Court rules health care bill is Constitutional

[bigrebnc1775]

In that case..show where anything has been declared un-Constitutional

I will wait...I imagine your list is quite long

You will still be the drone you are and listen to NOTHING I say...

The EPA, FCC and other gov't institutions dont operate under constitutional restrictions.... That is why they have been given as much authority as they have. Obama (eeerr his handlers) really is'nt that stupid. In fact as a gangsta, he is brilliant!

Im sure I will be quoted as saying Obama is brilliant, but whatever.

EPA has been around since Nixon, FCC even longer

They have been in place under Dems and Republicans. Show me where their power has been ruled to be outside the Constitution. 40+ years, you must have loads of evidence

Are they elected or appointed? Do they make rules enforced by law?

 

[rightwinger]

You will still be the drone you are and listen to NOTHING I say...

The EPA, FCC and other gov't institutions dont operate under constitutional restrictions.... That is why they have been given as much authority as they have. Obama (eeerr his handlers) really is'nt that stupid. In fact as a gangsta, he is brilliant!

Im sure I will be quoted as saying Obama is brilliant, but whatever.

EPA has been around since Nixon, FCC even longer

They have been in place under Dems and Republicans. Show me where their power has been ruled to be outside the Constitution. 40+ years, you must have loads of evidence

Are they elected or appointed? Do they make rules enforced by law?

Are they constitutional? Yes

If not, show me where they have been challenged. You have 40 years

 

[Greenbeard]

Are they elected or appointed? Do they make rules enforced by law?

You need to review the Constitution. Not only is the executive bureaucracy acknowledged, Congress is authorized to vest appointment powers of inferior officers in the President or in department heads. And when an agency makes a rule that has the force of law, it doesn't do so on a whim it does so because Congress has authorized it to do so in legislation.

 

[Granny]

OK - so two federal judges have ruled the health care law is Constitutional. Shouldn't federal laws apply equally across the board to all citizens? There were some exceptions stated in that bill - can't remember exactly what the "Louisiana Purchase" entailed except a shit load of money for a "yes" vote, but wasn't Kansas, Missouri or some such state EXEMPTED from some provisions of the health care law - leaving the rest of the states to pick up the tab for that state? Also in exchange for a "yes" vote.

The whole damned bill was FUBAR. Not only that, no one, NO ONE, read the entirety of that 2,000+ page bill to see what the hell was actually in it that they were voting into law. No, in the wise words of Speaker Pelosi - we needed to first pass the thing so that we could find out later what was in the bill. When a reporter asked Sen./Rep. Mudcrud (D-SC) about the Constitutionality of the bill, Mudcrud laughingly replied, "Constitutionality? We don't follow the Constitution up here - we do what we want to do." Really?

Our Presidents, our Congressional representatives, our judges from the Traffic Court clear up to the Supreme Court ALL take oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America - not French law, not British law, not Hungarian law or any other law other than the US Constitution. When any one of those people (and any others who have to take the Oath of Office) pass laws or make rulings contrary to what is contained in the US Constitution, they are in violation of that oath and should be thrown out of office on their individual or collective asses.

This damned law needs to be REPEALED, the sooner the better. Period.

 

[zzzz]

OK - so two federal judges have ruled the health care law is Constitutional. Shouldn't federal laws apply equally across the board to all citizens? There were some exceptions stated in that bill - can't remember exactly what the "Louisiana Purchase" entailed except a shit load of money for a "yes" vote, but wasn't Kansas, Missouri or some such state EXEMPTED from some provisions of the health care law - leaving the rest of the states to pick up the tab for that state? Also in exchange for a "yes" vote.

The whole damned bill was FUBAR. Not only that, no one, NO ONE, read the entirety of that 2,000+ page bill to see what the hell was actually in it that they were voting into law. No, in the wise words of Speaker Pelosi - we needed to first pass the thing so that we could find out later what was in the bill. When a reporter asked Sen./Rep. Mudcrud (D-SC) about the Constitutionality of the bill, Mudcrud laughingly replied, "Constitutionality? We don't follow the Constitution up here - we do what we want to do." Really?

Our Presidents, our Congressional representatives, our judges from the Traffic Court clear up to the Supreme Court ALL take oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America - not French law, not British law, not Hungarian law or any other law other than the US Constitution. When any one of those people (and any others who have to take the Oath of Office) pass laws or make rulings contrary to what is contained in the US Constitution, they are in violation of that oath and should be thrown out of office on their individual or collective asses.

This damned law needs to be REPEALED, the sooner the better. Period.

If it is unconstitutional like you say then the US Supreme Court will strike it down. The executive and legislative branches of our government have always tried to expand federal powers beyond what the constitution provides and it is the USSC that must slap their hands and throw it out. Look at the War powers act. It is commonly assumed this is unconstitutional yet no one has taken to to the USSC.

 

[Old Rocks]

Va. judge dismisses challenge to Obama health care - Yahoo! News

I was under the impression that interstate Health care is a no go, as against the law. That each individual Company has to create itself inside each State and can not offer premiums based on another States record.

If so then there is NO interstate Commerce involved in Health Care Insurance. And clearly the US Government has no legal right nor Constitutional right to pass any laws dealing with it using the Commerce clause.

LOL. You are under a lot of mistaken impressions

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Czars have no power. They are advisors to the president

Bullshit. They make policy. The GM clusterfuck was orchestrated by the car czar.

They are part of the Executive Branch and advise the president on policy

If GM is the best you got.....Bring us more czars!

There's the TARP Czar ............. the Border Czar
the Energy Czar....................... the Urban Affairs Czar
the Technology Czar................. the Weapons Czar
the Health Czar....................... the AIDS Czar
the Great Lakes Czar................ the Stimulus Accountability Czar
the Pay Czar .......................... the Guantanamo Czar
the Sudan Czar........................ the Afghanistan Czar
the Science Czar...................... the Jobs Czar
the Drug Czar.......................... the Information Czar
the Mideast Peace Czar............. the WMD Czar
the Climate Czar...................... the Regulatory Czar
the Economic Czar.................... the Car Czar (there's your Chevy Volt Govt Mandate)
the Cyber Security Czar............ the Government Performance Czar
the Persian Gulf Czar................ the Auto Task Force Czar
the Health Info Tech Czar ......... the Faith Based Czar

Where exactly in the Constitution does it allow for the Commander-in-Chief to establish these positions? Positions that bypass Congressional vetting and approval is abuse of executive power, is it not?

Imagine where our National Debt would be, if you eliminated every one of those Czar positions and give our President some "responsibility". Perhaps he will won't have so much free time spent on visiting network talk shows, like the View or Letterman, and do less traveling away from the Oval office. Traveling that costs taxpayers $3,000 an hour (minimum) on the use of Air Force One and heightened security, I would love to see President Obama's audit list of expenditures!!

 

[Granny]

May not be on the SC docket yet, but a lot of states have filed suits on the question of Constitutionality using a number of different arguements. Considering what we now have on the SC it's probably going to be a battle of ideals before the dust finally settles.

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit. They make policy. The GM clusterfuck was orchestrated by the car czar.

They are part of the Executive Branch and advise the president on policy

If GM is the best you got.....Bring us more czars!

There's the TARP Czar ............. the Border Czar
the Energy Czar....................... the Urban Affairs Czar
the Technology Czar................. the Weapons Czar
the technology Czar.................. the AIDS Czar
the Great Lakes Czar................ the Stimulus Accountability Czar
the Pay Czar .......................... the Guantanamo Czar
the Sudan Czar........................ the Afghanistan Czar
the Science Czar...................... the Jobs Czar
the Drug Czar.......................... the Information Czar
the Mideast Peace Czar............. the WMD Czar
the Climate Czar...................... the Regulatory Czar
the Economic Czar.................... the Car Czar (there's your Chevy Volt Govt Mandate)
the Cyber Security Czar............ the Government Performance Czar
the Persian Gulf Czar................ the Auto Task Force Czar
the Health Info Tech Czar ......... the Faith Based Czar

Where exactly in the Constitution does it allow for the Commander-in-Chief to establish these positions? Positions that bypass Congressional vetting and approval is abuse of executive power, is it not?

Imagine where our National Debt would be, if you eliminated every one of those Czar positions and give our President some "responsibility".

The Constitution establishes the Executive Branch with the President in the lead. He is allowed to have as many advisors to the President as he thinks are necessary to do the job. Whether you call them advisors or czars or "smart guys" they are still members of the executive branch

Damn...we didn't have these concerns when Republicans were president

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They are part of the Executive Branch and advise the president on policy

If GM is the best you got.....Bring us more czars!

There's the TARP Czar ............. the Border Czar
the Energy Czar....................... the Urban Affairs Czar
the Technology Czar................. the Weapons Czar
the technology Czar.................. the AIDS Czar
the Great Lakes Czar................ the Stimulus Accountability Czar
the Pay Czar .......................... the Guantanamo Czar
the Sudan Czar........................ the Afghanistan Czar
the Science Czar...................... the Jobs Czar
the Drug Czar.......................... the Information Czar
the Mideast Peace Czar............. the WMD Czar
the Climate Czar...................... the Regulatory Czar
the Economic Czar.................... the Car Czar (there's your Chevy Volt Govt Mandate)
the Cyber Security Czar............ the Government Performance Czar
the Persian Gulf Czar................ the Auto Task Force Czar
the Health Info Tech Czar ......... the Faith Based Czar

Where exactly in the Constitution does it allow for the Commander-in-Chief to establish these positions? Positions that bypass Congressional vetting and approval is abuse of executive power, is it not?

Imagine where our National Debt would be, if you eliminated every one of those Czar positions and give our President some "responsibility".

The Constitution establishes the Executive Branch with the President in the lead. He is allowed to have as many advisors to the President as he thinks are necessary to do the job. Whether you call them advisors or czars or "smart guys" they are still members of the executive branch

Damn...we didn't have these concerns when Republicans were president

And why exactly is the cabinet required to be vetted by the Senate and these guys are not? Further please name all the people Bush appointed to high office without Senate approval and I do not mean recess appointments.

 

[rightwinger]

There's the TARP Czar ............. the Border Czar
the Energy Czar....................... the Urban Affairs Czar
the Technology Czar................. the Weapons Czar
the technology Czar.................. the AIDS Czar
the Great Lakes Czar................ the Stimulus Accountability Czar
the Pay Czar .......................... the Guantanamo Czar
the Sudan Czar........................ the Afghanistan Czar
the Science Czar...................... the Jobs Czar
the Drug Czar.......................... the Information Czar
the Mideast Peace Czar............. the WMD Czar
the Climate Czar...................... the Regulatory Czar
the Economic Czar.................... the Car Czar (there's your Chevy Volt Govt Mandate)
the Cyber Security Czar............ the Government Performance Czar
the Persian Gulf Czar................ the Auto Task Force Czar
the Health Info Tech Czar ......... the Faith Based Czar

Where exactly in the Constitution does it allow for the Commander-in-Chief to establish these positions? Positions that bypass Congressional vetting and approval is abuse of executive power, is it not?

Imagine where our National Debt would be, if you eliminated every one of those Czar positions and give our President some "responsibility".

The Constitution establishes the Executive Branch with the President in the lead. He is allowed to have as many advisors to the President as he thinks are necessary to do the job. Whether you call them advisors or czars or "smart guys" they are still members of the executive branch

Damn...we didn't have these concerns when Republicans were president

And why exactly is the cabinet required to be vetted by the Senate and these guys are not? Further please name all the people Bush appointed to high office without Senate approval and I do not mean recess appointments.

Because they are not cabinet level positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

 

[DiamondDave]

The Constitution establishes the Executive Branch with the President in the lead. He is allowed to have as many advisors to the President as he thinks are necessary to do the job. Whether you call them advisors or czars or "smart guys" they are still members of the executive branch

Damn...we didn't have these concerns when Republicans were president

And why exactly is the cabinet required to be vetted by the Senate and these guys are not? Further please name all the people Bush appointed to high office without Senate approval and I do not mean recess appointments.

Because they are not cabinet level positions.

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you think that verbal designation is not on purpose??? Easy way to expand power while using a loophole... loopholes are unfortunately something rather common in government thanks to both parties

 

[rightwinger]

And why exactly is the cabinet required to be vetted by the Senate and these guys are not? Further please name all the people Bush appointed to high office without Senate approval and I do not mean recess appointments.

Because they are not cabinet level positions.

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you think that verbal designation is not on purpose??? Easy way to expand power while using a loophole... loopholes are unfortunately something rather common in government thanks to both parties

The powers of the Executive Branch remain the same. More people does not equate to more power, they are just advising on how existing powers should be used

 

[DiamondDave]

Because they are not cabinet level positions.

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you think that verbal designation is not on purpose??? Easy way to expand power while using a loophole... loopholes are unfortunately something rather common in government thanks to both parties

The powers of the Executive Branch remain the same. More people does not equate to more power, they are just advising on how existing powers should be used

And more people costs what? That's right more money... that must be collected thru taxes and wasted thru the bureaucratic system... more paperwork, more requests to push thru and pass, more rules to enforce... yes... it is indeed more power.... arranged by this manner of expansion that was never intended

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

They are part of the Executive Branch and advise the president on policy

If GM is the best you got.....Bring us more czars!

There's the TARP Czar ............. the Border Czar
the Energy Czar....................... the Urban Affairs Czar
the Technology Czar................. the Weapons Czar
the technology Czar.................. the AIDS Czar
the Great Lakes Czar................ the Stimulus Accountability Czar
the Pay Czar .......................... the Guantanamo Czar
the Sudan Czar........................ the Afghanistan Czar
the Science Czar...................... the Jobs Czar
the Drug Czar.......................... the Information Czar
the Mideast Peace Czar............. the WMD Czar
the Climate Czar...................... the Regulatory Czar
the Economic Czar.................... the Car Czar (there's your Chevy Volt Govt Mandate)
the Cyber Security Czar............ the Government Performance Czar
the Persian Gulf Czar................ the Auto Task Force Czar
the Health Info Tech Czar ......... the Faith Based Czar

Where exactly in the Constitution does it allow for the Commander-in-Chief to establish these positions? Positions that bypass Congressional vetting and approval is abuse of executive power, is it not?

Imagine where our National Debt would be, if you eliminated every one of those Czar positions and give our President some "responsibility".

The Constitution establishes the Executive Branch with the President in the lead. He is allowed to have as many advisors to the President as he thinks are necessary to do the job. Whether you call them advisors or czars or "smart guys" they are still members of the executive branch

Damn...we didn't have these concerns when Republicans were president

.. and where in the Constitution does it allot the executive branch for all these 30 CZARS exactly, can you site the Constitutional Article to back your statement? It's amazing how far we have drifted away from the foundational government established under the Constitution, while others make the claim that the Constitution allows for it. This is how our nation loses it's liberty: as 'We the People' take a back seat to those in government who become corrupted by its power.
I don't approve of any "tax wasted" Czars, no matter which party they are from. Although I have never seen so many Czars under any other President, Obama seems to love his Big Government Autocracy!

 

[rightwinger]

There's the TARP Czar ............. the Border Czar
the Energy Czar....................... the Urban Affairs Czar
the Technology Czar................. the Weapons Czar
the technology Czar.................. the AIDS Czar
the Great Lakes Czar................ the Stimulus Accountability Czar
the Pay Czar .......................... the Guantanamo Czar
the Sudan Czar........................ the Afghanistan Czar
the Science Czar...................... the Jobs Czar
the Drug Czar.......................... the Information Czar
the Mideast Peace Czar............. the WMD Czar
the Climate Czar...................... the Regulatory Czar
the Economic Czar.................... the Car Czar (there's your Chevy Volt Govt Mandate)
the Cyber Security Czar............ the Government Performance Czar
the Persian Gulf Czar................ the Auto Task Force Czar
the Health Info Tech Czar ......... the Faith Based Czar

Where exactly in the Constitution does it allow for the Commander-in-Chief to establish these positions? Positions that bypass Congressional vetting and approval is abuse of executive power, is it not?

Imagine where our National Debt would be, if you eliminated every one of those Czar positions and give our President some "responsibility".

The Constitution establishes the Executive Branch with the President in the lead. He is allowed to have as many advisors to the President as he thinks are necessary to do the job. Whether you call them advisors or czars or "smart guys" they are still members of the executive branch

Damn...we didn't have these concerns when Republicans were president

.. and where in the Constitution does it allot the executive branch for all these 30 CZARS exactly, can you site the Constitutional Article to back your statement? It's amazing how far we have drifted away from the foundational government established under the Constitution, while others make the claim that the Constitution allows for it. This is how our nation loses it's liberty: as 'We the People' take a back seat to those in government who become corrupted by its power.
I don't approve of any "tax wasted" Czars, no matter which party they are from. Although I have never seen so many Czars under any other President, Obama seems to love his Big Government Autocracy!

Where in the Constitution is there a limitation on the size of the Executive Branch? There are also no limits on the number of Congressional Staff or Supreme Court Clerks

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Constitution establishes the Executive Branch with the President in the lead. He is allowed to have as many advisors to the President as he thinks are necessary to do the job. Whether you call them advisors or czars or "smart guys" they are still members of the executive branch

Damn...we didn't have these concerns when Republicans were president

.. and where in the Constitution does it allot the executive branch for all these 30 CZARS exactly, can you site the Constitutional Article to back your statement? It's amazing how far we have drifted away from the foundational government established under the Constitution, while others make the claim that the Constitution allows for it. This is how our nation loses it's liberty: as 'We the People' take a back seat to those in government who become corrupted by its power.
I don't approve of any "tax wasted" Czars, no matter which party they are from. Although I have never seen so many Czars under any other President, Obama seems to love his Big Government Autocracy!

Where in the Constitution is there a limitation on the size of the Executive Branch? There are also no limits on the number of Congressional Staff or Supreme Court Clerks

Since you would rather avoid looking at the Constitution yourself, I will site the article section for you with regard to offices filled under the Executive Branch:

ARTICLE II , Section 2 , Clause 2:
..he shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

... I see no Article that supports your statement of the executive branch allowing for the "establishment" of Czars, under the Constitution. If you care to show me the Constitutional Article by which you derive your facts concerning Czars, please state it for me in your next reply.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is a political system that has worked for the last 225 years. We elect representatives who most closely meet our political views. If we are not happy...we vote them out

You have something against America? Which political system do you recommend?

Using unelected bureaucrats to legislate is not the American system.

Interesting...care to give some specifics?

Federal Judges.

 

[rightwinger]

.. and where in the Constitution does it allot the executive branch for all these 30 CZARS exactly, can you site the Constitutional Article to back your statement? It's amazing how far we have drifted away from the foundational government established under the Constitution, while others make the claim that the Constitution allows for it. This is how our nation loses it's liberty: as 'We the People' take a back seat to those in government who become corrupted by its power.
I don't approve of any "tax wasted" Czars, no matter which party they are from. Although I have never seen so many Czars under any other President, Obama seems to love his Big Government Autocracy!

Where in the Constitution is there a limitation on the size of the Executive Branch? There are also no limits on the number of Congressional Staff or Supreme Court Clerks

Since you would rather avoid looking at the Constitution yourself, I will site the article section for you with regard to offices filled under the Executive Branch:

ARTICLE II , Section 2 , Clause 2:
..he shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

... I see no Article that supports your statement of the executive branch allowing for the "establishment" of Czars, under the Constitution. If you care to show me the Constitutional Article by which you derive your facts concerning Czars, please state it for me in your next reply.

but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such [/B]inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

So whats your point?

 

[rightwinger]

Using unelected bureaucrats to legislate is not the American system.

Interesting...care to give some specifics?

Federal Judges.

How long have we had Federal Judges?