Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If the Congress passes a bill and the president signs the bill, it is deemed to be the law of the land, and Constitutional. The Court may strike it down later but until that time it is Constitutional. I have often wondered if we are obeying laws at this time that have never been before the Court and may be unConstitutional.
Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.
Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
obama is supposed to have been a college constitutional instructor but appears he doesn't have a clue about the Constitution and how our Republic works. The Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances within our government. Congress could write many laws just and unjust it is the part of the supreme court to insure those laws are Constitutional.
Presumption of Constitutionality .--''It is but a decent respect to the wisdom, integrity, and patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed,'' wrote Justice Bushrod Washington, ''to presume in favor of its validity, until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.'' 629 A corollary of this maxim is that if the constitutional question turns upon circumstances, courts will presume the existence of a state of facts which would justify the legislation that is challenged. 630
It seems apparent, however, that with regard to laws which trench upon First Amendment freedoms and perhaps other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights such deference is far less than it would be toward statutory regulation of economic matters. 631
the mandate has ZIP to do with covering pre-existing conditions, and Obama knows it.
Funny story: Turns out the Constitution has no clause at all to deal with what happens should Congress pass an Unconstitutional law and a President sign it into being. Judicial Review came later. It's generally accepted that the SCOTUS has the implied power of striking down a law as unconstitutional via the idea that as the highest court in the land, if they set a precedent of tossing out convictions or cases related to a law, that will render the law moot.
So if you're a strict Constitutionalist, and if you're really upset about the SCOTUS and activist judges, you're kinda stuck with any law passed by Congress as we still haven't amended the Constitution to address that issue. We just go by the implied idea of Judicial Review.
Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,
that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.
Hmmm let's look at the truth to this thought process.Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.
Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,
that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.
that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.
that's when the court is supposed to step in and tell "the people" to piss off.
de-segregation wasn't the "will of the people" either...
the whole point of the court is to protect us from tyranny of the majority.
Funny story: Turns out the Constitution has no clause at all to deal with what happens should Congress pass an Unconstitutional law and a President sign it into being. Judicial Review came later. It's generally accepted that the SCOTUS has the implied power of striking down a law as unconstitutional via the idea that as the highest court in the land, if they set a precedent of tossing out convictions or cases related to a law, that will render the law moot.
So if you're a strict Constitutionalist, and if you're really upset about the SCOTUS and activist judges, you're kinda stuck with any law passed by Congress as we still haven't amended the Constitution to address that issue. We just go by the implied idea of Judicial Review.
Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,
that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.
Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.
Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
do you not understand what the president said?
i hope not. because if you do understand it and wrote what you said in your o/p, anyway, then you're dishonest.
Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,
that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.
that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.
You need to review how a bill becomes law.
Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,
that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.
that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.
that's when the court is supposed to step in and tell "the people" to piss off.
de-segregation wasn't the "will of the people" either...
the whole point of the court is to protect us from tyranny of the majority.
In essence, any act of Congress is presumed to be Constitutional unless the Supreme Court rules it is not:
Consequently, measures such as the ACA should be given the utmost deference with regard to its Constitutional legitimacy.Presumption of Constitutionality .--''It is but a decent respect to the wisdom, integrity, and patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed,'' wrote Justice Bushrod Washington, ''to presume in favor of its validity, until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.'' 629 A corollary of this maxim is that if the constitutional question turns upon circumstances, courts will presume the existence of a state of facts which would justify the legislation that is challenged. 630
On the other hand, With regard to laws addressing individual liberty and fundamental rights:
Source for cited above: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25It seems apparent, however, that with regard to laws which trench upon First Amendment freedoms and perhaps other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights such deference is far less than it would be toward statutory regulation of economic matters. 631
the mandate has ZIP to do with covering pre-existing conditions, and Obama knows it.
The individual mandate exists to deter adverse selection. At present, that's why we have medical underwriting (i.e. denials based on pre-existing conditions). If you want to get rid of the latter, you need something to take its place. That's what the mandate is for.
As a revenue-raiser, the mandate is a non-issue, meaning it's not possible for it to fund the public expenditures in the law.
Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.
Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.
Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
I do believe that was an example of sarcasm he was using. If not, I'm with you.Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.
Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
Go read a book on civics, lad,