Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

[Publius1787]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

Absolutely. The last thing we want is to insure Americans.

The number one cause of bankruptcy are Medical Bills and Republicans will fight to the last man to keep it that way.

It has absolutly nothing to do with insuring Americans. It has everything to do with the rights and liberties of all Americans. The federal government has no such power to force people to buy healthcare and for good reason. Your "either or fallacy" is false on its face and misleading.

Actually, you are wrong. The federal court used the "commerce clause" to overreach and attempt to strike down this insurance plan.

One of the main reasons behind the plan was to reduce costs to American Taxpayers.

Right now, the US spends more than 40 billion a year on emergency room care alone. This cost is paid for by taxpayers and from raising property taxes. This is why some hospitals are going out of business. They can't get local money and that leaves more and more poor without any health care at all. This is a disaster in the making.

But spending that 40 billion plus on goods and services (in this case, medicine and health care), then it becomes commerce. That makes it legal, exactly the same as "taxes".

I don't understand why you right wingers don't like middle America. Aren't you part of middle America? Why vote against your own self interests? I dunno, seems kinda dumb.

The definition of the word "regulate" in the 18th century dictionaries means "to make regular". Plus you cannot regulate commerce by FORCING THE INDIVIDUAL TO BUY that commerce. Just because it crosses a state line does not give congress the authority to make us pay for a service that pays for another service that depends on products that cross state lines.

Sorry. You cant make an extreamly flawed law that hospitals must take the uninsured and when your "well intentioned" law makes healthcare more unafordable than it was before, then you try to result to unconstitutional measures to fix your flawed law. And then when liberty triumphs you give us a false either or fallacy. In essence you claim that "either we must give congress more power than it legally has or take away the healthcare of others". Thats absolutly false reasoning!

 

[Publius1787]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.
5. Failure to comply with the Judiciary branch of government and being held in contempt is an impeachable offence!

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

to hold someone in contempt, they have to have violated a court order.

what court order did the president violate, nutbar?

He refuses to stop implementing the bill.

 

[rightwinger]

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?

 

[Liability]

More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.

That's a new one coming from the left who doesn't even pretend to be great defenders of the constitution. What part of the constitution are conservatives unraveling?

Liberals have always defended the Constitution, heck they wrote it. Conservatives have always opposed it in principle while holding it up as some sort of holy religious tome. Heck, one Conservative painter has Jesus handing it to the founding fathers.

What are the Conservatives unraveling? The ability of government to collect taxes and support the general welfare. The only thing the right seeks to uphold, is military spending. And even there they screw the pooch. They want a conquering military..not a defensive one.

No. PATRIOTS wrote it. Conservatives still revere it. It is you liberals who try consistently to undermine it and evade it.

The truth is that you are utterly unable to support the nonsense you spew.

Out of general curiosity, your posts today have been largely gibberish. Are you high, drunk, taking medication for brain damage or what?

 

[Publius1787]

What court order? Has an injunction been issued? Because if not, then he's under no court order to do anything.

You didnt read the OP did you? A RULING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS BY DEFAULT AN INJUNCTION! This portion of the court ruling is sourced, linked, highlighted, typed in red, underlined, and in bold in the OP of this thread. HOW COULD YOU MISS IT? READ IT! I'm tired of explaining the same stuff over and over again. I hate it when people make comments on topics they dont know about in threads they refuse to read when all the subject has already been explained in the op.

 

[whitehall]

It's not just a "court order" . A federal judge determined that the entire law is unconstitutional. If the administration defies a federal judge it becomes a Constitutional crisis. If the mainstream media comes out on the side of the administration instead of the Constitution we can understand what Germans faced in the late 30's.

 

[jillian]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.
5. Failure to comply with the Judiciary branch of government and being held in contempt is an impeachable offence!

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

to hold someone in contempt, they have to have violated a court order.

what court order did the president violate, nutbar?

He refuses to stop implementing the bill.

no one has stayed enforcement of the law.

it hasn't been a bill since it was passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. do you need a link?



as of right now, two district courts (the lowest fed cts) have upheld it, two haven't. each of those decisions will go to their respective circuit courts of appeals for review. then they will go to the supreme court.

why would anyone stop implementing it?

because you don't like it?

 

[Greenbeard]

Yea I get it. So you say that the federal government has absolutly no means of taxing and regulating the enforcement of this law and that it all done by the States only. FALSE.

No, you don't get it.

But I'll ask my original question again anyway: Should those states also hold themselves in contempt for continuing to voluntarily implement the ACA?

 

[Publius1787]

It's not just a "court order" . A federal judge determined that the entire law is unconstitutional. If the administration defies a federal judge it becomes a Constitutional crisis. If the mainstream media comes out on the side of the administration instead of the Constitution we can understand what Germans faced in the late 30's.

If it was Bush the left would be in the streets demanding his impeachment. But liberals get a pass. I'm sure that somewhere in the Constitution it says that "Liberals are exempt from the judiciary and the Constitution does not apply." They should file to have him held in contempt and impeach his ass! If anything proves that Obama could care less about the rule of law it's this. I may be sticking my foot in my mouth but can you think of any other time a President has defied a court order. Except for Obama defying the court order on gulf drilling, of course. I cant think of any.

 

[rdean]

It has absolutly nothing to do with insuring Americans. It has everything to do with the rights and liberties of all Americans. The federal government has no such power to force people to buy healthcare and for good reason. Your "either or fallacy" is false on its face and misleading.

Actually, you are wrong. The federal court used the "commerce clause" to overreach and attempt to strike down this insurance plan.

One of the main reasons behind the plan was to reduce costs to American Taxpayers.

Right now, the US spends more than 40 billion a year on emergency room care alone. This cost is paid for by taxpayers and from raising property taxes. This is why some hospitals are going out of business. They can't get local money and that leaves more and more poor without any health care at all. This is a disaster in the making.

But spending that 40 billion plus on goods and services (in this case, medicine and health care), then it becomes commerce. That makes it legal, exactly the same as "taxes".

I don't understand why you right wingers don't like middle America. Aren't you part of middle America? Why vote against your own self interests? I dunno, seems kinda dumb.

The definition of the word "regulate" in the 18th century dictionaries means "to make regular". Plus you cannot regulate commerce by FORCING THE INDIVIDUAL TO BUY that commerce. Just because it crosses a state line does not give congress the authority to make us pay for a service that pays for another service that depends on products that cross state lines.

Sorry. You cant make an extreamly flawed law that hospitals must take the uninsured and when your "well intentioned" law makes healthcare more unafordable than it was before, then you try to result to unconstitutional measures to fix your flawed law. And then when liberty triumphs you give us a false either or fallacy. In essence you claim that "either we must give congress more power than it legally has or take away the healthcare of others". Thats absolutly false reasoning!

Isn't "forcing Americans" to buy government services the same thing. You know, things like paying for the EPA and Schools and roads and the military and, well, the list is endless.

You still haven't answered the question, "Aren't you part of middle America? Why vote against your own self interests?" By everyone buying into health care, it costs less.

You are mandated to buy car insurance. What if you weren't? You obviously couldn't buy it AFTER you've had an accident. And if you don't have car insurance and you get hurt, everyone has to pay. And pay a lot.

Everyone paying into it helps everyone. You can't convince me otherwise. I'm just glad that it isn't about race. People don't like it because they hate the black guy in the "WHITE House". I'm sure that's not the case.

 

[Liability]

If the Congress passed a bill declaring that henceforth the Armed Forces should be segregated by race, maybe we could expect the President to veto it. But, maybe Congress overrides the veto. Thus the bill becomes law.

Naturally, that law gets challenged in Court. Two District Courts say the law is perfectly valid in whole and in part. But one says it is invalid in SOME respects and the Other determines that for a variety of reasons, the entire Act is a violation of the Constitution and he declares it Unconstitutional.

Under those circumstances, would the President be obligated to enforce the "law?" Or, would he be bound to adhere to a judicial determination that the law violates the Constitution and thus be obligated to deny the law any enforcement?

My view is obvious. I say that when a law has been declared to be unconstitutional, it MAY NOT be enforced until that determination is STAYED by a higher court or until it gets overturned by a higher court. Judge Vinson did not order a "stay" of his own determination since he found that a separate "order" to that effect was simply unnecessary. I say Judge Vinson was correct.

There is no "stay" on his declaratory ruling. Thus, until that situation changes, it is improper for the President to take ANY action whatsoever in furtherance of that presently null and void law.

 

[Sallow]

It's not just a "court order" . A federal judge determined that the entire law is unconstitutional. If the administration defies a federal judge it becomes a Constitutional crisis. If the mainstream media comes out on the side of the administration instead of the Constitution we can understand what Germans faced in the late 30's.

If it was Bush the left would be in the streets demanding his impeachment. But liberals get a pass. I'm sure that somewhere in the Constitution it says that "Liberals are exempt from the judiciary and the Constitution does not apply." They should file to have him held in contempt and impeach his ass! If anything proves that Obama could care less about the rule of law it's this. I may be sticking my foot in my mouth but can you think of any other time a President has defied a court order. Except for Obama defying the court order on gulf drilling, of course. I cant think of any.

What the heck are you babbling on about. President George W. Bush violated the Constitution on multiple occassions, broke the law and lied to congress. The only time I remember anyone "on the streets" was to protest the illegal invasion of Iraq. To no avail. 250K people protesting in NYC and not a peep on the "Mainstream Media". So please.

Stop babbling about topics you know nothing about.

Like the United States Constitution.

That goes for your mentor too..Mark Levin.

 

[Liability]

Yea I get it. So you say that the federal government has absolutly no means of taxing and regulating the enforcement of this law and that it all done by the States only. FALSE.

No, you don't get it.

But I'll ask my original question again anyway: Should those states also hold themselves in contempt for continuing to voluntarily implement the ACA?

That's a pretty meaningless question. The determination by Judge Vinson voids that law (at least until his ruling gets stayed or over-ruled). under those circumstances, the proper obligation of the Federal Government with regard to that "law" is to stand by and not move forward on it.

States have different powers. If they act pursuant to their own laws, rules and regulations (and their own Constitutions), they might very well be free to "voluntarily" implement the ACA's provisions.

But, out of an abundance of caution, unless they HAVE passed their own laws along those same lines, it would be rather silly of them to move to voluntarily implement a Federal law that may very well never again BE a law.

 

[Publius1787]

It's not just a "court order" . A federal judge determined that the entire law is unconstitutional. If the administration defies a federal judge it becomes a Constitutional crisis. If the mainstream media comes out on the side of the administration instead of the Constitution we can understand what Germans faced in the late 30's.

If it was Bush the left would be in the streets demanding his impeachment. But liberals get a pass. I'm sure that somewhere in the Constitution it says that "Liberals are exempt from the judiciary and the Constitution does not apply." They should file to have him held in contempt and impeach his ass! If anything proves that Obama could care less about the rule of law it's this. I may be sticking my foot in my mouth but can you think of any other time a President has defied a court order. Except for Obama defying the court order on gulf drilling, of course. I cant think of any.

What the heck are you babbling on about. President George W. Bush violated the Constitution on multiple occassions, broke the law and lied to congress. The only time I remember anyone "on the streets" was to protest the illegal invasion of Iraq. To no avail. 250K people protesting in NYC and not a peep on the "Mainstream Media". So please.

Stop babbling about topics you know nothing about.

Like the United States Constitution.

That goes for your mentor too..Mark Levin.

Which court order did Bush violate? I cant think of any nor can I find any. I could be wrong but I cant think of any President defying a court order. You rant is cute but it does not comply with anything I claimed earlyer in any of my posts. Any more knee jerck reactions from the peanut gallery? Oh, and are you a lawyer? Have you worked in and argued constitutional law? Do you have your own legal foundation? Have you served in any presidential administration? Mark Levin is and has all of these things.

 

[jillian]

no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota...

and you can ignore that on one thread and create another troll thread, but there still has never been a court that stayed enforcement of the law.

 

[Old Rocks]

That ruling will be contested. Probably overruled.

 

[geauxtohell]

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?

We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings. By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.

 

[JFK_USA]

Umm.... because the judge issued a stay on the order. You're an idiot though Congrats.

 

[grunt11b]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

Let me guess, you would then have Palin on a white horse ride into the oval office and take command of county?

The county? No, the country..yes, she could not possibly do worse then this Kenyan communist that is in there now.

 

[Publius1787]

That ruling will be contested. Probably overruled.

Lets just suppose for a moment your right. Is Obama still in violation of a court order and his oath of office? Absolutly!