Page 31 of 54 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 540

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

  1. #301
    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



    com·merce/ˈkämərs/
    Noun:

    The activity of buying and selling, esp. on a large scale.



    Not buying something, is not..... **Commerce** the FEDGOV has no right to FORCE you into the activity of commerce, through the levy of fines and penalties.. Please show me some examples where they do. Thanks.
    Right, and insurance is a product that is sold in commerce, and the price of insurance is affected by buying AND NOT BUYING. Hence the authority to require purchase, or in this case, to create tax incentive to purchase.
    "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

  2. #302
    Advisor Blue Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    01-21-15 @ 06:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    426

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

    Part of the issue here is that the SC is being asked to find that balance between the Tenth Amendment and Commerce Clause. Prior to 1913, the Senate was chosen by the state legislatures allowing states to be represented in the federal government. If this model applied today PPACA may have not passed if 52 senators(26 states) voted against the bill after it passed the House. If it had passed judicial restraint would have been easier to apply because techically a majority of states(thru the senate) would have supported PPACA. IMO
    My family is more important than my party.
    -Zell Miller

  3. #303
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,784

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Right, and insurance is a product that is sold in commerce, and the price of insurance is affected by buying AND NOT BUYING. Hence the authority to require purchase, or in this case, to create tax incentive to purchase.


    I guess if your a statist, you could rationalize it that way. But it's unconstitutional, what would stop them from fining you for... Not going to college? Not taking mass transit? Not buying nicoderm patches? etc... It's a silly argument that the administration is making, that you are repeating....

    not only does it violate the commerce clause, but the 10th amendment as well. What business is it of the government to dictate to the states what it's citizens must buy?

    Please, again, I asked you once, you seem to have a knack of just ignoring the tough questions, but I'll ask again. Please tell me what other things the Government forces us to purchase.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #304
    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
    I guess if your a statist, you could rationalize it that way. But it's unconstitutional, what would stop them from fining you for... Not going to college? Not taking mass transit? Not buying nicoderm patches? etc... It's a silly argument that the administration is making, that you are repeating....

    not only does it violate the commerce clause, but the 10th amendment as well. What business is it of the government to dictate to the states what it's citizens must buy?

    Please, again, I asked you once, you seem to have a knack of just ignoring the tough questions, but I'll ask again. Please tell me what other things the Government forces us to purchase.
    See, what you don't seem to get is that Congress can already do most, if not all of those things, because a tax penalty has exactly the same effect as a tax credit. So, to use someone else's example, handing out a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels is functionally identical to handing out a $4,000 tax penalty for NOT installing solar panels. See how this works? If Jon and Bob both have to pay $5,000 in taxes on unadjusted gross income, but Bob actually only has to pay $1,000 because he got a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels, Jon has effectively been penalized $4,000 for not installing solar panels.

    Or to use your examlple, Congress IS penalizing people for not going to college, because interest on student loans is deductible. Thus, if you don't have student loans your tax bill is higher than someone else's tax bill who does have student loans -- JUST like a penalty.

    IOW, EVERY TAX PREFERENCE IS A "MANDATE" in the same sense that the AHCA penalty is a mandate.
    Last edited by AdamT; 04-05-12 at 11:43 AM.
    "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. #305
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,784

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    See, what you don't seem to get is that Congress can already do most, if not all of those things, because a tax penalty has exactly the same effect as a tax credit. So, to use someone else's example, handing out a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels is functionally identical to handing out a $4,000 tax penalty for NOT installing solar panels. See how this works? If Jon and Bob both have to pay $5,000 in taxes on unadjusted gross income, but Bob actually only has to pay $1,000 because he got a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels, Jon has effectively been penalized $4,000 for not installing solar panels.

    Or to use your examlple, Congress IS penalizing people for not going to college, because interest on student loans is deductible. Thus, if you don't have student loans your tax bill is higher than someone else's tax bill who does have student loans -- JUST like a penalty.

    IOW, EVERY TAX PREFERENCE IS A "MANDATE" in the same sense that the AHCA penalty is a mandate.


    Wow what a stretch..... again, still waiting for you to show me an example, where the government fines you for not buying a product or service.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #306
    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
    Wow what a stretch..... again, still waiting for you to show me an example, where the government fines you for not buying a product or service.
    Nice punt.
    "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

  7. #307
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,784

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Nice punt.


    I accept your concession.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #308
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I already explained this. You don't seem to understand the selection process.
    In fact I do understand the process because I did the research.
    Hmm, I believe the quote you're referring to was pulled from a letter he wrote while in law school?
    Yes, and therein he referred to his receiving affirmative action status.

    How dare he not anticipate your obsession with his academic record 20 years in the future!
    Are you saying that he would have preferred that his receiving affirmative action status would then have remained a secret? And I'm not obsessing about anything. You're denying the truth and denying that I demonstrated the truth while it's clear he received support due to the color of his skin. That's just the way it is.
    No, they didn't "set aside" his grades. Half the people on the law review are chosen on the basis of grades and the other half are chosen on the basis of a writing competition.
    But of course it didn't stop there. He received affirmative action, and if you look at his writing you can see how dreadful it actually is. He had no success at HLR. perhaps you didn't see the part where it was decided that minorities were underrepresented and they should receive affirmative action. It's all there and Barack Obama says so.

    WTF are you talking about?
    It seems that BHO is not the only one who has problems reading and writing. He didn't absorb much about the law or the Constitution while at Harvard and you can't see what a poor writer he is, even though there was a link demonstrating his ineptness in this regard.

    It is absolutely the truth. Did you go to college? Do you know what it means to graduate magna cum laude? Hint: it means that you graduated at the top of your class. In the case of Harvard Law, at the time Obama was there, it meant that you were in the top 13% or better.
    Do you understand the difference between graduating in the top 13% and graduating at the top of the class, as you claimed? There is a great deal of speculation about where he actually finished but judging by his writing and his lack of knowledge of the Constitution it seems he must have struggled as a student, had some insider help, or the standards at Harvard have dropped significantly.

  9. #309
    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 Grant View Post
    In fact I do understand the process because I did the research.
    Research without aptitude is not necessarily fruitful.

    Yes, and therein he referred to his receiving affirmative action status.
    Yes, as we've discussed several times.

    Are you saying that he would have preferred that his receiving affirmative action status would then have remained a secret? And I'm not obsessing about anything. You're denying the truth and denying that I demonstrated the truth while it's clear he received support due to the color of his skin. That's just the way it is.
    No, I'm saying that it's idiotic to criticize Obama because something he wrote 20 years ago didn't entirely answer a question that you have today. Clearly you're not obsessing about it.

    The truth is evident and I'm certainly not denying it. You simply want to read into the facts more than is there.

    But of course it didn't stop there. He received affirmative action, and if you look at his writing you can see how dreadful it actually is. He had no success at HLR. perhaps you didn't see the part where it was decided that minorities were underrepresented and they should receive affirmative action. It's all there and Barack Obama says so.


    Gee, where to start on that pile of hore****. Okay, obviously his writing is very good or he would not have won the Harvard Law Review writing competition. Reminder: the essays were graded anonymously, so there was no affirmative action there. Of course his first book (which I'm sure you've read, right?) also met with critical acclaim:

    In discussing Dreams from My Father, Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison has called Obama "a writer in my high esteem" and the book "quite extraordinary." She praised "his ability to reflect on this extraordinary mesh of experiences that he has had, some familiar and some not, and to really meditate on that the way he does, and to set up scenes in narrative structure, dialogue, conversation—all of these things that you don't often see, obviously, in the routine political memoir biography. [...] It's unique. It's his. There are no other ones like that."[31] In an interview for The Daily Beast, author Philip Roth said he had read Dreams from My Father "with great interests," and commented that he had found it "well done and very persuasive and memorable."[32]

    The book "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician," wrote Time columnist Joe Klein.[33] In 2008, The Guardian's Rob Woodard wrote that Dreams from My Father "is easily the most honest, daring, and ambitious volume put out by a major US politician in the last 50 years."[34] Michiko Kakutani, the Pulitzer Prize-winning critic for The New York Times, described it as "the most evocative, lyrical and candid autobiography written by a future president."[35]

    Dreams from My Father - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    More than a million and a half copies have been sold.

    It seems that BHO is not the only one who has problems reading and writing. He didn't absorb much about the law or the Constitution while at Harvard and you can't see what a poor writer he is, even though there was a link demonstrating his ineptness in this regard.
    It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the president of a law review actually does. He or she essentially plays the role of publisher and/or chief editor. The president of a law review doesn't have much time for his or her own writing -- although Obama did author one article.

    Do you understand the difference between graduating in the top 13% and graduating at the top of the class, as you claimed?
    Yes, top means top. Generally when someone graduates magna cum laude you would say that they graduated at the top of their class. If someone graduated first in their class one generally says that he graduated first in his class.

    Why are you struggling so mightily to deny Obama's obviously excellent law school performance? Is there something in particular about Obama that makes you think he just couldn't have done as well as he did?
    Last edited by AdamT; 04-05-12 at 01:12 PM.
    "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

  10. #310
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,093

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

    Looks like the Court would like to know what constitution the president thinks we're discussing here.

    Obama's Supreme Court Comments Become Political Football As Justice Preps Explanation | Fox News

Page 31 of 54 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... 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
  •