Obama admin to break the Constitution

[RetiredGySgt]

In a move designed to ignore the clearly written legal and constitutional rights of the purse Obama and his cronies fabricated a law suit and are allowing Insurance Companies to win in direct violation of the Constitution and written law.

Obama Admin Plans End Run Around Congress with Obamacare Bailout Scheme

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

In a move designed to ignore the clearly written legal and constitutional rights of the purse Obama and his cronies fabricated a law suit and are allowing Insurance Companies to win in direct violation of the Constitution and written law.

Obama Admin Plans End Run Around Congress with Obamacare Bailout Scheme

What precisely are the statutes codified in the US Code being violated and/or Article(s), Section(s) and/or Clause(s) being violated as asserted? All the "Article" you cited referenced was a suit and not a criminal violation of statutory or Constitutional law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Obama admin illegal suggested to the Insurance Companies to sue the US Government because the Congress passed legislation that Obama signed making it illegal to pay Insurance Companies from the fund they are suing to get money from. Obama and his attorney General are in on it and plan to lose the case so that they can get money they are barred from legally. Perhaps if YOU bothered to read the article you might know that.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Obama admin illegal suggested to the Insurance Companies to sue the US Government because the Congress passed legislation that Obama signed making it illegal to pay Insurance Companies from the fund they are suing to get money from. Obama and his attorney General are in on it and plan to lose the case so that they can get money they are barred from legally. Perhaps if YOU bothered to read the article you might know that.

So in essence you are stating that you can't state what precisely are the statutes codified in the US Code being violated and/or Article(s), Section(s) and/or Clause(s) of the Constitution being violated as asserted, but you make that claim anyway without that knowledge! I got it now!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Congress controls the purse strings as per Article I of the US Constitution, they passed a bill and the President signed it into law. The law states that the Insurance Companies can NOT BE PAID by a fund. The President through his appointees told the Insurance Companies to sue the US Government then told the Justice department to lose the case. That is in direct violation of Article 1 of the US Constitution.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Congress controls the purse strings as per Article I of the US Constitution, they passed a bill and the President signed it into law. The law states that the Insurance Companies can NOT BE PAID by a fund. The President through his appointees told the Insurance Companies to sue the US Government then told the Justice department to lose the case. That is in direct violation of Article 1 of the US Constitution.

'kay...

So what precisely are the statute(s) codified in the US Code, Title, Chapter(s), and/or Sections being violated and the Article(s), Section(s) and/or Clause(s) of the Constitution being violated as asserted!

You made the claim and the onus is on you to provide the proof. The "law states" many things and Article I does also. So all I'm asking is for you to be a little less vague about your assertions and claims and to provide proof. Have warrants been issued?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry you retard but your attempt to defend Obama fails, He chose to illegal have his people advice others to sue and then ordered his Justice department to drop the ball so as to violate a law he signed.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Sorry you retard but your attempt to defend Obama fails, He chose to illegal have his people advice others to sue and then ordered his Justice department to drop the ball so as to violate a law he signed.

Interpretation:

I don't know what law may or may not have been broken and I don't know whether or not if the Constitution was violated. What the originator of the OP knows is what he read on a neocon website started up by neocon Brent Bozell without any verification.

I believe that sums it up. BTW chump, I never vote for or supported President Obama.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Congress controls the purse strings as per Article I of the US Constitution, they passed a bill and the President signed it into law. The law states that the Insurance Companies can NOT BE PAID by a fund. The President through his appointees told the Insurance Companies to sue the US Government then told the Justice department to lose the case. That is in direct violation of Article 1 of the US Constitution.

'kay...

So what precisely are the statute(s) codified in the US Code, Title, Chapter(s), and/or Sections being violated and the Article(s), Section(s) and/or Clause(s) of the Constitution being violated as asserted!

You made the claim and the onus is on you to provide the proof. The "law states" many things and Article I does also. So all I'm asking is for you to be a little less vague about your assertions and claims and to provide proof. Have warrants been issued?

OBJECTION, asked and answered.

Read his previous reply.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Congress controls the purse strings as per Article I of the US Constitution, they passed a bill and the President signed it into law. The law states that the Insurance Companies can NOT BE PAID by a fund. The President through his appointees told the Insurance Companies to sue the US Government then told the Justice department to lose the case. That is in direct violation of Article 1 of the US Constitution.

'kay...

So what precisely are the statute(s) codified in the US Code, Title, Chapter(s), and/or Sections being violated and the Article(s), Section(s) and/or Clause(s) of the Constitution being violated as asserted!

You made the claim and the onus is on you to provide the proof. The "law states" many things and Article I does also. So all I'm asking is for you to be a little less vague about your assertions and claims and to provide proof. Have warrants been issued?

OBJECTION, asked and answered.

Read his previous reply.

I did, read it dummy! The question wasn't answered beyond vague references. Perhaps it is you who should do some reading, eh?

But since you are claiming he did respond fully, then show me where he cited the Title, Chapter and Section of the alleged law(s) violated as codified, and the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution offended. Now the onus is on both of you, but for slightly different reasons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In a move designed to ignore the clearly written legal and constitutional rights of the purse Obama and his cronies fabricated a law suit and are allowing Insurance Companies to win in direct violation of the Constitution and written law.

Obama Admin Plans End Run Around Congress with Obamacare Bailout Scheme

lol

You forgot to post the link to the case where the Supreme Court ruled what the Administration was doing was ‘un-Constitutional.’

Absent such a ruling, no one has ‘broken’ the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry you retard but your attempt to defend Obama fails, He chose to illegal have his people advice others to sue and then ordered his Justice department to drop the ball so as to violate a law he signed.

Sorry you ignorant, ridiculous rightwing blind partisan hack, but the Supreme Court determines what is or is not Constitutional – not conservative nitwits on a message board suffering from ODS.

And given your posting history – this thread included – you’re in no position to refer to others as ‘retard.’

 

[Manchester]

The problem here is that the OP has used "The Constitution" as a patriotic symbol of American greatness in order to channel emotive gravitas to an argument that portrays a Democrat president in a bad light, the problem is that the Constitution is also a legal document and in that regard his argument falls down.

 

[rdean]

In a move designed to ignore the clearly written legal and constitutional rights of the purse Obama and his cronies fabricated a law suit and are allowing Insurance Companies to win in direct violation of the Constitution and written law.

Obama Admin Plans End Run Around Congress with Obamacare Bailout Scheme

Can anyone spell ridiculous conspiracy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I did, read it dummy!

Ah, you simply are too stupid to grasp the plain English used for the answer.

Well, there is a reason you're a Communist.

The question wasn't answered beyond vague references. Perhaps it is you who should do some reading, eh?

That you are stupid, does not render the answer vague.

But since you are claiming he did respond fully, then show me where he cited the Title, Chapter and Section of the alleged law(s) violated as codified, and the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution offended. Now the onus is on both of you, but for slightly different reasons.

Your mindless straw man provides no impetus for others to engage it.

You're not clever, in fact you're dumb as a bag of hammers.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I did, read it dummy!

Ah, you simply are too stupid to grasp the plain English used for the answer.

Well, there is a reason you're a Communist.

The question wasn't answered beyond vague references. Perhaps it is you who should do some reading, eh?

That you are stupid, does not render the answer vague.

But since you are claiming he did respond fully, then show me where he cited the Title, Chapter and Section of the alleged law(s) violated as codified, and the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution offended. Now the onus is on both of you, but for slightly different reasons.

Your mindless straw man provides no impetus for others to engage it.

You're not clever, in fact you're dumb as a bag of hammers.

Here is the part you purposefully omitted to make your contrived context fit, fool!

But since you are claiming he did respond fully, then show me where he cited the Title, Chapter and Section of the alleged law(s) violated as codified, and the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution offended. Now the onus is on both of you, but for slightly different reasons.

Regarding cleverness, I'm thinkin' you're akin to that bag of hammers you wrote of atop an old growth rotting stump insofar as reasoning powers are concerned! The straw man is the one you're hiding behind, you dishonest fuck!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here is the part you purposefully omitted to make your contrived context fit, fool!

Omitted? I made your foolish use of logical fallacy the centerpiece of my critique.

That you believe building a straw man makes you clever, further reveals what drooling dolt you are.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Here is the part you purposefully omitted to make your contrived context fit, fool!

Omitted? I made your foolish use of logical fallacy the centerpiece of my critique.

That you believe building a straw man makes you clever, further reveals what drooling dolt you are.

That dog don't hunt, but I won't belabor the point with a fucking dishonest imbecile. Damn but you far right indoctrinated lemmings are thick skulled!