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 22
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-23 01:31:14 PM
5 votes:
YOSSARIAN: So, you mean there's a way that can get me out of posting on American Thinker?

DOC: Sure there is.

YOSSARIAN: Well what is it?

DOC: Simple. I certify you as someone unable to think. Then you can't post.

YOSSARIAN: OK, so certify me! Certify me!

DOC: Can't do it.

YOSSARIAN: Why not?!?

DOC: Cause you asked me to. That proves you can think.

YOSSARIAN: What?!? That's crazy. Look, you take that potato-head over there. You know he can't think, right?

DOC: His head is completely empty. Has an echo.

YOSSARIAN: But he still has to post on American Thinker?

DOC: Yes that's right.

YOSSARIAN: But he can't think! So he shouldn't have to post!

DOC: Yes, all he has to do is ask me to certify him as unable to post.

YOSSARIAN: And then he doesn't have to post?

DOC: No, then he does have to post. He just proved he can think.

YOSSARIAN: WHAT! WHAT!

DOC: Listen, you think you got problems?
2012-11-23 02:05:46 PM
2 votes:

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.


No I said this:

Corvus: To them. Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.


Which you deleted.

You are trying to change the subject because you can't support you own opinion. I don't give a shiat what people on the left think it has zero bearing to the comment you made, or the question I asked you about.


Now can you back up your statement or not?
2012-11-23 02:02:39 PM
2 votes:

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 if Congress passes a law making Islam the national religion, and the President signs it, who else is supposed to say "no, the Constitution forbids that" but the Courts? 

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).
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-23 10:51:48 AM
2 votes:
It's not like it's the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution or anything.
2012-11-23 04:24:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:54:46 PM
1 votes:
Damn this Corvus but I must add this as the thoughtful responses of you are hard to read when I am having the distraction. So here:

www.pagelines.com

Now thank you for having the property of the English language. You are welcome for the advisement of me to you.
2012-11-23 02:49:36 PM
1 votes:

Talondel: 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.

Close but not exactly. The Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) forbids judicial review of taxes before they go into effect. The opinion of the court was that the individual mandate was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because Congress did not intend for it to be a tax. Therefore, the AIA did not prevent judicial review of the individual mandate. When they looked at the constitutionality of the individual mandate, they started by looking to see if it could be upheld as a regulation, rather than as a tax, because that was the intent of the law. The opinion of the court (5 out of the 9 justices) was that the individual mandate could not be upheld as a regulation of interstate commerce. They then went to see if there was any other congressional power that the law could be sustained under. The court found that had Congress passed this as a tax, it would clearly be constitutional (just like medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. are all enacted under Congress' power to tax and spend). So the court said that the law could be upheld as a tax, but not as a regulation.

So in short, the AIA didn't prevent judicial review of the mandate because the AIA only applies to things that congress intends to be a tax. But when the Court looked to the constitutionality of the act, they upheld it because Congress could have enacted it as a tax, even though they didn't intend to.

/Of course, the Court ignored the fact that Congress likely would not have had the votes to pass the (or to get the president to sign it) if the mandate had been clearly labeled a tax from the beginning.)
//The court also completely struck down the portions of the law that tied ...


The seventh of the Ashwander rules concerning judicial restraint says that even if there is a serious concern raised about the constitutionality of a law, SCOTUS must figure out if any fairly possible construction of the law avoids those concerns. Whether Congress could have passed it is ultimately irrelevant.
2012-11-23 02:39:58 PM
1 votes:

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.


Close but not exactly. The Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) forbids judicial review of taxes before they go into effect. The opinion of the court was that the individual mandate was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because Congress did not intend for it to be a tax. Therefore, the AIA did not prevent judicial review of the individual mandate. When they looked at the constitutionality of the individual mandate, they started by looking to see if it could be upheld as a regulation, rather than as a tax, because that was the intent of the law. The opinion of the court (5 out of the 9 justices) was that the individual mandate could not be upheld as a regulation of interstate commerce. They then went to see if there was any other congressional power that the law could be sustained under. The court found that had Congress passed this as a tax, it would clearly be constitutional (just like medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. are all enacted under Congress' power to tax and spend). So the court said that the law could be upheld as a tax, but not as a regulation.

So in short, the AIA didn't prevent judicial review of the mandate because the AIA only applies to things that congress intends to be a tax. But when the Court looked to the constitutionality of the act, they upheld it because Congress could have enacted it as a tax, even though they didn't intend to.

/Of course, the Court ignored the fact that Congress likely would not have had the votes to pass the (or to get the president to sign it) if the mandate had been clearly labeled a tax from the beginning.)
//The court also completely struck down the portions of the law that tied existing state medicaid and medicare funding to enacting the ACA, but no one ever talks about that).
2012-11-23 02:21:51 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.


Seems to me like you don't want to tell us who the Constitution says has the power to judge the constitutionality of laws for some completely inexplicable reason.
2012-11-23 02:21:30 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.


So your not capable of responding to our questions then are you? Your not smart enough to be able to back the comments you make. You say things without even understanding them.

Just trolling.
2012-11-23 02:16:48 PM
1 votes:
I must give John Dewey credit for casting effective Rand Paul-flavored bait. Not even his pappy's fanboys think Rand Paul is anything other than a moron (who occasionally is useful to them).
2012-11-23 02:05:11 PM
1 votes:

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.


And for somebody who has a pretty good grasp of what the Constitution says, you sure do seem to be evading my question of who gets to judge the constitutionality of laws pretty well.
2012-11-23 02:02:39 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-23 01:51:13 PM
1 votes:

Kibbler: YOSSARIAN: So, you mean there's a way that can get me out of posting on American Thinker?

DOC: Sure there is.

YOSSARIAN: Well what is it?

DOC: Simple. I certify you as someone unable to think. Then you can't post.

YOSSARIAN: OK, so certify me! Certify me!

DOC: Can't do it.

YOSSARIAN: Why not?!?

DOC: Cause you asked me to. That proves you can think.

YOSSARIAN: What?!? That's crazy. Look, you take that potato-head over there. You know he can't think, right?

DOC: His head is completely empty. Has an echo.

YOSSARIAN: But he still has to post on American Thinker?

DOC: Yes that's right.

YOSSARIAN: But he can't think! So he shouldn't have to post!

DOC: Yes, all he has to do is ask me to certify him as unable to post.

YOSSARIAN: And then he doesn't have to post?

DOC: No, then he does have to post. He just proved he can think.

YOSSARIAN: WHAT! WHAT!

DOC: Listen, you think you got problems?


That's a hell of a catch, that catch-22!

Cheers.

//Save the navigator
//Wait, I'm the navigator
2012-11-23 01:49:02 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.


Really? You think that's a right wing only thing?
2012-11-23 01:41:14 PM
1 votes:

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.


You are wrong. It says the SCOTUS is the supreme court of the land and the constitution are laws of this nation (that trump other normal laws) so how those laws affect people based on actual court cases is what all courts do. To say that constitutional law would have no say in the court of law would be making it for all practical purposes useless. Even the founding fathers talked about judicial review of laws.

Answer me this: If someone was abridging my first or second amendment rights (or any constitutional right or law) who the hell would be there to judge that if it wasn't for the judiciary?

You answer would be no one. So then the constitution would be completely useless.
2012-11-23 01:39:11 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-23 01:36:06 PM
1 votes:

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


I recall him being portrayed as an intellectual almost without peer.

Did I dream that?
2012-11-23 01:23:33 PM
1 votes:

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.


I've missed you soooooo much!!!!

good to see you again!
2012-11-23 12:30:36 PM
1 votes:

SilentStrider: The Supreme Court's is the only opinion that matters in this case.


My gut has evidence to the contrary.
2012-11-23 12:28:37 PM
1 votes:
The Supreme Court's is the only opinion that matters in this case.
2012-11-23 11:04:19 AM
1 votes:
Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.

You can get a good look at a butcher's ass if you stick your head up there.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report