MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Thu 25 Mar, 2010 07:26 pm
@Advocate,
Well, Advocate, sometimes, it is necessary to take a stand. Even the newspaper in President Barack Hussein Obama's home town thinks Obamacare is a scam and based on lies.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-health0322-20100321,0,7727464.story

Sunday night's voting in the House, like that Dec. 24 action in the Senate, had Democrats unilaterally in charge " and voting against the wishes of a majority of Americans. The Democrats are convinced that their legislation is good not just for health care but for already overextended federal finances.

That dubious conclusion rests on a Congressional Budget Office guesstimate that Washington can spend nearly $1 trillion more on health care over 10 years " and also cut the deficit by $138 billion. Writing in Sunday's New York Times, former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin profoundly disagreed: "(T)he budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out. In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion."

Oops. Someone is terribly wrong here " and sure to be mighty embarrassed when the truth emerges. Having parsed his explanation of the CBO's sleight of hand, and knowing how unlikely it is that future Congresses will make the difficult decisions that this Congress wouldn't, we suspect it won't be Holtz-Eakin.
*********************************************************

RAISING FEDERAL DEFICITS BY 562 BILLION!!!!!
Advocate
 
  0  
Fri 26 Mar, 2010 09:02 am
@MASSAGAT,
It is funny that you buy into Holtz-Eakin's nonsense. Remember, he is the guy who had no problem with massive Rep spending for two wars, the Med B program, etc., without paying for them. He talks about stripping out gimmicks and budgetary games, but provides little support for what he alleged did. E.g., he says that the proposed Med cut is dubious. That is his unsupported opinion.

Regarding Rep actions to stop work in congress, the Reps stopped an important military-related hearing for which our generals and others traveled half-way across the world. These are critical bi-partisan matters that the Reps are hijacking.

0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Fri 26 Mar, 2010 02:00 pm
Good afternoon. Today AT&T announced that it was taking a $1B non-cash charge to its 1st quarter earnings due to a change in the tax law relating to the cost of providing prescription drug coverage to retirees. The change was part of the health care bill. Other large companies like Deere and Caterpiller have also reported that they will have to make a charge, although by much lesser amounts.
I must admit that I had no idea what the issue here was about so I did some searching. Here is my attempt to make this as painless for us all to comprehend.
In 2003 the cost of prescription drugs was added to Medicare coverage. The government, in an effort to keep the system from being overwhelmed, encouraged employers to add prescription drug coverage to the retirement plans of existing retirees. As an inducement, the government would give the companies a 28% tax-free subsidy every year. The cost to the government was 3.8B in 2008.
Still with me? If the cost to a company for adding drug coverage was $100, they would get a check from the government for $28 but it could deduct $100 on its taxes.
The new law, as I understand it, allows the company to deduct only the net $72 as an expense.
The 1B charge taken by AT&T represents the estimated total cost of the lost tax deductions from going from 100% to 72%.
An estimated 6 million retirees received drug coverage under this 2003 plan where their former employers voluntarily added it to retirement packages that they were contractually committed to. Some claim that as many as 2 million of them may lose the coverage that was added. This would drive those folks to less generous Medicare plans.

That is the best I can do to explain the charges AT&T et al are taking. If any of yall want to take a whack at it, please do so. Thanks.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Fri 26 Mar, 2010 02:24 pm
Quote:

Government Healthcare Takeover Scheme Moves to Court Challenge Phase

(WASHINGTON, DC) - House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter (TX-31) on Tuesday encouraged efforts by the nation's state attorneys general to overturn the healthcare scheme signed into law this morning by President Obama.

"The President has signed a bill into law that is brazenly unconstitutional," says Carter. "We applaud the state attorneys general from the 15 states who are moving immediately to seek injunctive relief to stop the implementation of this flawed and illegal Act. Like so much that has been undertaken by the President and Speaker Pelosi, this bill and the process by which it has been advanced through Congress is a blatant violation of the principles of the Rule of Law."

Carter this week began a campaign to build support in Congress for the lawsuits, as part of a multi-tiered approach to repeal and replace the illegal act signed into law earlier today.

The former Texas judge supports new legislation to guarantee access to health plans for patients with pre-existing conditions, allow families to buy coverage across state lines, increase the maximum age for children to stay on their parent's plans, and preserve the TRICARE program for military beneficiaries, while not increasing the federal deficit or infringing on individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid Exempt Staff from New Federal Health Gulags

(WASHINGTON, DC) - In what will likely be recorded as the greatest political hypocrisy in American history, President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have exempted the entire Administration along with House and Senate leadership and committee staff members from participation in their new federal healthcare gulags, while forcing rank-and-file House and Senate staff out of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) and into the restricted federal health insurance pools, along with the rest of working Americans.

"This is such an incredible affront to every principle of equality in this country that it demands an immediate apology to the nation by the President," says House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter. "That should be followed by a straight up-and-down vote in the House and Senate on a bill requiring every Member and staff in both Houses and the Administration be included in this new monstrosity, with no exceptions for leadership, committee staff, the President's cabinet, or the President. If they think this crap is good enough for Joe the Plumber, then it should be good enough for Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, and Tim Geithner."

HR 3590, signed into law by President Obama on Tuesday, removes House and Senate Members and their official staff from FEHBP, forcing them and the rest of the country into the new federal exchanges. However, the bill was amended by Reid in the Senate to exclude all leadership and committee staff, who along with the President, Vice-President, Cabinet Members, thousands of Obama Administration staff, and an unknown number of Czars, would be allowed to remain in the superior FEHBP program.

Carter, himself a member of the House Republican leadership with staffers that would be included in the waiver, says the law should be applied equally to all, or none.

"Either every Member of Congress and the Administration and their staff at every level should move to the federal exchanges, or no American anywhere should be forced to do so. Senator Reid's actions speak much louder than his words on what this bill was really about," says Carter.

ican711nm
 
  -2  
Fri 26 Mar, 2010 02:37 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Liberty Counsel filed this lawsuit for the millions of citizens like you who recognize that ObamaCare is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights as Americans.

Mandating health insurance for every person and employer is a stunning example of the abuse of power that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Congress never had the authority to pass this kind of legislation in the first place!

++We're calling the President's administrators to account.

This lawsuit is designed to force a courtroom confrontation on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. That's why our lawsuit specifically lists the following people as defendants:

Timothy Geithner, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General

In my exclusive audio message, you will hear how the events of the past few days will affect all Americans and how we are countering this egregious violation of our constitution and personal liberties.

Click here to read the lawsuit in its entirety, to hear my special message, and to sign your "Statement of Support."

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=26509&RID=23256627
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Fri 26 Mar, 2010 03:10 pm
Hey, there's an article about ican in the paper!
parados
 
  2  
Fri 26 Mar, 2010 03:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
That's funny joe

I love the last line -
Quote:
"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime.


0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Fri 26 Mar, 2010 03:41 pm
I PREFER TO READ IT FOR MYSELF! YOU SHOULD READ IT FOR YOURSELVES!
These links should make it easy for you.
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I
...
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The Bill of Rights (1791)
Amendment I
...
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendments XI-XXVII
To the US Constitution
Amendment XI (1798)
...

parados
 
  2  
Fri 26 Mar, 2010 03:43 pm
@ican711nm,
The problem then is that you haven't read the dictionary ican. You don't get to make up meanings of words in the constitution.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Fri 26 Mar, 2010 04:57 pm
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS MAY HELP YOU BETTER UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF!
Quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
The Federalist Papers
Print Subscribe Share/Save
The original text of the Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) was obtained from the e-text archives of Project Gutenberg. View or download the entire plain text version of all of the Federalist Papers as supplied by Project Gutenberg. Information and Disclaimer for the Gutenberg version of The Federalist. For more information, see About the Federalist Papers.
No. Title Author Publication Date
1 General Introduction
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
2 Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
Jay For the Independent Journal - -
3 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
Jay For the Independent Journal - -
4 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
Jay For the Independent Journal - -
5 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
Jay For the Independent Journal - -
6 Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
7 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
8 The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, November 20, 1787
9 The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
10 The Same Subject Continued:
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
Madison From the New York Packet Friday, November 23, 1787
11 The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
12 The Utility of the Union in Respect to Revenue
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, November 27, 1787
13 Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
14 Objections to the Proposed Constitution from Extent of Territory Answered
Madison From the New York Packet Friday, November 30, 1787
15 The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
16 The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, December 4, 1787
17 The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
18 The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
Hamilton and Madison For the Independent Journal - -
19 The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
Hamilton and Madison For the Independent Journal - -
20 The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
Hamilton and Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, December 11, 1787
21 Other Defects of the Present Confederation
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
22 The Same Subject Continued:
Other Defects of the Present Confederation
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, December 14, 1787
23 The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, December 17, 1787
24 The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
25 The Same Subject Continued:
The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, December 21, 1787
26 The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
27 The Same Subject Continued:
The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, December 25, 1787
28 The Same Subject Continued:
The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
29 Concerning the Militia
Hamilton From the Daily Advertiser Thursday, January 10, 1788
30 Concerning the General Power of Taxation
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, December 28, 1787
31 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, January 1, 1788
32 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
Hamilton From the Daily Advertiser Thursday, January 3, 1788
33 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
Hamilton From the Daily Advertiser Thursday, January 3, 1788
34. The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, January 4, 1788
35 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
36 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, January 8, 1788
37 Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government
Madison From the Daily Advertiser Friday, January 11, 1788
38 The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed
Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, January 15, 1788
39 The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
Madison For the Independent Journal - -
40 The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
Madison From the New York Packet Friday, January 18, 1788
41 General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution
Madison For the Independent Journal - -
42 The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, January 22, 1788
43 The Same Subject Continued:
The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
Madison For the Independent Journal - -
44 Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States
Madison From the New York Packet Friday, January 25, 1788
45 The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
Madison For the Independent Journal - -
46 The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared
Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, January 29, 1788
47 The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts
Madison From the New York Packet Friday, February 1, 1788
48 These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other
Madison From the New York Packet Friday, February 1, 1788
49 Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, February 5, 1788
50 Periodic Appeals to the People Considered
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, February 5, 1788
51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet Friday, February 8, 1788
52 The House of Representatives
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet Friday, February 8, 1788
53 The Same Subject Continued:
The House of Representatives
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, February 12, 1788
54 The Apportionment of Members Among the States
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, February 12, 1788
55 The Total Number of the House of Representatives
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet Friday, February 15, 1788
56 The Same Subject Continued:
The Total Number of the House of Representatives
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, February 19, 1788
57 The Alleged Tendency of the Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation
Hamilton or Madison From the New York Packet Tuesday, February 19, 1788
58 Objection that the Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered
Madison - - - -
59 Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, February 22, 1788
60 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, February 26, 1788
61 The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, February 26, 1788
62 The Senate
Hamilton or Madison For the Independent Journal - -
63 The Senate Continued
Hamilton or Madison For the Independent Journal - -
64 The Powers of the Senate
Jay From the New York Packet Friday, March 7, 1788
65 The Powers of the Senate Continued
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, March 7, 1788
66 Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, March 11, 1788
67 The Executive Department
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, March 11, 1788
68 The Mode of Electing the President
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, March 14, 1788
69 The Real Character of the Executive
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, March 14, 1788
70 The Executive Department Further Considered
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, March 14, 1788
71 The Duration in Office of the Executive
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, March 18, 1788
72 The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, March 21, 1788
73 The Provision for Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, March 21, 1788
74 The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, March 25, 1788
75 The Treaty Making Power of the Executive
Hamilton For the Independent Journal - -
76 The Appointing Power of the Executive
Hamilton From the New York Packet Tuesday, April 1, 1788
77 The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered
Hamilton From the New York Packet Friday, April 4, 1788
78 The Judiciary Department
Hamilton From McLEAN's Edition, New York - -
79 The Judiciary Continued
Hamilton From McLEAN's Edition, New York - -
80 The Powers of the Judiciary
Hamilton From McLEAN's Edition, New York - -
81 The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of Judicial Authority
Hamilton From McLEAN's Edition, New York - -
82 The Judiciary Continued
Hamilton From McLEAN's Edition, New York - -
83 The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury
Hamilton From McLEAN's Edition, New York - -
84 Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered
Hamilton From McLEAN's Edition, New York - -
85 Concluding Remarks
Hamilton From McLEAN's Edition, New York
-
Below viewing threshold (view)
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:56 am
@parados,
The problem is not with Ican, Parados! It is with people who try to repeal the First Amendment of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech , or of the press....
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Sat 27 Mar, 2010 01:02 am
The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment was to be upheld.


AP2009

(AP Graphic)
In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that free-speech rights permit groups like corporations and labor unions to directly spend on political campaigns, prompting the White House to pledge "forceful" action to undercut the decision.

In a written statement, President Obama said the high court had "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." He called it a "major victory" for Wall Street, health insurance companies and other interests which would diminish the influence of Americans who give small donations. Obama pledged to "work immediately" with Congress to develop a "forceful response."

"The public interest requires nothing less," Obama said.

Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."

"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
okie
 
  -1  
Sat 27 Mar, 2010 02:26 am
@MASSAGAT,
MASSAGAT wrote:

In a written statement, President Obama said the high court had "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics."

Hey Obama, what you may be talkin about is "your government thug special interest money, your money, your power, your voters, your special interests, your little mission of dictator wannabe." Its your special interest politics, Barack. We aint that dumb out here, we know what your game is.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Sat 27 Mar, 2010 02:45 am
@joefromchicago,
No, the article is not about Ican. It is about the Obama forces becoming panicky because it looks like the Party will lose dozens of seats in the House and Senate.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Sat 27 Mar, 2010 02:48 am
@parados,
I am sure that you have read the dictionary carefully, Parados. You appear to have read extensively.

A quiz for you.

Who believes in the following statement:

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"

A. Doctrinaire Communists

B. Nancy Pelosi

C. Barack Hussein Obama

D. All of the Above

0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Sat 27 Mar, 2010 02:54 am



Encyclopedia > From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase incorporates the ideal that, under a communist system of government, every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need, irrespective of what they have produced.
********************************************************************

THE KEY PHRASE HERE IS "Irrespective of what they have produced"

I think that people, who through no fault of their own, need medical care should be afforded the best available but those who HAVE NOT PRODUCED OR HAVE NEVER PRODUCED AND HAVE BEEN ON THE DOLE THEIR ENTIRE LIVES OR HAVE NOT PLEDGED FEALTY TO THIS COUNTRY fall under that phrase.



0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Sat 27 Mar, 2010 03:29 am
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

In 2003 the cost of prescription drugs was added to Medicare coverage.


Glad you mentioned that, because I have no idea what that means. I have prescription drug coverage because I elected to buy coverage. Mine runs around $28.00/month. There just has to be a subsidy to the insurance company, but what of those who decline the coverage? They get nothing. Just wondering how the system works, is all I'm saying.


realjohnboy wrote:

That is the best I can do to explain the charges AT&T et al are taking. If any of yall want to take a whack at it, please do so. Thanks.



Not me. I read at least one article on the subject, and yours seems the most likely explanation. I suppose everyone with a subsidy on anything seems to take a reduction in subsidy as a tax increase. Thinking of students in California state colleges, I have trouble with the concept.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:31 am
@ican711nm,
If only I read the Federalist papers, then I could be as smart as you? (Who based on your arguments clearly hasn't read them.)

Quick question for you ican. What limit on taxation does Hamilton argue for in his papers on taxation?
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sat 27 Mar, 2010 07:26 pm
@parados,
Quote:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed36.asp
Hamilton No. 36
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''

 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1606
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 01:40:38