What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Obamacare'? - Page 6

kokonut · 04-02-2012, 04:55 PM

Hmm...interesting. This is what The Drudge Report said:

"DID HE GET A LEAK? Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare..."
Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare | Reuters

If it were a leak then probably Kagan might be the responsible one but I'd rather give the Justices the benefit of the doubt that they don't do that kind of thing.

**Foxrac** · 04-02-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

See where you took the easy way and those, who like you take the easy way, will never be beneficial citizens.

Excuse me, your post is ****in nonsense and I'm still beneficial citizen, regardless on what's going with my life.

**Foxrac** · 04-02-2012, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

You have two incentives for those who are able bodied, work on your own and the opportunity to advance yourself and make more money, or receive welfare support that limits your outlook.

Getting off welfare should be designed to allow others to gradually wean from it but it has a trapping that if you take a job with a certain number of hours, you could lose your welfare support.

Come on, you don't know about what I am doing and you placed some members, including me on your ignore list. Your assumption based on me is false.

**Foxrac** · 04-02-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

So you believe social welfare is unconstitutional?

What purpose do you believe the Constitution serves?

Based on your view that you believe about government authority, it means mandatory seat belt law is unconstitutional, and other example - require to have car insurance in state is unconstitutional.

rolling7 · 04-02-2012, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Based on your view that you believe about government authority, it means mandatory seat belt law is unconstitutional, and other example - require to have car insurance in state is unconstitutional.

Nope, you need to do your homework.

There is no such USA government law.

The states, through their own voters, pass STATE laws on seat belts and car insurance.

But I won't be surprised if Obama wants to get Congress to pass a law for government-controlled auto insurance.

Grayma · 04-02-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I didn't say that. You did.

Am I correct?

No, what I said was this:

Quote:

I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.

You said then all social welfare programs should be abolished.

I find that an interesting response, and would like to know why you think that? You are the one who went there. Are you saying that the welfare programs are not constitutional? What purpose do you think the Constitution serves? I am genuinely interested in your answer.

In spite of how things may appear, I like you and I am glad you are here.

**Foxrac** · 04-02-2012, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Nope, you need to do your homework.

There is no such USA government law.

The states, through their own voters, pass STATE laws on seat belts and car insurance.

But I won't be surprised if Obama wants to get Congress to pass a law for government-controlled auto insurance.

In bold - OMG...

You are wrong.

Almost all seat belt law passed by state legislative, same goes with car insurance as well.

There are many federal laws, as well, especially required car parts to be standard like seat belt, traction control, airbag, etc.

Again, I'm not goddamn talking to you but just directly to Grayma.

Grayma · 04-02-2012, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Hmm...interesting. This is what The Drudge Report said:

"DID HE GET A LEAK? Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare..."
Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare | Reuters

If it were a leak then probably Kagan might be the responsible one but I'd rather give the Justices the benefit of the doubt that they don't do that kind of thing.

I would think it more likely, if there really is a leak, that it would be a clerk or somebody like that rather than a justice.

Grayma · 04-02-2012, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

In bold - OMG...

You are wrong.

Almost all seat belt law passed by state legislative, same goes with car insurance as well.

There are many federal laws, as well, especially required car parts to be standard like seat belt, traction control, airbag, etc.

Again, I'm not ******* talking to you but just directly to Grayma.

Expletive deleted because it makes me flinch.

Can you show me where in the Constitution the government has the authority to mandate that people wear seatbelts (or motorcycle helmets, for that matter)?

I do believe it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate seatbelts.

Incidentally, there is a legal difference between laws and regulations. It's kind of one of the distinctions without a difference issues to me, but legally it does matter.

I would guess federal mandates about car manufacturing would be regulatory rather than legislative.

Did I answer your question? I'm not 100% sure what you were asking me, so if I didn't, please ask again (only, please, without expletives?).

Here is a more general question for anybody to answer: Have you read the Constitution (if you're an American)?

**Foxrac** · 04-02-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Expletive deleted because it makes me flinch.

Can you show me where in the Constitution the government has the authority to mandate that people wear seatbelts (or motorcycle helmets, for that matter)?

I do believe it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate seatbelts.

Incidentally, there is a legal difference between laws and regulations. It's kind of one of the distinctions without a difference issues to me, but legally it does matter.

I would guess federal mandates about car manufacturing would be regulatory rather than legislative.

Did I answer your question? I'm not 100% sure what you were asking me, so if I didn't, please ask again (only, please, without expletives?).

Here is a more general question for anybody to answer: Have you read the Constitution (if you're an American)?

I'm just followed based on your views about constitution that limits government authority so I have no idea about whichever constitution will be, especially based on your view.

We do have federal tax on gas - you think it is unconstitutional?

We have federal mandate on education - known as NCLB, you think it is unconstitutional?

I believe that federal mandate is constitutional because I don't find any constitution that restrict federal authority to mandate.

**Jiro** · 04-02-2012, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

No, what I said was this:

You said then all social welfare programs should be abolished.

I find that an interesting response, and would like to know why you think that? You are the one who went there. Are you saying that the welfare programs are not constitutional? What purpose do you think the Constitution serves? I am genuinely interested in your answer.

In spite of how things may appear, I like you and I am glad you are here.

perhaps you missed this part?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I didn't say that. You did.

Am I correct?

so I'll ask again in a way that you can understand - do you believe we should abolish our social welfare program?

rolling7 · 04-02-2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Expletive deleted because it makes me flinch.

Can you show me where in the Constitution the government has the authority to mandate that people wear seatbelts (or motorcycle helmets, for that matter)?

I do believe it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate seatbelts.

Incidentally, there is a legal difference between laws and regulations. It's kind of one of the distinctions without a difference issues to me, but legally it does matter.

I would guess federal mandates about car manufacturing would be regulatory rather than legislative.

Did I answer your question? I'm not 100% sure what you were asking me, so if I didn't, please ask again (only, please, without expletives?).

Here is a more general question for anybody to answer: Have you read the Constitution (if you're an American)?

I have many times. That is because every 4th of July it is printed, in full, in the local newspaper. Any American that has not read it more than once has no excuse.

kokonut · 04-02-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

I would think it more likely, if there really is a leak, that it would be a clerk or somebody like that rather than a justice.

There is no clerk.

Quote:

Today they will meet behind closed doors in their ornate conference room and discuss the heart of the case, the individual mandate that requires most every American to buy health insurance. If tradition holds, the conversation will begin with Chief Justice John Roberts, and then the other justices will speak in order of seniority. A vote will be recorded. No one, not a clerk, administrative assistant or staff member is allowed in the room. If there is a knock at the door–with someone bringing a law book or a glass of water — Elena Kagan, as the junior most member of the court, will have to see who is there.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-care-mandate/

So, if anybody is getting a clue about on how the votes went, it would have to come from the Justices.

**Reba** · 04-02-2012, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

There is no clerk.

Justices to Take Initial Vote on Health Care Mandate - ABC News

So, if anybody is getting a clue about on how the votes went, it would have to come from the Justices.

True. The most junior member serves as "clerk" during their deliberations.

rockin'robin · 04-03-2012, 12:01 AM

Foxrac...your profane language is not necessary in this Thread.....maybe it's best you excuse yourself from it?

**Jiro** · 04-03-2012, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin'robin

Foxrac...your profane language is not necessary in this Thread.....maybe it's best you excuse yourself from it?

your hoodie joke is much more offensive though.

rockin'robin · 04-03-2012, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

your hoodie joke is much more offensive though.

And my apologies to you if you think that way....(which you did).

kokonut · 04-03-2012, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

True. The most junior member serves as "clerk" during their deliberations.

Including fetching coffee or drinks. Kagan is the most junior.

**Jiro** · 04-03-2012, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin'robin

And my apologies to you if you think that way....(which you did).

oh I'm just pointing out the irony

SouthFella · 04-03-2012, 10:08 AM

Once the US Supreme Court announces its ruling , Owebama can either resign, retake classes on Constitutional Law and pass and not cheat, start packing his belongings to move out of the White House.

The new congress and new president will then take up the healthcare issue and hopefully do it right like it should had been done the first time !

kokonut · 04-03-2012, 11:16 AM

Obama Accused of Trying to 'Intimidate' Supreme Court by Texas Congressman

**Foxrac** · 04-03-2012, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Obama Accused of Trying to 'Intimidate' Supreme Court by Texas Congressman

That's from republican's voice.

**Foxrac** · 04-03-2012, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthFella

Once the US Supreme Court announces its ruling , Owebama can either resign, retake classes on Constitutional Law and pass and not cheat, start packing his belongings to move out of the White House.

The new congress and new president will then take up the healthcare issue and hopefully do it right like it should had been done the first time !

Your post isn't true.

rolling7 · 04-03-2012, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthFella

Once the US Supreme Court announces its ruling , Owebama can either resign, retake classes on Constitutional Law and pass and not cheat, start packing his belongings to move out of the White House.

The new congress and new president will then take up the healthcare issue and hopefully do it right like it should had been done the first time !

Wish we did not have to wait that long.

rockin'robin · 04-03-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Obama Accused of Trying to 'Intimidate' Supreme Court by Texas Congressman

One person from Bingham College quoted this:....."Its too late people, its gone too far, Obama can no longer be stopped and he knows it. Now its not so much what he is going to do, what are we going to do now".....

Well, we can fight!...and fight we will...the good fight. We hurt...we fight.

kokonut · 04-03-2012, 11:38 AM

A bully in action.

C.C.Sinned · 04-03-2012, 11:41 AM

I will vote for anyone but Obama.

just as before.

Grayma · 04-03-2012, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

perhaps you missed this part?

so I'll ask again in a way that you can understand - do you believe we should abolish our social welfare program?

Perhaps you missed the part where I asked you a question first? One you keep ignoring in the interest of being snide?

Grayma · 04-03-2012, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I'm just followed based on your views about constitution that limits government authority so I have no idea about whichever constitution will be, especially based on your view.

We do have federal tax on gas - you think it is unconstitutional?

We have federal mandate on education - known as NCLB, you think it is unconstitutional?

I believe that federal mandate is constitutional because I don't find any constitution that restrict federal authority to mandate.

The tenth ammendment:
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.

So, do you think there is any limit at all on what the Federal government can mandate?

**Foxrac** · 04-03-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

The tenth ammendment:
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.

So, do you think there is any limit at all on what the Federal government can mandate?

They are allowed under commerce clause.

If you don't like it so Tenth Amendment need be redefinition because it is not clear or not enough detailed to override the commerce clause.

Now, the case via Supreme Court will be opinion, not fact that based on the constitution. It is known as judicial activism and it have been for many years.

If states decide to refuse to follow so they could lose the federal funding - remember about federal speed limit at 55.

04-02-2012, 04:55 PM	#151 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Hmm...interesting. This is what The Drudge Report said: "DID HE GET A LEAK? Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare..." Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare \| Reuters If it were a leak then probably Kagan might be the responsible one but I'd rather give the Justices the benefit of the doubt that they don't do that kind of thing. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

04-03-2012, 10:08 AM	#170 (permalink)
SouthFella Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Colorado Posts: 521	Once the US Supreme Court announces its ruling , Owebama can either resign, retake classes on Constitutional Law and pass and not cheat, start packing his belongings to move out of the White House. The new congress and new president will then take up the healthcare issue and hopefully do it right like it should had been done the first time ! __________________ Implanted 04/23/2008... MedEl ( with nifty Remote Control } Right Ear, Phonak Savia Left Ear.

04-03-2012, 11:16 AM	#171 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Obama Accused of Trying to 'Intimidate' Supreme Court by Texas Congressman __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

04-03-2012, 11:38 AM	#176 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	A bully in action. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

04-03-2012, 11:41 AM	#177 (permalink)
C.C.Sinned Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,476	I will vote for anyone but Obama. just as before. rockin'robin likes this.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

04-03-2012, 12:01 AM	#165 (permalink)
rockin'robin Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 15,274	Foxrac...your profane language is not necessary in this Thread.....maybe it's best you excuse yourself from it?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode