View Poll Results: Would you support the action posted below?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 45.83%
  • No

    13 54.17%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Not defending the health care bill

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Redress,

    Fair enough. That follows with what I stated in my post #31.

  2. #62
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Just because past presidents have ignored the system doesn't mean the system goes away. The existing system ought to be the expectation, regardless of what has happened in the past.
    I think it means a precedence has been set. Because it was allowed not once, but many times, this means it is allowable now.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #63
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    As a follow-up to my last post (#59), this from the linked article #2 per AG Holder's letter to Speaker Boehner:

    Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,787

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I think it means a precedence has been set. Because it was allowed not once, but many times, this means it is allowable now.
    That's absurd. That's like saying that because the cops don't give a couple of people speeding tickets, they've lost their right to give anyone a ticket because the precidence has been set. I don't buy that for a second.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #65
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,723

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Because the President can still support an unconsitutional law. For example...Obamacare. Obama supports that.

    But if you think about it the president has always had this ability. Our founding fathers gave the President two powers which he alone has. The power to veto any bill set before him. That power alone shows that he has the right to decide if a bill is unconstitutional. The next power that he has is his executive order power. That allows him to basically write laws. However it is not as binding as a law passed by the House. Any President afterwords can over ride a previous presidents executive order. Between the two the President obviously has the ability to decide whether a law is Constitutional or not.
    A president can veto for reasons other than that a law is unconstitutional. Same is true for issuing executive orders. I doubt any president concerns themselves with the constitutionality of those.
    The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
    Mahatma Gandhi


  6. #66
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    That's absurd. That's like saying that because the cops don't give a couple of people speeding tickets, they've lost their right to give anyone a ticket because the precidence has been set. I don't buy that for a second.
    In fact, that's a good comparison (though kind of skewed incorrectly on your part). Police offers don't have to give speeding tickets and sometimes don't. The losing the right thing is not what was said. Police don't give them always, but still maintian the rigth to give them. . . . or not. Same here. He doesn't lose the right to defend something else later on, but keeps the right not to if he doesn't want to. Again, that precedence has been set already.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

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