Are you saying owning a gun isn't healthy David?
Guns ARE health insurance,
but thay are not mandatory.

Do u think that (like compulsory use of seatbelts)
the 2nd Amendment shoud have made gun possession mandatory
for each citizen who is able to aim one ?

Maybe.





David
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 06:53 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Since guns ARE health insurance and since the 1792 Militia act mandated ownership of guns it appears we have a precedent for government mandating health insurance.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 04:12 am
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye no insurance model will work if you can wait until you are ill to be cover by insurance.

If everyone need to be cover rule go then the mandate on covering people with preexisting conditions will have to go also.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 10:10 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Health mandates also fall under a granted and unquestioned power of the Constitution: the Commerce clause. And there exists a wealth of case law that supports this - the SC has been pimping the commerce clause for about 40 straight years now, for all sorts of things.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/13/2021 at 02:57:55