I'm amazed.

I'm not aggravated. I just don't get why so many are doing over .4%.

It's idiotic at best.
Agreed.

Of course, it’s just as idiotic to blame Obama for high unemployment, or any other negative aspect of the economy.

Oh, you want me to crush you on the Constitution?

fine

A federal law requiring AUTO insurance would be unconstitutional.

Based on what grounds? You forgot to cite your case law in support.

Due to states rights, each state can pass a law requiring that we have it since driving is not a right but a privileged. Just like health care.

The ACA has nothing to do with rights or privileges, nor ‘states’ rights,’ for that matter. The issue is whether Congress may regulate the healthcare industry per the Commerce Clause. A majority of courts have ruled it Constitutional:

Recognizing that uniform federal regulation is necessary in some instances, the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate
commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Supreme Court has held that Congress has
broad authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. From 1937 to 1994 it did not
invalidate a single law as unconstitutional for exceeding the scope of Congress’s
Commerce Power. The Court has explained that Congress’s Commerce Clause power
encompasses three broad spheres: (1) “the use of the channels of interstate commerce”;
(2) “the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate
commerce”; and (3) “those activities having a substantial relation to interstate
commerce, . . . i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Lopez,
514 U.S. at 558-59.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf

And because the IM doesn’t violate the limits established in Lopez and Morrison, the ACA is clearly Constitutional.

Opposition to the ACA therefore has nothing to do with an individual mandate or concern for ‘individual liberty,’ it has only to do with opposition to Obama.
 
Compare the post I made to your edited post of my reply

My reply you edited
Doesn't the human being inside her deserve some rights and protection?


Thats called pro choice if she chooses to have sex she must live with her consequence

I edited nothing. The part that was blue in your quote was my response to the question "doesn't the human being inside her deserve some rights and protection?"

The rest of the post addresses the second statement of "That's called pro choice. If she chooses to have sex, she must live with her consequences(sorry for correcting your punctuation).

at the end of the post, I even mentioned that I wasn't sure I was using the quote feature correctly.... which apparently, I didn't. But I in no way shape or form edited your post.

I edited nothing. The part that was blue in your quote was my response to the question "doesn't the human being inside her deserve some rights and protection?"

You edited by adding to my comment as if I made the comment you should as long as you have been here know how to use the quote function.

Sorry dude... I work for a living... I don't know how to quote multiple times like you did. If you consider that "editing your post", even when I used a different color to show that it was MY input... not yours, then you have bigger issues than politics. Like Paranoia.
 
Here's the typical libtarded mentality run a muck.

this started as them going batshit crazy for a .4% drop in UE and turned into a whine fest about abortion.

fucking retards

You support a cold blooded murderer.

Know it.
 
I'm not aggravated. I just don't get why so many are doing over .4%.

It's idiotic at best.
Agreed.

Of course, it’s just as idiotic to blame Obama for high unemployment, or any other negative aspect of the economy. Utter non-sense. You really trying to say that obama gets off scott free on the economy? :cuckoo::lol:

Oh, you want me to crush you on the Constitution?

fine

A federal law requiring AUTO insurance would be unconstitutional.

Based on what grounds? You forgot to cite your case law in support.

Due to states rights, each state can pass a law requiring that we have it since driving is not a right but a privileged. Just like health care.

The ACA has nothing to do with rights or privileges, nor ‘states’ rights,’ for that matter. The issue is whether Congress may regulate the healthcare industry per the Commerce Clause. A majority of courts have ruled it Constitutional:

Recognizing that uniform federal regulation is necessary in some instances, the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate
commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Supreme Court has held that Congress has
broad authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. From 1937 to 1994 it did not
invalidate a single law as unconstitutional for exceeding the scope of Congress’s
Commerce Power. The Court has explained that Congress’s Commerce Clause power
encompasses three broad spheres: (1) “the use of the channels of interstate commerce”;
(2) “the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate
commerce”; and (3) “those activities having a substantial relation to interstate
commerce, . . . i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Lopez,
514 U.S. at 558-59.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf

And because the IM doesn’t violate the limits established in Lopez and Morrison, the ACA is clearly Constitutional.

Opposition to the ACA therefore has nothing to do with an individual mandate or concern for ‘individual liberty,’ it has only to do with opposition to Obama.

More than one state has deemed it unconstitutional, b/c it's nothing short of tyranny.
 

Forum List

Back
Top