New poll - Obamacare unconstitutional

[Listening]

One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.


That was not an act of "Congress".

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

Yes, Bork talks about how Griswold and Loving were both terrible decisions.

The left loves them because they do what is "right" regardless of whether or not it is constitional.

 

[Listening]

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

By who ?

 

[francoHFW]

Amazing how strong the Pub propaganda machine and cynicism about gov't is...but like 85% like Medicare and Medicaid...I think it's constitutional- something about men being forced to buy ginpowder way back when...

Anyway, Obama never wanted a mandate, thought it would be hugely popular anyway, when people actually find out their actual costs...

 

[Oddball]

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

Yet the USSC involved itself, flying in the face of both the 9th and 10th Amendments.

We don't need to overturn Roe...We need to overturn Marbury v. Madison.

 

[francoHFW]

Bork went to my HS and is an overly academic tool...lol.

 

[jillian]

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

Yet the USSC involved itself, flying in the face of both the 9th and 10th Amendments.

We don't need to overturn Roe...We need to overturn Marbury v. Madison.

what are you blathering about?

 

[jillian]

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.


That was not an act of "Congress".

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

Yes, Bork talks about how Griswold and Loving were both terrible decisions.

The left loves them because they do what is "right" regardless of whether or not it is constitional.

why would i care what bork says? he's entitled to his opinion, of course.

i think citizens united is the worst decision since dred scott. his opinion has as much weight as mine.

isn't that cool?

 

[Oddball]

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

Yet the USSC involved itself, flying in the face of both the 9th and 10th Amendments.

We don't need to overturn Roe...We need to overturn Marbury v. Madison.

what are you blathering about?

Figured you had no idea about dual sovereignty....Or just flat don't care, because ignoring it it empowers the judicial oligarchy.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

Yet the USSC involved itself, flying in the face of both the 9th and 10th Amendments.

We don't need to overturn Roe...We need to overturn Marbury v. Madison.

Hmm, then who decides if laws are constitutional? you trust that congress won't over step?

 

[Oddball]

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

Yet the USSC involved itself, flying in the face of both the 9th and 10th Amendments.

We don't need to overturn Roe...We need to overturn Marbury v. Madison.

Hmm, then who decides if laws are constitutional? you trust that congress won't over step?

If you change the constitution, then the laws pursuant to that change are constitutional.

See: Prop 187, Prop 8, etcetera.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Yet the USSC involved itself, flying in the face of both the 9th and 10th Amendments.

We don't need to overturn Roe...We need to overturn Marbury v. Madison.

Hmm, then who decides if laws are constitutional? you trust that congress won't over step?

If you change the constitution, then the laws pursuant to that change are constitutional.

See: Prop 187, Prop 8, etcetera.

a state constitutional amendment doesn't change the US COTUS . And further, are you suggesting that if we could get enough votes we could we repeal the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments and put them ******* back in their place?

I disagree, and thankfully so do most sane people.
I

 

[Oddball]

Hmm, then who decides if laws are constitutional? you trust that congress won't over step?

If you change the constitution, then the laws pursuant to that change are constitutional.

See: Prop 187, Prop 8, etcetera.

a state constitutional amendment doesn't change the US COTUS . And further, are you suggesting that if we could get enough votes we could we repeal the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments and put them ******* back in their place?

I disagree, and thankfully so do most sane people.
I

Blabber incoherently much?

 

[copsnrobbers]

doesn't matter what the people believe. It matters what the SCOTUS believes.

I'm not convinced they will find it unconstitutional.

What's not to find unconstitutional ?

If they do, we may need to find us a new SCOTUS.

Yes

 

[Zander]

I am confident that the SCOTUS will rule against Obamacare. Even if they do not, President Romney will gut it.....

 

[Oddball]

I am confident that the SCOTUS will rule against Obamacare. Even if they do not, President Romney will gut it.....

...if not that, tax revolt.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.

The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.

When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...

What I fund amusing is you support judicial activism that results in massive growth in government regulation, but oppose it when it goes against what you believe.

For the record, I oppose judicial decisions I think ignore the constitution, and support the ones I think follow it. That occasionally means I support decisions that actually go against what I want to see happen. Also, for the record, judicial activism is when judges ignore the law and allow their personal opinion to influence their position. A good example of this would be the judge that dismissed the case against the Muslim who attacked an atheist because he thought that what the atheist was doing amounted to a hate crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...

One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.


That was not an act of "Congress".

Which explains why it was activism.

Tell me something, if Congress passed a law under Bush that said Democrats couldn't vote in presidential elections and SCOTUS struck it down would that be judicial activism? After all, if not deferring to Congress is your only criteria for activism, they would have to defer to Congress or be labeled activist by twerps like you.

My guess is you think that is just different, somehow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.


That was not an act of "Congress".

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

He thinks judicial activism is not deferring to Congress, unless it isn't. A bit like you, but you are more eloquent in your defense of your positions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

Yes, Bork talks about how Griswold and Loving were both terrible decisions.

The left loves them because they do what is "right" regardless of whether or not it is constitional.

why would i care what bork says? he's entitled to his opinion, of course.

i think citizens united is the worst decision since dred scott. his opinion has as much weight as mine.

isn't that cool?

One of the wonders of unperverted is that everyone is equal before the law. That does not mean all opinions are equal though. You should know better.

 

[Oddball]

One of the wonders of unperverted is that everyone is equal before the law. That does not mean all opinions are equal though. You should know better.

She does know better.....Which makes her bitter.