Court Rules Obama ‘Recess’ Appointments Unconstitutional!

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm guessing that word will be in the form of "we refuse to hear the case; the lower court ruling stands." If not, however, it will likely be a 7-2 ruling against Obama. Even the liberal justices haven't lost that much integrity.

since you are doing predictions:

Who did you predict would win the Presidential election in 2012 and what did you predict about the SCOTUS and Obamacare?

I predict the SCOTUS will go liberal for the next 20 or so years and the idea of constitutional limitations with respect to federal powers will be ignored in the opposite of what James Madison predicted in the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist no. 41. As far as the presidency is concerned I am going with Hillary should she be able to keep her health up.

With respect to my prediction of Obamacare, I said that there was no authority under the commerce clause and the Supreme Court agreed. However, I also predicted that there was no taxing power that allowed for the individual mandate and the supreme court disagreed. This ruling, of course, makes no since because only a limited number of taxes are allowed under the U.S. Constitution (capitation, excise, etc...). The individual mandate falls under neither category of constitutional taxation. That and never in our history has the SCOTUS ruled that a penalty can reasonably be construed as a tax.

Obamacare ruling by CJ Roberts is hardly a liberal ruling -- when you bother to read it.

Your predictions on Presidential 2012?

 

[Publius1787]

since you are doing predictions:

Who did you predict would win the Presidential election in 2012 and what did you predict about the SCOTUS and Obamacare?

I predict the SCOTUS will go liberal for the next 20 or so years and the idea of constitutional limitations with respect to federal powers will be ignored in the opposite of what James Madison predicted in the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist no. 41. As far as the presidency is concerned I am going with Hillary should she be able to keep her health up.

With respect to my prediction of Obamacare, I said that there was no authority under the commerce clause and the Supreme Court agreed. However, I also predicted that there was no taxing power that allowed for the individual mandate and the supreme court disagreed. This ruling, of course, makes no since because only a limited number of taxes are allowed under the U.S. Constitution (capitation, excise, etc...). The individual mandate falls under neither category of constitutional taxation. That and never in our history has the SCOTUS ruled that a penalty can reasonably be construed as a tax.

Obamacare ruling by CJ Roberts is hardly a liberal ruling -- when you bother to read it.

Your predictions on Presidential 2012?

I've answered that question already and shown why the ruling was wrong via a brief explanation. What else do you require of me? And yes, it was a very liberal ruling. Any ruling that ignores plain English IOT make a bill survive (indeed he changed the bill into something Congress never voted for) is often a liberal ruling. Oh, and I've read it a number of times. However, the above reply leads me to believe you never read my response to you, and thus, you are certainly not one to be making assumptions about rulings I have and have not read.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You wanted a dissertation? I could write a book on that subject alone.

Sure you could. Lots of terrible books hit the remainder shelves in a week

Yeah, I wouldn't read it either.

Jeffrey Rosen and Jack Rakove .. ever read their stuff? Opinion of teach?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I predict the SCOTUS will go liberal for the next 20 or so years and the idea of constitutional limitations with respect to federal powers will be ignored in the opposite of what James Madison predicted in the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist no. 41. As far as the presidency is concerned I am going with Hillary should she be able to keep her health up.

With respect to my prediction of Obamacare, I said that there was no authority under the commerce clause and the Supreme Court agreed. However, I also predicted that there was no taxing power that allowed for the individual mandate and the supreme court disagreed. This ruling, of course, makes no since because only a limited number of taxes are allowed under the U.S. Constitution (capitation, excise, etc...). The individual mandate falls under neither category of constitutional taxation. That and never in our history has the SCOTUS ruled that a penalty can reasonably be construed as a tax.

Obamacare ruling by CJ Roberts is hardly a liberal ruling -- when you bother to read it.

Your predictions on Presidential 2012?

I've answered that question already and shown why the ruling was wrong via a brief explanation. What else do you require of me? And yes, it was a very liberal ruling. Any ruling that ignores plain English IOT make a bill survive (indeed he changed the bill into something Congress never voted for) is often a liberal ruling. Oh, and I've read it a number of times. However, the above reply leads me to believe you never read my response to you, and thus, you are certainly not one to be making assumptions about rulings I have and have not read.

More than a few liberals will not be happy with the implications of the ruling after it is used in other cases...you are wrong about the ruling. It was a win for liberals, but by itself it is very conservative

 

[Publius1787]

Sure you could. Lots of terrible books hit the remainder shelves in a week

Yeah, I wouldn't read it either.

Jeffrey Rosen and Jack Rakove .. ever read their stuff? Opinion of teach?

Why do I think your about to make a comment about origionalism?

 

[Publius1787]

Obamacare ruling by CJ Roberts is hardly a liberal ruling -- when you bother to read it.

Your predictions on Presidential 2012?

I've answered that question already and shown why the ruling was wrong via a brief explanation. What else do you require of me? And yes, it was a very liberal ruling. Any ruling that ignores plain English IOT make a bill survive (indeed he changed the bill into something Congress never voted for) is often a liberal ruling. Oh, and I've read it a number of times. However, the above reply leads me to believe you never read my response to you, and thus, you are certainly not one to be making assumptions about rulings I have and have not read.

More than a few liberals will not be happy with the implications of the ruling after it is used in other cases...you are wrong about the ruling. It was a win for liberals, but by itself it is very conservative

Of course they will be unhappy. No government limitation ever got a liberal excited.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I've answered that question already and shown why the ruling was wrong via a brief explanation. What else do you require of me? And yes, it was a very liberal ruling. Any ruling that ignores plain English IOT make a bill survive (indeed he changed the bill into something Congress never voted for) is often a liberal ruling. Oh, and I've read it a number of times. However, the above reply leads me to believe you never read my response to you, and thus, you are certainly not one to be making assumptions about rulings I have and have not read.

More than a few liberals will not be happy with the implications of the ruling after it is used in other cases...you are wrong about the ruling. It was a win for liberals, but by itself it is very conservative

Of course they will be unhappy. No government limitation ever got a liberal excited.

This is why you can never be taken seriously.

Everyone supports certain limitations. To engage in hyperbole and bullshit only keeps you being treated like a loser

 

[Publius1787]

More than a few liberals will not be happy with the implications of the ruling after it is used in other cases...you are wrong about the ruling. It was a win for liberals, but by itself it is very conservative

Of course they will be unhappy. No government limitation ever got a liberal excited.

This is why you can never be taken seriously.

Everyone supports certain limitations. To engage in hyperbole and bullshit only keeps you being treated like a loser

Every major liberal program, department, and agency that cam out during and after the New Deal was done despite the limited enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, WIC, Student Financial Aid, Government interjecting into labor disputes, education, environment, etc etc etc.... All outside the enumeration of powers held by congress. What can I say. Such limitations never pleased a liberal. I don't suppose you ever read federalist no. 41?

Indeed, chartering banks, building roads, funding schools, internal improvements, and industrial subsidies were all voted out as a power of congress during the constitutional convention. It is all there in James Madison's notes and among that of others. So how do you come about a power to implement a healthcare plan?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course they will be unhappy. No government limitation ever got a liberal excited.

This is why you can never be taken seriously.

Everyone supports certain limitations. To engage in hyperbole and bullshit only keeps you being treated like a loser

Every major liberal program, department, and agency that cam out during and after the New Deal was done despite the limited enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, WIC, Student Financial Aid, Government interjecting into labor disputes, education, environment, etc etc etc.... All outside the enumeration of powers held by congress. What can I say. Such limitations never pleased a liberal. I don't suppose you ever read federalist no. 41?

Indeed, chartering banks, building roads, funding schools, internal improvements, and industrial subsidies were all voted out as a power of congress during the constitutional convention. It is all there in James Madison's notes and among that of others. So how do you come about a power to implement a healthcare plan?

No official minutes, just the notes of a self-serving Madison?

hmmmmm...

btw, Madison and Jefferson would walk their principles on this back when push came to shove.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So we have Publius1787 "No government limitation ever got a liberal excited." putting progressives and populists and leftists into a pot called Liberals and stirring?

We have Publius1787 ready to cherry pick quotes from Jefferson and Madison to make points?

Very interesting because some of us know a bit about the founders, framers and the ratifiers in early American History

 

[Publius1787]

This is why you can never be taken seriously.

Everyone supports certain limitations. To engage in hyperbole and bullshit only keeps you being treated like a loser

Every major liberal program, department, and agency that cam out during and after the New Deal was done despite the limited enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, WIC, Student Financial Aid, Government interjecting into labor disputes, education, environment, etc etc etc.... All outside the enumeration of powers held by congress. What can I say. Such limitations never pleased a liberal. I don't suppose you ever read federalist no. 41?

Indeed, chartering banks, building roads, funding schools, internal improvements, and industrial subsidies were all voted out as a power of congress during the constitutional convention. It is all there in James Madison's notes and among that of others. So how do you come about a power to implement a healthcare plan?

No official minutes, just the notes of a self-serving Madison?

hmmmmm...

btw, Madison and Jefferson would walk their principles on this back when push came to shove.

]Considering he noted the same objections to the idea that the constitution grants limitless power in federalist no. 41, I find his account and that of all others As compiled Max Ferrand To be consistent with the ideas as displayed in federalist no. 41. Not to mention the federalists made the same arguement in the state conventions as well. But hey, if your accusing James Madison of fraud then fine. It's a stretch but fine. Federalist no. 41, however, is the same today as the day it was published in a New York newspaper. Eat it.

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!"

 

[Publius1787]

So we have Publius1787 "No government limitation ever got a liberal excited." putting progressives and populists and leftists into a pot called Liberals and stirring?

We have Publius1787 ready to cherry pick quotes from Jefferson and Madison to make points?

Very interesting because some of us know a bit about the founders, framers and the ratifiers in early American History

Generally in an argument one provides a counter argument as opposed to appeal to ridicule in the absence of one. Seeing as you are doing nothing more than contradiction I feel obligated to show you what an arguement really is. See here >>>>> Argument Clinic - YouTube

 

[grunt11b]

Please explain to me just how a President, any President, can "bully" a court?

The switch in time that saved nine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I haven't heard the President threaten to pack the court, have you?

Got anything else?

The supreme court did not make yhis ruling you moron.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Every major liberal program, department, and agency that cam out during and after the New Deal was done despite the limited enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, WIC, Student Financial Aid, Government interjecting into labor disputes, education, environment, etc etc etc.... All outside the enumeration of powers held by congress. What can I say. Such limitations never pleased a liberal. I don't suppose you ever read federalist no. 41?

Indeed, chartering banks, building roads, funding schools, internal improvements, and industrial subsidies were all voted out as a power of congress during the constitutional convention. It is all there in James Madison's notes and among that of others. So how do you come about a power to implement a healthcare plan?

No official minutes, just the notes of a self-serving Madison?

hmmmmm...

btw, Madison and Jefferson would walk their principles on this back when push came to shove.

Considering he noted the same objections to the idea that the constitution grants limitless power in federalist no. 41, I find his account and that of all others As compiled Max Ferrand To be consistent with the ideas as displayed in federalist no. 41. Not to mention the federalists made the same arguement in the state conventions as well. But hey, if your accusing James Madison of fraud then fine. It's a stretch but fine. Federalist no. 41, however, is the same today as the day it was published in a New York newspaper.

Supporting limitations on government since 1920 ACLU

Madison and Hamilton .. New York State .. Federalists versus Anti-Federalists

Hamilton did not support everything he ends up defending in the Federalist.

Compromise. Men compromised for a greater good. They later had quarrels over exactly what they meant when they said........

and then Madison was asked what the Framers meant on something and in a letter he wrote to a friend to look not to what the framers thought they meant or understood, but look to what the ratifiers thought and understood they were ratifying because it was not the clerks who gave the document authority and power...it was the ratifiers...the people.

The US Constitution was written behind closed doors. No official minutes were kept except some record of the proceedings. A compromise was reached. The document was sent out to state conventions elected by the people, not to the State governments/legislatures. They got to choose an up or down vote.

Not very democratic in the popular sense. Representative democracy in a republic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Considering he noted the same objections to the idea that the constitution grants limitless power in federalist no. 41...

Who has put forth the argument you are knocking down -- that the Constitution grants limitless powers to the executive or any other branch?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

moron.

yes, many people say you are

 

[Publius1787]

No official minutes, just the notes of a self-serving Madison?

hmmmmm...

btw, Madison and Jefferson would walk their principles on this back when push came to shove.

Considering he noted the same objections to the idea that the constitution grants limitless power in federalist no. 41, I find his account and that of all others As compiled Max Ferrand To be consistent with the ideas as displayed in federalist no. 41. Not to mention the federalists made the same arguement in the state conventions as well. But hey, if your accusing James Madison of fraud then fine. It's a stretch but fine. Federalist no. 41, however, is the same today as the day it was published in a New York newspaper.

Supporting limitations on government since 1920 ACLU

Madison and Hamilton .. New York State .. Federalists versus Anti-Federalists

Hamilton did not support everything he ends up defending in the Federalist.

Compromise. Men compromised for a greater good. They later had quarrels over exactly what they meant when they said........

and then Madison was asked what the Framers meant on something and in a letter he wrote to a friend to look not to what the framers thought they meant or understood, but look to what the ratifiers thought and understood they were ratifying because it was not the clerks who gave the document authority and power...it was the ratifiers...the people.

The US Constitution was written behind closed doors. No official minutes were kept except some record of the proceedings. A compromise was reached. The document was sent out to state conventions elected by the people, not to the State governments/legislatures. They got to choose an up or down vote.

Not very democratic in the popular sense. Representative democracy in a republic.

So what's your point? That the argument for the constitution as displayed in the federalist papers were written in ill faith and meant to deceive, and therefore, not an accurate portrayal despite heavy use to this day by the Supreme Court?

Oh, and citing an organization founded by communists Who rarely defend property rights doesn't help your case. Indeed, all laws are by design to protect property and all laws that that place the collective before the individual diverge from that.

 

[Publius1787]

Considering he noted the same objections to the idea that the constitution grants limitless power in federalist no. 41...

Who has put forth the argument you are knocking down -- that the Constitution grants limitless powers to the executive or any other branch?

I think the easier question to ask is what power does the current administration believe doesn't exist in the Constitution under the jurisdiction of the federal government?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Considering he noted the same objections to the idea that the constitution grants limitless power in federalist no. 41, I find his account and that of all others As compiled Max Ferrand To be consistent with the ideas as displayed in federalist no. 41. Not to mention the federalists made the same arguement in the state conventions as well. But hey, if your accusing James Madison of fraud then fine. It's a stretch but fine. Federalist no. 41, however, is the same today as the day it was published in a New York newspaper.

Supporting limitations on government since 1920 ACLU

Madison and Hamilton .. New York State .. Federalists versus Anti-Federalists

Hamilton did not support everything he ends up defending in the Federalist.

Compromise. Men compromised for a greater good. They later had quarrels over exactly what they meant when they said........

and then Madison was asked what the Framers meant on something and in a letter he wrote to a friend to look not to what the framers thought they meant or understood, but look to what the ratifiers thought and understood they were ratifying because it was not the clerks who gave the document authority and power...it was the ratifiers...the people.

The US Constitution was written behind closed doors. No official minutes were kept except some record of the proceedings. A compromise was reached. The document was sent out to state conventions elected by the people, not to the State governments/legislatures. They got to choose an up or down vote.

Not very democratic in the popular sense. Representative democracy in a republic.

So what's your point? That the argument for the constitution as displayed in the federalist papers were written in ill faith and meant to deceive, and therefore, not an accurate portrayal despite heavy use to this day by the Supreme Court?

The Federalist were an argument. They are not law. The Constitution was written by an agreed upon process by both Federalists and anti Federalists. It came out of a committee as a compromise.

Heavy use when and in what cases? Please, first you have the audacity to say "No government limitation ever got a liberal excited." when that is patently untrue (see: ACLU ) and now you hump the back of Federalist 41 as if that were the word of god. Well it's not. It was written as an argument to convince the good people of NY to vote for ratification.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Supporting limitations on government since 1920 ACLU

Oh, and citing an organization founded by communists Who rarely defend property rights doesn't help your case. Indeed, all laws are by design to protect property and all laws that that place the collective before the individual diverge from that.

there you go again. Collective? Ayn Rand? Are you a Randian Nitwit?

Homework: The ACLU American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia