If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   The mainstream media should not repeat the spurious factoid that Obamacare is constitutional since only one source (the Supreme Court) came forward to make that claim   (americanthinker.com) divider line 193
    More: Satire, obamacare, U.S. Supreme Court, majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, Volokh Conspiracy, Commerce Clause, landmark case, Tax Day  
•       •       •

2543 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Nov 2012 at 1:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-23 04:11:50 PM  

randomjsa: So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.


LAUGHTER O BUTTHURTNESS
 
2012-11-23 04:15:51 PM  

meow said the dog: Corvus: meow said the dog: Damn this Corvus but I must add this as the thoughtful responses of you are hard to read when I am having the distraction

A) I know the difference between you and you're. Just don't really care.
B) What? is that sentence even close to English? If you are going to be a grammar nazi shouldn't you form a sentence that at least is not a complete train wreck?

Oh no you did not be the individual upon which did the doing of this! *snapping of the fingers*


Ok, this is just getting surreal. Did someone slip me mushrooms? Last time that happened I regained awareness starring at the wikipedia page about Buddha...
 
2012-11-23 04:19:11 PM  

Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off


Alts are for p*ssies. If you're gonna troll, use your established name and and go in dry. Otherwise, go home.

/there is of course the distinct possibility that the person actually is new
 
2012-11-23 04:23:08 PM  

randomjsa: So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.


Herp a derp a doooooo...good luck with that revolution *snicker*.
 
2012-11-23 04:24:32 PM  

John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.


This is absolutely correct.

There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly grants the Supreme Court power to invalidate an act of Congress on the basis that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority. There is certainly language which appears to imply as much, and one can make a good argument that such authority is necessarily implied by the tripartite structure of the federal government, but the fact remains that there is no such explicit grant of such authority and many of the Framers - most notably, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Anti-Federalists - were quite certain that in fact the Supreme Court lacked any such authority.

However, Jefferson and the rest of the doubters were outflanked by Chief Justice Marshall's masterful opinion in Marbury. An interesting thing about Marbury is that the "holding" for which it is best known, that the Supreme Court had the power to invalidate acts of Congress on constitutional grounds, isn't really the holding of the case at all. It's pure dicta. Once Marshall held that the Court lacked jurisdiction, nothing else that he wrote mattered from a legal point of view. That was his genius. By sidestepping the real issue and mentioning it only in dicta he avoided a looming constitutional crisis and gave the notion of a judicial check on Congress a legitimacy that it would otherwise have lacked.

So the troll's comment was technically correct (the best kind of correct!), but ultimately irrelevant. Thanks to the awesome brilliance of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, that ship has long since sailed.
 
2012-11-23 04:29:27 PM  

John Dewey: Corvus: You not able to answer any of my questions and instead making false arguments up shows you really don't even understand your own position.

You said "Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says."

That seems to imply you think only right wingers don't understand what the constitution says. I think that's pretty plain. For someone who claims to understand what the supreme law of the land says (which is pretty complicated language) you sure don't have a good grasp of what you're saying in what appears to be a simple sentence.


Oh my God, you are awesomely stupid and terrible at the internet.

Serious Black: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

So who DOES have the power to judge the constitutionality of laws?


CORVUS REPLIED with the following statement - To Them:Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.

You knew that, but decided to argue against a point that was never stated in a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that YOU have no farking idea what the constitution says.

/your tears are yummy
//Please sir, I want some more
/// I'm very tired so I could be wrong. I'm not reading the entire farking derpgasm to find out.
 
2012-11-23 04:40:22 PM  
In case it wasn't obvious, I get kind of a jurisprudential stiffy when Marbury v. Madison comes up in conversation. Sorry.
 
2012-11-23 04:40:55 PM  
BWhahahahahahahahahahahahah!

American Thinker is such a fun site to read, almost as witty and interesting as Pocket Ninja.
 
2012-11-23 04:57:35 PM  

John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.


Any court must necessarily have the power to judge between mutually contradictory laws and determine which is controlling, though of course such judgment is only binding within that court's jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction, as dictated in the Constitution, is the entire United States. The Constitution also dictates that it is the supreme law of the land, and so any contradictions between mere statute and the Constitution must, of course, be adjudicated in favor of the Constitution. (The Constitution declaring itself the supreme law of the land is not circular, as it was given force by ratification by the several States.)

Thus, the power of judicial review is inescapably implied by the text of the Constitution and the nature of how a judicial system works.
 
2012-11-23 05:05:18 PM  

Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off


kitty, have I ever told you how much I likes you?

*curls tail around tootsies, relaxes on back of puffy couch*
 
2012-11-23 05:10:30 PM  
For the record, let us not confuse "is" with "ought". Thomas Jefferson may not have liked the idea of judicial review because of its grant of power to an unaccountable body, but the remedy for this cannot be to simply declare their jurisdiction invalid. That would be "legislative activism" or "executive activism" far in excess of any "judicial activism" the SC has ever been accused of.

Rather, the remedy is to amend the constitution. Which, incidentally, I wouldn't mind so much. State court systems (the much-ballyhooed "laboratories of democracy"), however, have shown us the pitfalls of an elected judiciary, so I'm not too keen on that.

Rather, I would prefer that Supreme Court justices be required to face regular reconfirmation. Ten years seems an appropriate term - guarantees that the reconfirmation will take place under a different President than the one who appointed them, but doesn't tie them to the same rhythm of six-year Senate terms. (I'd also put in place, as part of the amendment, the explicit requirement that reconfirmation must be done by majority vote in the Senate. Up to a point, I'm fine with filibusters for the initial confirmation - even with judicial terms of service, appointing a SC justice is a momentous decision that should take place by consensus rather than a mere majority - but once in office I think you shouldn't need a supermajority just to keep them on.)
 
2012-11-23 05:11:00 PM  

meow said the dog: Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

--Kevin Gutzman (Constitutional Scholar at Western Connecticut State University)
--Honorable Karen Wells Roby (President of Federal Magistrate Judges Association)
--Jesus of Bethlehem (Owner of Jesus G. Gonzalez Painting in Bethlehem, PA)
--Sean Hannity
--Fark Politics Posters

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

You are Welcome.


WTF did I just read?
 
2012-11-23 05:12:57 PM  

John Dewey: Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?

The Supreme Court.


In that case, shut the f*ck up.
 
2012-11-23 05:20:00 PM  

neenerist: vygramul: Forever Relevant: 

[www.bitlogic.com image 500x175]

[i48.tinypic.com image 480x168]


You should make it "whinger" simply as an added insult of using the non-American spelling.
 
2012-11-23 05:22:40 PM  
American Thinker is approaching the level of comedy gold found only in Conservapedia.
 
2012-11-23 05:26:59 PM  

Mithiwithi: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Any court must necessarily have the power to judge between mutually contradictory laws and determine which is controlling, though of course such judgment is only binding within that court's jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction, as dictated in the Constitution, is the entire United States. The Constitution also dictates that it is the supreme law of the land, and so any contradictions between mere statute and the Constitution must, of course, be adjudicated in favor of the Constitution. (The Constitution declaring itself the supreme law of the land is not circular, as it was given force by ratification by the several States.)

Thus, the power of judicial review is inescapably implied by the text of the Constitution and the nature of how a judicial system works.


Not at all, There are plenty of examples of political systems in which the judiciary has no power to supersede the authority of the legislature or the executive. Just because this is the governmental structure that we've chosen in no way implies that alternative approaches are illegitimate.

Remember, no one thought for a second that Marshall would be able to manage the Hobson's choice that the anti-Federalists had orchestrated. The presumption was that the Court would surender to Congress' ultimate authority. Onl;y a minority thought that he would take the suicide route, declare the power of judicial review, and trigger the constitutional crisis that would likely destroy the authority of the Court forever. No one but Marshall saw a third way; no one Marshall had any idea how the Federalists could win. Marshall showed the way - he won the war by conceding the battle. Remember, the upshot of Marbury that, while Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority, the Court lacked jurisdiction to do anything about it in that particular procedural posture. Marbury lost his case! Congress won that round, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Decades later, when the Court finally addressed the issue again in a more favorable context, they were able to rely on the "long-standing" principle that the Court had the power of judicial review on constitutional grounds, despite the fact that that principle had never before been applied in practice!
 
2012-11-23 05:28:46 PM  

mcwehrle: Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off

kitty, have I ever told you how much I likes you?

*curls tail around tootsies, relaxes on back of puffy couch*


Yikes., it's like AOL all over again.
 
2012-11-23 05:33:36 PM  

BMulligan: the fact remains that there is no such explicit grant of such authority and many of the Framers - most notably, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Anti-Federalists - were quite certain that in fact the Supreme Court lacked any such authority.


I think that's a mistaken interpretation of the Anti-Federalists' view. The Anti-Federalists largely acknowledged the power existed, but argued that it was a bad thing with much potential for abuse.
 
2012-11-23 05:45:58 PM  

qorkfiend: BMulligan: the fact remains that there is no such explicit grant of such authority and many of the Framers - most notably, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Anti-Federalists - were quite certain that in fact the Supreme Court lacked any such authority.

I think that's a mistaken interpretation of the Anti-Federalists' view. The Anti-Federalists largely acknowledged the power existed, but argued that it was a bad thing with much potential for abuse.


This is a defensible interpretation, but I think it's wrong. I think they exerted a lot of political capital in keeping the constitutional language vague enough to keep their preferred interpretation alive, and largely believed that they had outmaneuvered their opponents. There's plenty of evidence to support your argument as well, however, and my belief is based more on my sense of human nature than on hard evidence.
 
2012-11-23 05:48:01 PM  

elchip: Corvus: elchip: Corvus: the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?

Of course it can be reinterpreted again, but justices, and the ideological makeup of the court, don't change that often. Look how long Roe v. Wade has stood despite the right's 35-year attempt at reinterpreting it by appointing like-minded justices.

Wait how can it be reinterpeted again if it's been "thrown out"?

Is you interpretation of the term "thrown out" is that you can use it again at a later date now?

"Thrown out" means it is GONE, that you can't then again use it in the future. That's what you said.

Oh FFS, so I used poor phrasing.


No it wasn't just phrasing it was your entire point. You said, SCOTUS throws out ruling instead of just saying ruling on the case. Ruling on the case is exactly what they do. They don't throw out laws like you said.

It's not how you worded it, it was the point you were making. They do what you said they don't do (rule on cases) and they don't "throw out" laws like you said they do.
 
2012-11-23 05:50:09 PM  

randomjsa: So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.


Funny, I've always said it was a tax. So were is your apology to me?
 
2012-11-23 05:51:51 PM  
Dear Conservatives:

We libs would just love to get all bipartisan with you, and we will, too. But you have to put down the knife and play nice. Put down the knife and let's talk.

Mkay?

Mkay.
 
2012-11-23 05:52:11 PM  
God, I do hate ye olde english text on that website.
 
2012-11-23 06:05:36 PM  

randomjsa: So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.


Why are you are here wasting time on this subject - the Benghazi scandal isn't going to make itself!
 
2012-11-23 06:08:43 PM  

BMulligan: Not at all, There are plenty of examples of political systems in which the judiciary has no power to supersede the authority of the legislature or the executive.


China's is one of them.
 
2012-11-23 06:09:56 PM  

jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.


I thought any court that did display a flag with gold fringe was invalid because the fringe indicated a military flag, and thus a military court, and civilians aren't subject to military law. Not that sovereign citizens are subject to any law higher than the county Sheriff.

/gawd I loves me some sovereign citizen craziness
 
2012-11-23 06:15:40 PM  
National flags are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide. It will be the same size as the flags displayed or carried with it. Authorization for indoor display in Each military courtroom.

Any courtroom that displays these flags behind the Judge is a military courtroom. You are under military law and not constitutional law, or common law, or civil law, or statute law.


If there's a fringed flag in the SCOTUS building their rulings do not apply to civilians. So sayeth sovereign-citizenship.net/
 
2012-11-23 06:21:14 PM  

thamike:

Yikes., it's like AOL all over again.


pffft.

mIRC.
 
2012-11-23 06:21:52 PM  

mcwehrle: Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off

kitty, have I ever told you how much I likes you?

*curls tail around tootsies, relaxes on back of puffy couch*


Don't encourage it.
 
2012-11-23 07:08:08 PM  
I am so sick of the "Judicial Review is unconstitutional" crap. Also, the concept was in place well before Marbury v. Madison. There is a simple reason that Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. According to Madison's notes on the convention, the subject came up on the first (or second--I don't remember which) day, and since the highest court in each member state of the Articles of Confederation had that power, it was by UNANIMOUS consent that the SCOTUS would have that power. The Framers didn't think it necessary to articulate it in the Constitution because everyone agreed, and as was stated earlier in the thread, it can be interpreted from what is written in the document. Maybe if Jefferson had been at the convention instead of living the high life as Ambassador to France he would have understood the concept better.
 
2012-11-23 07:13:47 PM  

Corvus: No it wasn't just phrasing it was your entire point. You said, SCOTUS throws out ruling instead of just saying ruling on the case. Ruling on the case is exactly what they do. They don't throw out laws like you said.

It's not how you worded it, it was the point you were making. They do what you said they don't do (rule on cases) and they don't "throw out" laws like you said they do.


They do throw out laws. What would have happened if they ruled the other way on PPACA? The law would have been thrown out. But their rulings can be overturned by future courts (the most famous example being Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board).
 
2012-11-23 07:18:07 PM  

elchip: But their rulings can be overturned by future courts (the most famous example being Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board).

Brown

has not actually been abandoned, it just looks that way in the hallways of most of our schools.
 
2012-11-23 07:27:26 PM  

thenewmissus: meow said the dog: Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

--Kevin Gutzman (Constitutional Scholar at Western Connecticut State University)
--Honorable Karen Wells Roby (President of Federal Magistrate Judges Association)
--Jesus of Bethlehem (Owner of Jesus G. Gonzalez Painting in Bethlehem, PA)
--Sean Hannity
--Fark Politics Posters

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

You are Welcome.

WTF did I just read?


Oh, all these newbies who haven't been privileged to see meow in her full glory. This is meowsaidthedog and she is a wonderful poster, to be sure. Not to be fully understood, nor to be fully comprehended except with a head full of magic mushrooms, is our meow, but simply savored as the witty yet unappreciated skewerer of trolls she is. I think she's a Russian Blue with some Norwegian Forest Cat and some Siberian Wolfhound thrown in.
 
2012-11-23 07:33:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: mcwehrle: Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off

kitty, have I ever told you how much I likes you?

*curls tail around tootsies, relaxes on back of puffy couch*

Don't encourage it.


Skaters gonna skate, skeeters gonna skeet, and squeeters gonna squeet.

Squeet squeet.
 
2012-11-23 07:36:41 PM  

BMulligan: elchip: But their rulings can be overturned by future courts (the most famous example being Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board).

Brown has not actually been abandoned, it just looks that way in the hallways of most of our schools.


Plessy has been abandoned.
 
2012-11-23 07:39:02 PM  

elchip: BMulligan: elchip: But their rulings can be overturned by future courts (the most famous example being Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board).

Brown has not actually been abandoned, it just looks that way in the hallways of most of our schools.

Plessy has been abandoned.


Ah, I see what you were saying. I completely misunderstood. My apologies.
 
2012-11-23 07:39:46 PM  

ProdigalSigh: mrshowrules: I wish the "satire" tag was accurate but unfortunately they are for reals.

They are criticizing real journalists for saying the "individual mandate" is Constitutional.


In the run up to the election some farkers got behind the idea that every American Thinker thread should be given the Satire tag because.... well... Onion articles make more sense.


I didn't get the memo but I support this idea.
 
2012-11-23 07:51:00 PM  

John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.



Would somebody like to explain to him if that was the case then Obamacare's constitutionality would have never been in doubt, as would the FEC's rules and regulations for campaign spending pre-Citizens United?
 
2012-11-23 07:56:21 PM  

slayer199: Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.


Technically, that was Roberts reasoning. But this ignores the four other justices who thought that it was constitutional on either taxation or commerce grounds.
 
2012-11-23 07:59:34 PM  
American Thinker and World Net Daily make Fox News fair and balanced*.

*relatively speaking
 
2012-11-23 08:00:33 PM  

pueblonative: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.


Would somebody like to explain to him if that was the case then Obamacare's constitutionality would have never been in doubt, as would the FEC's rules and regulations for campaign spending pre-Citizens United?


Exactly. What these dunderheads don't realize is that if the Court doesn't have the authority to adjudicate constitutionality, then surely that authority must lie with either the legislature or the executive - that is, either the Congress that passed the bill, or the president who signed it.
 
2012-11-23 08:39:36 PM  

slayer199: Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.


Yes, which is why the quote in the headline is delusional.
 
2012-11-23 09:28:20 PM  
I'm gonna presume the headline is a direct quote from TFA and simply not bother clicking the link. I'm sure I saved a few brain cells in the process.

Oh, and facepalm.jpg
 
2012-11-23 09:58:29 PM  
I took a huge dump this morning. A good 2 foot long unbroken monster. I didn't realize that when I flushed it, it would be routed to American Thinker and that they would print it.

I apologize and will speak to my plumber on Monday.
 
2012-11-23 10:15:39 PM  

Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off


Am new but thanks for the welcome!
 
2012-11-23 10:51:28 PM  
So, what's the unconstitutional part? The part that says if you're able to afford health care but are too lazy to get it you'll be taxed, but if you're either getting health care or too poor to get it you won't be taxed?
 
2012-11-23 10:52:45 PM  

aug3: remember when Roberts was the shining bacon of light to conservatives... good times man, good times


Mmmmm.... Bacon.
 
2012-11-23 10:55:41 PM  

meow said the dog: Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

--Kevin Gutzman (Constitutional Scholar at Western Connecticut State University)
--Honorable Karen Wells Roby (President of Federal Magistrate Judges Association)
--Jesus of Bethlehem (Owner of Jesus G. Gonzalez Painting in Bethlehem, PA)
--Sean Hannity
--Fark Politics Posters

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

You are Welcome.


i595.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-23 11:02:43 PM  

dartben: Good lord, I know we're supposed to believe that education is the devil, but this is 3rd grade social studies here. The whole checks and balances thing among the three equal branches of government. (And yes, I know there's a segment of the GOP that now states the judiciary is not supposed to be an equal branch but a subserviant one).


i2.cdn.turner.com


Unless they're losing an election. Then the Courts are their best friend, the SUPREME law of the land, etc.
 
2012-11-23 11:11:52 PM  

Lost_in_Korea: I am so sick of the "Judicial Review is unconstitutional" crap. Also, the concept was in place well before Marbury v. Madison. There is a simple reason that Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. According to Madison's notes on the convention, the subject came up on the first (or second--I don't remember which) day, and since the highest court in each member state of the Articles of Confederation had that power, it was by UNANIMOUS consent that the SCOTUS would have that power. The Framers didn't think it necessary to articulate it in the Constitution because everyone agreed, and as was stated earlier in the thread, it can be interpreted from what is written in the document. Maybe if Jefferson had been at the convention instead of living the high life as Ambassador to France he would have understood the concept better.


And it was taken as a given in prior Supreme Court cases, but you don't hear about those because they all confirmed the constitutionality of the laws.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report