• 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: Supreme Court won’t overturn health care law

Yes, unprecedented would be a falsehood. And a deliberate one I'm sure he is aware of but ignoring for the sake of making a stronger political argument to the American people. It would be a lie to tell people it was unprecedented. And I do have a problem with that.

But at the same time I cannot be too angry with him because its so common in politics to make statements like that. But that's just my opinion.

If he has to "sell" it to the American people with a falsehood, then should he be "selling" it at all? Why not go with the truth? If you're right, you shouldn't have to make anything up.
 
My constitutional analysis is 100% party-free. Whoever gets it wrong, gets it wrong. I thought, and stated, that Bush declaring he considered McCain-Feingold unconstitutional, but signed it into law anyway, was arguably impeachable.

But fact is fact and Obama got the facts wrong.

I can respect that, but I think you're overreacting a bit because what he's doing isn't so uncommon. However yes, parts of it are factually incorrect and he's giving that to the American people to make a political argument.
 
I can respect that, but I think you're overreacting a bit because what he's doing isn't so uncommon. However yes, parts of it are factually incorrect and he's giving that to the American people to make a political argument.

How did I "overreact"? I made a pretty straightforward case.
 
How did I "overreact"? I made a pretty straightforward case.

You did. I just think you're language came out a little more hostile than I would have reacted towards it. But you are right. Don't read into it too much we're mostly agreeing.
 
I can respect that, but I think you're overreacting a bit because what he's doing isn't so uncommon. However yes, parts of it are factually incorrect and he's giving that to the American people to make a political argument.

Yeah, we all know that lying is good for the public.
 
I also sincerely doubt you have the credentials to challenge his understanding of the Constitution, at least from what I've seen of your posts.

Ah, the personal dig. Gotta love it.

I only hope that if the tables were turned and this was a law you gentlemen agreed with you would be equally passionate in your critique of the President's political rhetoric to the people. If that is the case then I can respect you for your lack of bias in your opinion even if our opinions aren't in total agreement, if this is just partisanship for you two then I can't say I respect a double standard in that case.

I wouldn't care if it was GWB saying the same thing, I'd still think him an idiot for saying it. Would you defend him in the same manner?
 
He could have said something that doesn't fly in the face of his supposed reputation as a Constitutional Law expert, and barring that, something that isn't falsified by a five-minute Google search.

It can be ruled as constitutional in a very limited court opinion like Roe.
 
It can be ruled as constitutional in a very limited court opinion like Roe.

It might be, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I was getting at.
 
Ah, the personal dig. Gotta love it.

I wouldn't care if it was GWB saying the same thing, I'd still think him an idiot for saying it. Would you defend him in the same manner?

Don't play the victim, you put forward a challenge to his understanding of the Constitution and I responded by questioning your credentials. If you're going to have an opinion, expect someone to challenge your basis for it and if you're going to have the opinion that someone's understanding of the Constitution is lacking, its only fair and relevant to ask what your understanding of it is, after all if you have no understanding of than you're opinion is baseless. If you have a massive understanding of, there may be something to your opinion.

But I still doubt you have enough understanding of Constitutional Law to claim Barack Obama has a severely limited understanding of it.
 
It might be, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I was getting at.

Sure it does since the law can pass constitutional muster then its constitutional. It being wise is a different matter.
 
Sure it does since the law can pass constitutional muster then its constitutional. It being wise is a different matter.

Did you read the thread?
 
if you're going to have the opinion that someone's understanding of the Constitution is lacking,

If you think what he said shows ANY understanding of the constitution, well, that's your issue.

Thanks for not answering the question asking if you'd defend GWB if he said the same thing. I kinda figured as much.
 
If you think what he said shows ANY understanding of the constitution, well, that's your issue.

Thanks for not answering the question asking if you'd defend GWB if he said the same thing. I kinda figured as much.

You're being selective in your reasoning. You're focusing on a few quotes relating to his healthcare debate and ignore, 12 YEARS of teaching Constitutional law. That's your issue, that you think a few quotes outweigh everything else about this man's history, education and experience. Tell me how that works?

And sorry for missing that second point, yes I would defend GWB if he was in this situation.
 
You're being selective in your reasoning. You're focusing on a few quotes relating to his healthcare debate and ignore, 12 YEARS of teaching Constitutional law.

I have had many professors over the years, at different points. Many of them taught the same subject for a lot longer than 12 years. To be honest, some of them where possibly the least intelligent human beings I have ever met. Teaching does not mean you understand, nor does it give a blank check of credibility. Let me read some of his lectures, or watch videos of them. Let me see transcripts so I know what classes he took and how he did, let me read papers he wrote both as a student and as a professor so I can see what he said about constitutional matters.

And sorry for missing that second point, yes I would defend GWB if he was in this situation.

Thanks.
 
My prediction? SCOTUS will uphold all of it, except the individual mandate. This will effectively kill most of it, because there will be no way to practically implement it. I suggest that Congress go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is Constitutional, and not a half trillion dollar transfer of wealth from ordinary Americans to insurance corporations.

EDIT: There is no link in the OP.
 
Last edited:
The law can easily pass the constitution sniff test, it just won't. What will happen is the mandate will be ruled unconstitutional but the court, it its majority and resenting opinion will say Singel payer is constitutional and two different versions of Snell payer will come out as a result. One where the gov trite to control all cost with a separate private market (dems) and one of tax credits and penalties with various regulations that are currently in tl Congresscare and some others which will give insurance companies more leeway (repub)). Both will work equally well.
 
If is interesting that we have politicians that will work on or pass a Bill that ends up being unconstitutional. Maybe our elected officlas should check before they act. It could save time and money.

Not to derail the thread, but I have one for our President. In Arizona SB1070 (a illegal immigration bill), and similar bills in other States were passed/approved by elected officials. Yet, the DOJ has taken the State to court over the bill being unconstitutional or not within State authority. So President Obama doesn't want to see if the Health Care law is legal by the SC. If SCOTUS strikes it down its judicial activism according to Obama. Yet, if a State passes a law he doesn't like, he wants the Federal Courts to strike the law because its unconstitutional.

No politics being played here by this administration.:lol:
 
If is interesting that we have politicians that will work on or pass a Bill that ends up being unconstitutional. Maybe our elected officlas should check before they act. It could save time and money.
I could say the same thing for the literally hundreds of unconstitutional abortion bills that are filed across the country every year. The difference is that in many of those cases, the bills are CLEARLY unconstitional.

While the SC could strike down the mandate, recall that when it was passed, and as recently as last week, a majority of constitional law scholars said that the mandate was constitutional.
 
I have had many professors over the years, at different points. Many of them taught the same subject for a lot longer than 12 years. To be honest, some of them where possibly the least intelligent human beings I have ever met. Teaching does not mean you understand, nor does it give a blank check of credibility. Let me read some of his lectures, or watch videos of them. Let me see transcripts so I know what classes he took and how he did, let me read papers he wrote both as a student and as a professor so I can see what he said about constitutional matters.

Thanks.

Ok then why haven't you done that? I'm sure they exist seeing as how he's President of the United States, again you're being selective in your reasoning. You've made an assumption about him based on "some" as you put it of your professors, which I take to mean and some others weren't stupid in your opinion, so you've assumed he falls into the bad category. You've also used the same line of reasoning to justify the first one, just because you don't think he's credible doesn't mean anything if you don't have credentials in that subject to back it up. So for example in college you had professors A, B, and C you thought were lacking so what are your credentials in the subjects they taught to make someone like myself or anyone value your opinion on the subject material over theirs?

And secondly, if reading his lectures or papers would let you know if he's well versed enough to have an opinion on the Constitutionality of something. Then why haven't you done that? If you say you don't have enough information to make an opinion, ie "I don't know because I haven't read his transcripts etc" then why are you A) assuming he's not smart enough and B) haven't read them?
 
Ok then why haven't you done that?

Has any of it been made available? If so, where?

And secondly, if reading his lectures or papers would let you know if he's well versed enough to have an opinion on the Constitutionality of something. Then why haven't you done that? If you say you don't have enough information to make an opinion, ie "I don't know because I haven't read his transcripts etc" then why are you A) assuming he's not smart enough and B) haven't read them?

To repeat my answer to your repeated question: Is any of it available? If so please let us know where we can get them.
 
The President essentially said that if the Supremes don't agree with him, they're guilty of "judicial activism."

I'll be interested in what constitutional law experts say about this claim. I'm no law scholar...but I'm not sure that the President understand the function of "checks and balances" in our Constitution either.

And I do think he has overplayed his hand here. Obama may/may not be in office next year...but SCOTUS will be. This makes twice I know of where he's gone after the Court. I'm sure somebody's underclerk of a clerk has leaked to the Admin. His referring dismissively to SCOTUS as an "unelected group of people" wasn't very smart.
 
Back
Top Bottom