• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

You don't add up the Senate and the House to get a final tally. It doesn't work that way. :lol:

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

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

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

again, it seems you skipped this one.

Can you point me to the places in the Constitution where it distinguishes between activity and inactivity?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

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

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

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

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

That's right, it says commerce, which is what the law regulates.

Your saying so doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Can you point me to the places in the Constitution where it distinguishes between activity and inactivity?

Can you point to any part of the constitution or supporting documents that gives shows the intent of the commerce clause was to allow government to force people to purchase a product from private industry?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Can you point to any part of the constitution or supporting documents that gives shows the intent of the commerce clause was to allow government to force people to purchase a product from private industry?

I can point you to the part where it says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce. That's the part.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I can point you to the part where it says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce. That's the part.

What was the intent of that clause?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Too bad there aren't enough of you reasonable people to elect a dog catcher.
It is too bad there are not more of us. I find myself agreeing with you. If you are right it is the end of America.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Obama is correct, as most liberal constitutional law experts have confirmed. But there is obviously no guarantee that this SC will follow precedent.
Did you leave out a word? I added it for you. I hope you won't mind.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Did you leave out a word? I added it for you. I hope you won't mind.

Yeah, most experts would be liberal. It's an IQ thing.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

IF it gets struck down I would say that it would be the mark of an irresponsible Supreme Court.

Further explication by President Obama:

do you think it is a sign of a responsible court to

1) follow crappy precedent that completely distorted the obvious meaning of the Commerce Clause

2) give congress unlimited power to make individuals do whatever congress decrees?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Yeah, most experts would be liberal. It's an IQ thing.

an interesting comment given the group most likely to vote for liberal politicians have the lowest average scores on standardized IQ tests
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

What was the intent of that clause?

certainly not to allow congress to tell a guy how much wheat he grows for his family. The idiots who issued such a decision should have been burned at the stake
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Yeah, he should say intelligent things like "Babies from rape are a gift from God" like Santorum.
Do you believe Santorum's comment (assuming you got it right) causes a Constitutional crisis? Is there nothing the one term flexible Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama can do to disgust you?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Yeah, most experts would be liberal. It's an IQ thing.
I wonder where that wrong thought comes from. There is a book called Makers (that would be those on my side of the issue) and Takers (that would be people on your side of the issue) that shows this is clearly wrong. No skin off my nose. But is is a very weak retort on your part.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

certainly not to allow congress to tell a guy how much wheat he grows for his family. The idiots who issued such a decision should have been burned at the stake

What's astounding is that the people who keep smugly insisting that Congress has unlimited to power to regulate commerce, because they want this law to stand really, really badly, have no idea what they're actually arguing for.

If this stands, and Congress has unlimited power to force you to engage in commerce, then there's nothing -- nothing -- it can't require you to do.

I proposed a hypothetical before -- by this notion, Congress could require you to keep your house painted in neutral colors, decluttered and depersonalized. Why? Because the experts say that's what it takes to sell a house. Oh, wait; you don't want to sell your house? Congress can require that you do. Or buy one even if you don't want to. Why? Haven't you noticed the housing market crisis out there?

There's no end to it, but hey, that's just fine as long as Obama's #1 "accomplishment" is upheld. That's the most important thing, after all.
 
Back
Top Bottom