Page 26 of 54 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 540

Thread: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

  1. #251
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You don't add up the Senate and the House to get a final tally. It doesn't work that way.
    When you say "a strong majority of Congress," you kinda do.

    I said it passed by a supermajority in the Senate and not so much in the House. Why can't you acknowledge that reality?
    Never denied it. In the other thread (or maybe it was this one), I posted the vote tallies plain as day. Was taking Obama at his word. In fact, adding them together gives the result most charitable to him.


    Re: Lopez, you are incorrect. The argument there was that the state law had an indirect effect on interstate commerce -- not that Congress was directly regulating Congress.
    You didn't say "direct"; you said "clear." You're weaseling again.

    And in this case, it's far from "clear" that it's a mere "regulation." It's a requirement to engage in commerce.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #252
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    No you said "most", you have failed to prove your case....






    Like I said, I did a simple google search, I don't bow to so called "experts" like you do, you made the claim "most", I simply demonstrated you were wrong.


    Can you explain to me how never in the history of the nation, has Congress adopted a law requiring people to buy a product or service simply because they exist and live in this country? and can you reconcile that the Supreme Court has never held that Congress can fine/tax/etc "doing nothing" in the name of regulating interstate commerce.

    It is obscene to the Constitution, no matter which so called "expert" you bandy about.



    again, it seems you skipped this one.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #253
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    When you say "a strong majority of Congress," you kinda do.

    Never denied it. In the other thread (or maybe it was this one), I posted the vote tallies plain as day. Was taking Obama at his word. In fact, adding them together gives the result most charitable to him.
    Sorry, but it's just kinda dumb to total House and Senate votes because there are > four times as many House members as Senate members. Thus you can't tell how much each vote counted by looking at the total. It would be like counting out bills to pay a tab without checking to see if the bills are fives or 20s.

    You didn't say "direct"; you said "clear." You're weaseling again.

    And in this case, it's far from "clear" that it's a mere "regulation." It's a requirement to engage in commerce.
    What I said was that the Court has never invalidated a law that "regulated interstate commerce", which is true. The law in Lopez did not regulate interstate commerce; it regulated the carrying of guns near schools. The government argued that it would have an indirect effect on interstate commerce. The law in the present case does regulate commerce, i.e. the health insurance industry. Big difference.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  4. #254
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    again, it seems you skipped this one.
    Can you point me to the places in the Constitution where it distinguishes between activity and inactivity?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #255
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Can you point me to the places in the Constitution where it distinguishes between activity and inactivity?
    Sure. "Commerce" is activity. It doesn't say "non-commerce."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #256
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Sorry, but it's just kinda dumb to total House and Senate votes because there are > four times as many House members as Senate members. Thus you can't tell how much each vote counted by looking at the total. It would be like counting out bills to pay a tab without checking to see if the bills are fives or 20s.
    Well, then he shouldn't have said "a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress" and confused the issue.

    Of course, he was just plain lying, really.


    What I said was that the Court has never invalidated a law that "regulated interstate commerce", which is true. The law in Lopez did not regulate interstate commerce; it regulated the carrying of guns near schools. The government argued that it would have an indirect effect on interstate commerce. The law in the present case does regulate commerce, i.e. the health insurance industry. Big difference.
    Well, let's apply AdamT's style of analysis to this: "it's a distinction without a difference." Why? Because it just is. It has to be, in order to win the argument. That's all that's needed.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #257
    Student Fubar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    greenville sc
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    201

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    i'm sure those intended to hear his comments know exactly what he meant.he will not be pleased with a strike down of the law.he made sure they know it.will it work?....we'll see....but meanwhile....the emperor is not pleased.
    Listen to your conscience....and let it sink in.

  8. #258
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Sure. "Commerce" is activity. It doesn't say "non-commerce."
    That's right, it says commerce, which is what the law regulates. Unfortunately, unless or until we come up with an immortality pill, there is no way to not participate in the health care market.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  9. #259
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    07-17-12 @ 08:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    439

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Essentially, President Obama is saying it should be upheld because it is popular, not because it is legally/Constitutionally correct.

    Wow. Just... wow!
    "What judges have wrought is a coup d'état, – slow-moving and genteel, but a coup d'état nonetheless."
    (Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork)


    American conservatives have a long history of questioning the role of an appointed body, like the Supreme Court, and complain about "judicial activism," rather than merely interpreting law and exercising judicial restraint, when they make "liberal" decisions.

    When Democrats attempt to play the same game, conservatives suddenly take offence as to what they consider a liberal attempt to influence a majority of Republican appointees.
    Last edited by jgarden47; 04-04-12 at 06:24 PM.

  10. #260
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    That's right, it says commerce, which is what the law regulates.
    Your saying so doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 26 of 54 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •