• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

cpwill said:
:) fixed that for you ;)
Click to expand...
Of COURSE you wouldn't mention the banks of 2008. What God Fearing Republican doesn't want to forget the Fall of 2008?
 
cpwill said:
how very interesting.


perhaps the rejection of the Individual Mandate, oddly, will be what it takes to turn Liberals against the dangerous doctrine of Judicial Supremacy?
Click to expand...

You would think Citizens United would have done that.
 
In Reply to AdamT,

Congress DOES have the ability to force people to buy things, the real question is will the 5 conservative Supreme Court justices vote responsibly in favor the constitution, or return the favor to the GOP who gave them their seats? Im beginning to worry it's all about returning the favor. While I do believe it will be upheld 6-3 or 5-4 (the most likely outcome), its just plain ludicrous to think a vote could get this close when the bill is obviously constitutional. 5 Tyrants will decide the fate of the millions who need healthcare, while republicans call Obama the dictator.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Of COURSE you wouldn't mention the banks of 2008. What God Fearing Republican doesn't want to forget the Fall of 2008?
Click to expand...

Loaning money to a Bank that has to pay it back =/= buying a company and giving it to it's union.

I had my problems with both, but one is significantly more egregious than the other.
 
SypherAL said:
In Reply to AdamT,

Congress DOES have the ability to force people to buy things, the real question is will the 5 conservative Supreme Court justices vote responsibly in favor the constitution, or return the favor to the GOP who gave them their seats? Im beginning to worry it's all about returning the favor. While I do believe it will be upheld 6-3 or 5-4 (the most likely outcome), its just plain ludicrous to think a vote could get this close when the bill is obviously constitutional. 5 Tyrants will decide the fate of the millions who need healthcare, while republicans call Obama the dictator.
Click to expand...

where did congress get that proper power? and what training do you have to make pronouncements that it is OBVIOUSLY Constitutional when judges and legal scholars have split on this issue.
 
TurtleDude said:
where did congress get that proper power? and what training do you have to make pronouncements that it is OBVIOUSLY Constitutional when judges and legal scholars have split on this issue.
Click to expand...

Rachel Maddow told him. No need to think when you can just get your opinion piped in.
 
cpwill said:
Loaning money to a Bank that has to pay it back =/= buying a company and giving it to it's union.

I had my problems with both, but one is significantly more egregious than the other.
Click to expand...
Is that the way the deal was fed to you? Last I looked we were given bank stocks just like we were given car company stocks - no difference at all.

And not that it's really our business what the companies did with the money but instead of the bank money going to unions it went to a bunch of Fat Cat CEO's who had driven the banks into the hole in the first place.
 
SypherAL said:
In Reply to AdamT,

Congress DOES have the ability to force people to buy things, the real question is will the 5 conservative Supreme Court justices vote responsibly in favor the constitution, or return the favor to the GOP who gave them their seats? Im beginning to worry it's all about returning the favor. While I do believe it will be upheld 6-3 or 5-4 (the most likely outcome), its just plain ludicrous to think a vote could get this close when the bill is obviously constitutional. 5 Tyrants will decide the fate of the millions who need healthcare, while republicans call Obama the dictator.
Click to expand...

Sadly I think you believe what you have typed above. One thing is clear, that 'Moderate' by your name is way off base.
 
Arbo said:
Sadly I think you believe what you have typed above. One thing is clear, that 'Moderate' by your name is way off base.
Click to expand...

Sigh....you sure seem pretty conservative to be an independent, you are WAY WAY off base...im going to judge you based on your last few posts just like you are judging me. Turd daniel.
 
Truckstop said:
Rachel Maddow told him. No need to think when you can just get your opinion piped in.
Click to expand...

the lowing of the Madcow seduces many a socialist sheep?
 
SypherAL said:
In Reply to AdamT,

Congress DOES have the ability to force people to buy things, the real question is will the 5 conservative Supreme Court justices vote responsibly in favor the constitution, or return the favor to the GOP who gave them their seats? Im beginning to worry it's all about returning the favor. While I do believe it will be upheld 6-3 or 5-4 (the most likely outcome), its just plain ludicrous to think a vote could get this close when the bill is obviously constitutional. 5 Tyrants will decide the fate of the millions who need healthcare, while republicans call Obama the dictator.
Click to expand...

citation needed....
 
TurtleDude said:
where did congress get that proper power? and what training do you have to make pronouncements that it is OBVIOUSLY Constitutional when judges and legal scholars have split on this issue.
Click to expand...

I didn't knows judges and legal scholars are genetically engineered to knows the secrets of life. You do understand that these individuals are human beings correct....? And make decisions based on feelings....correct? Only a completely delusional individual could believe that since the supreme court is split on an issue its 100% guaranteed unconstitutional.....you are like a third grader doing a history report.
 
Thrilla said:
citation needed....
Click to expand...

"The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Is that the way the deal was fed to you? Last I looked we were given bank stocks just like we were given car company stocks - no difference at all.
Click to expand...

good point - the TARP loans should be separated from the TARP purchases.

And not that it's really our business what the companies did with the money but instead of the bank money going to unions it went to a bunch of Fat Cat CEO's who had driven the banks into the hole in the first place.
Click to expand...

nah, most of it disappeared into the maw of depreciated assets. Bonuses continued, agreeably, but were fairly small portions of the bailout money.
 
SypherAL said:
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


.... and you believe the commerce clause empowers congress to mandate individual citizens commodity purchases?.. despite never having this power ever before in our entire history?

alllllllrighty then.
 
SypherAL said:
"The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
Click to expand...

So, can it make foreign Nations and Indian Tribes buy stuff, too?
 
SypherAL said:
I didn't knows judges and legal scholars are genetically engineered to knows the secrets of life. You do understand that these individuals are human beings correct....? And make decisions based on feelings....correct? Only a completely delusional individual could believe that since the supreme court is split on an issue its 100% guaranteed unconstitutional.....you are like a third grader doing a history report.
Click to expand...


translation-you aren't able to discuss legal issues with those of us who are professionals in this field.
 
Thrilla said:
.... and you believe the commerce clause empowers congress to mandate individual citizens commodity purchases?.. despite never having this power ever before in our entire history?

alllllllrighty then.
Click to expand...

Also, considering you probably dont know the definition of regulate is, I will be kind enough to give you an exact definition.

reg·u·late/ˈregyəˌlāt/

Verb:

Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.


Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

Synonyms:
adjust - control - arrange - settle - order - regularize



anymore questions my fellow chess board pawns? :) Is this not a written law in your beloved constitution?
 
Last edited:
I don't see how anyone can read the Commerce Clause and interpret it as "The government can force you to purchase anything it wants you to".
 
SypherAL said:
"The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
Click to expand...

don't see anything there about individual citizens. indeed no one else did until FDR's lapdogs pissed on 130+ years of precedent in order to foist the New Deal on us
 
SypherAL said:
Also, considering you probably dont know the definition of regulate is, I will be kind enough to give you an exact definition.

reg·u·late/ˈregyəˌlāt/

Verb:

Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.

any more questions my fellow chess board pawns?

Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

Synonyms:
adjust - control - arrange - settle - order - regularize
Click to expand...


where are individuals mentioned in there.
 
SypherAL said:
I didn't knows judges and legal scholars are genetically engineered to knows the secrets of life. You do understand that these individuals are human beings correct....? And make decisions based on feelings....correct? Only a completely delusional individual could believe that since the supreme court is split on an issue its 100% guaranteed unconstitutional.....you are like a third grader doing a history report.
Click to expand...

He's a "third-grader," but you think legal scholars who disagree with you are just making decisions based on "feelings"?
 
Josie said:
I don't see how anyone can read the Commerce Clause and interpret it as "The government can force you to purchase anything it wants you to".
Click to expand...

Ya have to really, really wanna.
 
SypherAL said:
Also, considering you probably dont know the definition of regulate is, I will be kind enough to give you an exact definition.

reg·u·late/ˈregyəˌlāt/

Verb:

Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.


Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

Synonyms:
adjust - control - arrange - settle - order - regularize



anymore questions my fellow chess board pawns? :)
Click to expand...


oh great ,another one of these types of "debaters"....

forget I exist ,syphilis, and i'll return the favor
 
TurtleDude said:
where are individuals mentioned in there.
Click to expand...

LOL, How did I know you would be the first one to make this argument? If you LIVE in a state and participate in its commerce, you are subject to the law. I love how you tea baggers twist and turn the constitution to your personal preference. I am done here, im going to go debate people that have actual intelligence. BTW, Obamacare will be upheld 5-4, i will remind you in june.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom