Topic: Courts will overturn Obamacare if Passed | |
---|---|
Too many members of Congress think passing a constitutionally dubious bill is politically safe because responsibility will fall on the courts to give a final yea or nay. The Democrats' government health care takeover is different. Every potential constitutional violation involved with Obamacare presents a grave political threat to every wavering congressman who votes for it. The only way to avoid being haunted for years is to kill Obamacare now. Democratic leaders pushing the "Slaughter Rule" to "deem" the bill passed without an actual vote are relying on a 2007 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision called Public Citizen v. Clerk. In that case, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat, argued that procedural errors within the House should lead the courts to invalidate a law. The appeals court disagreed, writing that courts should not be "directing legislative authentication procedures." Now it is Speaker Pelosi and Mrs. Slaughter who are claiming their own procedural maneuvers can't be challenged. They fail to note the distinction that the Public Citizen case involved mere technical discrepancies in an enrolled bill, whereas the Slaughter Rule would change the very nature of the constitutionally mandated requirements for how a bill becomes law. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, "Congress cannot alter the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7, without amending the Constitution." Specifically, the court wrote that no bill could become law unless "(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text." If the courts pronounce the Slaughter Rule unconstitutional, members who voted for it not only will have borne the wrath of angry opponents but will get no credit from the few Americans who did support the bill but then would see no benefits. On substance alone, Obamacare will be subject to constitutional challenges on at least three fronts, including the unprecedented "mandate" that every individual buy health insurance or face fines or jail time. The way Obamacare is designed, with enough interlocking parts to make even Einstein dizzy, the whole edifice crumbles if the mandate is declared unconstitutional. Politicians who survive this fall's elections would be forced to return to the subject and take even more tough votes cleaning up the mess. There's no political upside to caving in to Mrs. Pelosi's pressure to pass flawed legislation. Better to listen to the American public- and the text and spirit of the Constitution - and step up to defeat the whole thing. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/political-dangers-for-obamacare-supporters/ Not happening. Wishful thinking, just liked the birthers and tea baggers have. They use hate and fear and many many lies to try to incite anger and resentment to try to get what evil they want to happen. It ain't happening. From someone who calls people teabaggers, isn't saying much. lol, I just caught that. For anyone offended by my prior use of the word, I apologize. I was thinking it was a self appointed label. I will remember in the future to refer to the group as the tea party movement,, or whatever they call themself,,,what do they call themself? Actually it wasn't directed at you at all, just hoping you'd pick up on it because you are the smart one here. Unfortunately most people don't know exactly what Teabagging means and for those who don't should look here.............. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging I honestly don't know why the moderators here tolerate that word since they ban anything X rated, and that term is X rated......... |
|
|
|
Too many members of Congress think passing a constitutionally dubious bill is politically safe because responsibility will fall on the courts to give a final yea or nay. The Democrats' government health care takeover is different. Every potential constitutional violation involved with Obamacare presents a grave political threat to every wavering congressman who votes for it. The only way to avoid being haunted for years is to kill Obamacare now. Democratic leaders pushing the "Slaughter Rule" to "deem" the bill passed without an actual vote are relying on a 2007 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision called Public Citizen v. Clerk. In that case, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat, argued that procedural errors within the House should lead the courts to invalidate a law. The appeals court disagreed, writing that courts should not be "directing legislative authentication procedures." Now it is Speaker Pelosi and Mrs. Slaughter who are claiming their own procedural maneuvers can't be challenged. They fail to note the distinction that the Public Citizen case involved mere technical discrepancies in an enrolled bill, whereas the Slaughter Rule would change the very nature of the constitutionally mandated requirements for how a bill becomes law. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, "Congress cannot alter the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7, without amending the Constitution." Specifically, the court wrote that no bill could become law unless "(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text." If the courts pronounce the Slaughter Rule unconstitutional, members who voted for it not only will have borne the wrath of angry opponents but will get no credit from the few Americans who did support the bill but then would see no benefits. On substance alone, Obamacare will be subject to constitutional challenges on at least three fronts, including the unprecedented "mandate" that every individual buy health insurance or face fines or jail time. The way Obamacare is designed, with enough interlocking parts to make even Einstein dizzy, the whole edifice crumbles if the mandate is declared unconstitutional. Politicians who survive this fall's elections would be forced to return to the subject and take even more tough votes cleaning up the mess. There's no political upside to caving in to Mrs. Pelosi's pressure to pass flawed legislation. Better to listen to the American public- and the text and spirit of the Constitution - and step up to defeat the whole thing. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/political-dangers-for-obamacare-supporters/ Not happening. Wishful thinking, just liked the birthers and tea baggers have. They use hate and fear and many many lies to try to incite anger and resentment to try to get what evil they want to happen. It ain't happening. From someone who calls people teabaggers, isn't saying much. lol, I just caught that. For anyone offended by my prior use of the word, I apologize. I was thinking it was a self appointed label. I will remember in the future to refer to the group as the tea party movement,, or whatever they call themself,,,what do they call themself? Actually it wasn't directed at you at all, just hoping you'd pick up on it because you are the smart one here. Unfortunately most people don't know exactly what Teabagging means and for those who don't should look here.............. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging I honestly don't know why the moderators here tolerate that word since they ban anything X rated, and that term is X rated......... YEah, sorry about that, never heard the word before the tea party(or whatever they are called..lol). |
|
|
|
Too many members of Congress think passing a constitutionally dubious bill is politically safe because responsibility will fall on the courts to give a final yea or nay. The Democrats' government health care takeover is different. Every potential constitutional violation involved with Obamacare presents a grave political threat to every wavering congressman who votes for it. The only way to avoid being haunted for years is to kill Obamacare now. Democratic leaders pushing the "Slaughter Rule" to "deem" the bill passed without an actual vote are relying on a 2007 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision called Public Citizen v. Clerk. In that case, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat, argued that procedural errors within the House should lead the courts to invalidate a law. The appeals court disagreed, writing that courts should not be "directing legislative authentication procedures." Now it is Speaker Pelosi and Mrs. Slaughter who are claiming their own procedural maneuvers can't be challenged. They fail to note the distinction that the Public Citizen case involved mere technical discrepancies in an enrolled bill, whereas the Slaughter Rule would change the very nature of the constitutionally mandated requirements for how a bill becomes law. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, "Congress cannot alter the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7, without amending the Constitution." Specifically, the court wrote that no bill could become law unless "(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text." If the courts pronounce the Slaughter Rule unconstitutional, members who voted for it not only will have borne the wrath of angry opponents but will get no credit from the few Americans who did support the bill but then would see no benefits. On substance alone, Obamacare will be subject to constitutional challenges on at least three fronts, including the unprecedented "mandate" that every individual buy health insurance or face fines or jail time. The way Obamacare is designed, with enough interlocking parts to make even Einstein dizzy, the whole edifice crumbles if the mandate is declared unconstitutional. Politicians who survive this fall's elections would be forced to return to the subject and take even more tough votes cleaning up the mess. There's no political upside to caving in to Mrs. Pelosi's pressure to pass flawed legislation. Better to listen to the American public- and the text and spirit of the Constitution - and step up to defeat the whole thing. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/political-dangers-for-obamacare-supporters/ Not happening. Wishful thinking, just liked the birthers and tea baggers have. They use hate and fear and many many lies to try to incite anger and resentment to try to get what evil they want to happen. It ain't happening. From someone who calls people teabaggers, isn't saying much. lol, I just caught that. For anyone offended by my prior use of the word, I apologize. I was thinking it was a self appointed label. I will remember in the future to refer to the group as the tea party movement,, or whatever they call themself,,,what do they call themself? Actually it wasn't directed at you at all, just hoping you'd pick up on it because you are the smart one here. Unfortunately most people don't know exactly what Teabagging means and for those who don't should look here.............. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging I honestly don't know why the moderators here tolerate that word since they ban anything X rated, and that term is X rated......... YEah, sorry about that, never heard the word before the tea party(or whatever they are called..lol). Don't need to apologize to me, im Republican, but im not part of the movement......... |
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Sun 03/21/10 04:55 PM
|
|
Too many members of Congress think passing a constitutionally dubious bill is politically safe because responsibility will fall on the courts to give a final yea or nay. The Democrats' government health care takeover is different. Every potential constitutional violation involved with Obamacare presents a grave political threat to every wavering congressman who votes for it. The only way to avoid being haunted for years is to kill Obamacare now. Democratic leaders pushing the "Slaughter Rule" to "deem" the bill passed without an actual vote are relying on a 2007 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision called Public Citizen v. Clerk. In that case, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat, argued that procedural errors within the House should lead the courts to invalidate a law. The appeals court disagreed, writing that courts should not be "directing legislative authentication procedures." Now it is Speaker Pelosi and Mrs. Slaughter who are claiming their own procedural maneuvers can't be challenged. They fail to note the distinction that the Public Citizen case involved mere technical discrepancies in an enrolled bill, whereas the Slaughter Rule would change the very nature of the constitutionally mandated requirements for how a bill becomes law. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, "Congress cannot alter the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7, without amending the Constitution." Specifically, the court wrote that no bill could become law unless "(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text." If the courts pronounce the Slaughter Rule unconstitutional, members who voted for it not only will have borne the wrath of angry opponents but will get no credit from the few Americans who did support the bill but then would see no benefits. On substance alone, Obamacare will be subject to constitutional challenges on at least three fronts, including the unprecedented "mandate" that every individual buy health insurance or face fines or jail time. The way Obamacare is designed, with enough interlocking parts to make even Einstein dizzy, the whole edifice crumbles if the mandate is declared unconstitutional. Politicians who survive this fall's elections would be forced to return to the subject and take even more tough votes cleaning up the mess. There's no political upside to caving in to Mrs. Pelosi's pressure to pass flawed legislation. Better to listen to the American public- and the text and spirit of the Constitution - and step up to defeat the whole thing. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/political-dangers-for-obamacare-supporters/ Not happening. Wishful thinking, just liked the birthers and tea baggers have. They use hate and fear and many many lies to try to incite anger and resentment to try to get what evil they want to happen. It ain't happening. From someone who calls people teabaggers, isn't saying much. I've heard people from the Tea Party call themselves teabaggers. They're the ones that started the term. |
|
|
|
Edited by
MiddleEarthling
on
Sun 03/21/10 05:33 PM
|
|
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Good enough? Credit to QM09 for getting it first Ha...lol...that's from a debunked Email last year...The 9th Amendment does not relate to the issue what-so-ever...funny, and the "10th" may be tested but that would take years and then it depends on if the Supreme Court will even hear it..highly doubtful. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health-care-overhaul-constitutional/ ~~~~ WINX, you're right....they were saying "Let's Teabag the fools in DC!"...LOL. They own this name and I shall forever refer to these crazy people as such... The Rachel Maddow Show: Insani-Tea: Conservatives Rally Around "Teabagging" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8 |
|
|
|
Edited by
Quietman_2009
on
Mon 03/22/10 07:16 AM
|
|
Th New England Journal of Medicine conducted a survey that found that 30% of all doctors in America will retire if this health car bill pass. We will lose a third of all our doctors. I wonder what that will do to the price and availability of health care nope never have listened to Limbaugh or Beck or Olberman although I do try to catch Farid Zacariah's show on CNN every Sunday but to me you and Limbaugh are the same. just propagandists telling half truths and manipulating facts to press a false agenda and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesnt automatically make them a Republican. I'm not. I'm just tired of the demonization and insults for people that dont automatically agree with a persons rants |
|
|
|
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Good enough? Credit to QM09 for getting it first Ha...lol...that's from a debunked Email last year...The 9th Amendment does not relate to the issue what-so-ever...funny, and the "10th" may be tested but that would take years and then it depends on if the Supreme Court will even hear it..highly doubtful. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health-care-overhaul-constitutional/ ~~~~ WINX, you're right....they were saying "Let's Teabag the fools in DC!"...LOL. They own this name and I shall forever refer to these crazy people as such... The Rachel Maddow Show: Insani-Tea: Conservatives Rally Around "Teabagging" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8 Go ajead and use it, just remember that you lose any credibility you might have and look foolish when you do. |
|
|