Thread: Obama And Judicial Review

Originally Posted by goober

That would be the mandate passed by the actual founding fathers, that required every able bodied male to possess a firearm, and if he did not already have one to purchase it at his own expense.
Again, that law was passed by people who actually signed the constitution, and they thought it was constitutional.

Wrong, Goober please note in bold, this is for national defense and it only requires that white males over 18 yrs of age and under 45 and who is enrolled in the militia provide himself with ................

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball...

Mandates and the constitution: The government does in fact force you to buy vegetables | The Economist

Another would be Medicare, that forces everyone to pay for health insurance that they may or may not use.

Wrong, interesting how you say everyone, if you don't work you don't pay.

Another would be forcing everyone into the Social Security system.

Wrong, interesting how you say everyone, if you don't work you don't pay, and you receive no benefits.

There have been mandates for a long time, and congress has mandated health insurance in some form since 1790, so where in the constitution does it draw the line between this mandate and all those that came before?

Wrong again, there has never been a law that just because you are born here you have to buy a certain product.

Goober, please get your facts straight, I know you like to believe in your own mind that Obamacare is the best thing from sliced bread. But, I repeat, there has never been a mandate that requires every person born has to buy a product dictated by government.

Originally Posted by goober

Party before country, you know that, everything is open to political spin

That is exactly how Obamacare got passed. In fact the Dem's had to bribe some of their own to get it passed without one vote from a Pub.

Originally Posted by Forplay

Wrong, Goober please note in bold, this is for national defense and it only requires that white males over 18 yrs of age and under 45 and who is enrolled in the militia provide himself with ................

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball...

Mandates and the constitution: The government does in fact force you to buy vegetables | The Economist



Wrong, interesting how you say everyone, if you don't work you don't pay.



Wrong, interesting how you say everyone, if you don't work you don't pay, and you receive no benefits.



Wrong again, there has never been a law that just because you are born here you have to buy a certain product.

Goober, please get your facts straight, I know you like to believe in your own mind that Obamacare is the best thing from sliced bread. But, I repeat, there has never been a mandate that requires every person born has to buy a product dictated by government.

If the government can require able bodied males or seaman or people with income, or any class of people to comply with a mandate, what is different from requiring the class of people that consists of those who have income and can afford health insurance to purchase health insurance or see their taxes go up ?

What is fundamentally different from taxing everyone with an income and using the money to provide something vs requiring people to purchase something, and supplying it to those who can't afford it?
The idea of the "individual mandate" came from the Heritage Foundation, although they now oppose it for health insurance, they still support replacing Social Security with an individual mandate to fund a private pension plan.

And finally, you link to an economist article which is actually making fun of your position. I'll bet you didn't know that....

Originally Posted by jviehe

Why is he correct?

He is correct about how the courts have long approached legislation like the ACA (although he may have mixed up his dates). He is also correct that because of its "extraordinary power... the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly-elected legislature."

Originally Posted by chassisman

Obama's attempt to bully the SC seems to have blown up in his face. While the majority of congress and this president have no respect for the oath they took to uphold the constitution of the USA, the SC judges know damn well that they are thee authority on law and the constitution and will not be bullied. The obama admin rammed the ACA down America's throats but they can't do that with the SC.

Obama attempted to "bully" the Supreme Court? Really? What did he threaten them with?

Originally Posted by goober

If the government can require able bodied males or seaman or people with income, or any class of people to comply with a mandate, what is different from requiring the class of people that consists of those who have income and can afford health insurance to purchase health insurance or see their taxes go up ?

What is fundamentally different from taxing everyone with an income and using the money to provide something vs requiring people to purchase something, and supplying it to those who can't afford it?
The idea of the "individual mandate" came from the Heritage Foundation, although they now oppose it for health insurance, they still support replacing Social Security with an individual mandate to fund a private pension plan.

Wrong from the word go. can't afford? or won't afford, or cheats the system, of able bodies but won't work, etc. I've read the constitution and can't seem to find the section on redistribution of wealth. In fact, 99% of the fed taxation is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by goober

If the government can require able bodied males or seaman or people with income, or any class of people to comply with a mandate, what is different from requiring the class of people that consists of those who have income and can afford health insurance to purchase health insurance or see their taxes go up ?

What is fundamentally different from taxing everyone with an income and using the money to provide something vs requiring people to purchase something, and supplying it to those who can't afford it?
The idea of the "individual mandate" came from the Heritage Foundation, although they now oppose it for health insurance, they still support replacing Social Security with an individual mandate to fund a private pension plan.

All this I addressed in my last post to you.

And finally, you link to an economist article which is actually making fun of your position. I'll bet you didn't know that....

Yes I did know that, but their remarks were just as bad as your reasoning, what I copied was the actual law, that once again proved you wrong.

Originally Posted by tsquare

How he was ever a law professor is beyond any reasoned understanding. However, this did settle one point for me:

It's clear now why Obama has so little respect for our Constitution and laws... he just plain doesn't understand them.

Thoughts?


Review & Outlook: Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison - WSJ.com

Dumber than a box of rocks. Yeah. That pretty much sums it up. I might add that he also thinks American voters are dumb enough to believe him, which I find extraordinarily offensive.

Originally Posted by tsquare

This has been a hot topic all day... what with Obama being... well... Obama.

You'll see...



Let's stop for a moment and take in the depth and breath of the raw stupidity in that one sentence. Face it fan boys... in saying that, Obama is proving that he is the George Bush that you always thought George Bush to be... dumb as a box of rocks.

While the article will deal with the huge error in constitutional law, I will remind everyone here that this bill passed by only the thinnest of margins, and those only by using every underhanded political tactic in the known universe, including 'deemed to have passed'



In the end:



How he was ever a law professor is beyond any reasoned understanding. However, this did settle one point for me:

It's clear now why Obama has so little respect for our Constitution and laws... he just plain doesn't understand them.

Thoughts?


Review & Outlook: Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison - WSJ.com

I'd like to know what makes him think he can question the authority of the United States Supreme Court. We live in a democracy not a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

I'd like to know what makes him think he can question the authority of the United States Supreme Court. We live in a democracy not a dictatorship.

Actually it is a constitutional republic.

Originally Posted by goober

That would be the mandate passed ...

Another would be Medicare,

Another would be forcing everyone into the Social Security system.

There have been mandates for a long time, ... so where in the constitution does it draw the line between this mandate and all those that came before?

Besides being factually wrong on all counts, as I already showed, what is most disturbing about this post is the premise. The idea that government acting tyrannically before justifies it acting tyranically now. For the proper role of government in a free society is to restrain certain behavior, such as "thou shall not murder" and "thou shall not steal." It is an act of tyranny in a free society for a government to compel certain behavior.

I know the Left is all confused about "voluntary" versus "mandatory" so let me make it simple. It is not tyranny for government to charge for a service one chooses, e.g., driving over a bridge or on a road or file a lawsuit. It is tyranny for government to compel people to pay for the bridge, the road, etc as a condition of living when living in a Free State, a free society.

NOTE: The 2nd Amenment talks about a Free State. I have been thinking about how individual rights and limited government are concepts that only apply to a Free State or a free society. Perhaps this is the basic premise the Left wants all other Americans to reject; that America was founded as a free society, a Free State and certain concepts apply and others (like compelling health care insurance products be purchased) are necessarily and fundamentally at odds with freedom.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

a law that passed the Senate with a supermajority cannot plausibly be described as having passed by "the thinnest of margins."

You are not saying that a Senate vote that barely passes by the minimum necessary to stop a filibuster is a supermajority, are you?

Originally Posted by goober

If the government can require ... people to comply with a mandate ...

Your premise is flawed is so many ways. The talking points from the Left seems to be using the word "mandate" trumps the Constitution.

Obamacare is not a tax. Traditionally, we tax people for doing something (like selling something) not for NOT doing something (like NOT buying something). The difference is nothing less than the difference between freedom and slavery, liberty and tyranny.