Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Some of you believe that it is unconstitutional. You are wrong until the Supreme Court says you are right. Unfortunately statute and case law will force even the conservative justices into a 9-0 vote to uphold the health insurance law. I will remind you all of this when that happens.
Please PM when you do.
The teabaggers will swear something is unconstitutional till they are blue in the face without any regard to practical reality.
Here's a tip teabaggers -
when people have two conflicting views regarding the Constitution, ultimately, the Supreme Court decides who is right.
So get over it.
The law is constitutional, it is built on free market principles of relying on private business to compete and keep down prices, and it is gaining support among the citizens. I agree that it is going to messy, but it will be worked out.
What will be interesting is to see what Obama goes after next.
Bern, no one is dodging anything. You can believe whatever you want, that's your right as an American, and a number of us on the Board paid a price for you to do just that. So go for it. But it is the Supreme Court, not you, that decides what is constitutional. Doesn't matter if you don't like it, that is the truth.
I never said I get to decide what is constitutional. I quite clearly stated the Constitution tells us what is constitutional. I of course can have an opinion whether something is or is not constitutional based on what the document says and what I know about those that wrote it. I can have an opinion just as the supreme court has an OPINION on the matter. The difference here is I believe in absolute truth and you apparently don't. I can differentiate between what IS constitutional and what the supreme court OPINES is constitutional. You apparently can not.
And yes your are dodging as you have failed to confront the ramifications of your position:
That such a stance renders any and all legislation made by congress constitutional until someone challenges it.
That the supreme court is always correct when it decides whether something is constitutional. Problems really abound from that one such as the convenience of circular logic and the fact that every SC decision would have to be unanimous for it to be true.
It would mean that the constitution is a living document that would need to be changed based on the rulings of the Supreme Court which is not how the document is supposed to be lawfully modified. If you want an extreme example it would mean if the Supreme Court decided woman didn't have the right to vote, disallowing women from voting would not be constitutional based on your ridiculous argument that the Supreme Court said so.
And last but not least the question of the thread which no one seems to be able to come up with a reasonable answer for.
Bern, you can write all you want, argue all you want, pontificate all you want.
But the SCOTUS, not you, decides what is constitutional. I know that is a shocker, but we think it is time for you to be told the truth. We will wait awhile on the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
I do not disriminate based on socioeconomic status when it comes to hating children, And I teach very few "childen" Most of my kids are over 18 and several are parents - some lovable and some hatable. Just like the rest of the world.. Oh and even the "poor" ones have access to porn. Don't you be worryin bout dat spidey. Lol
Right, because after all, porn is all that poor people would want with the internet.
Some of you believe that it is unconstitutional. You are wrong until the Supreme Court says you are right. Unfortunately statute and case law will force even the conservative justices into a 9-0 vote to uphold the health insurance law. I will remind you all of this when that happens.
Please PM when you do.
The teabaggers will swear something is unconstitutional till they are blue in the face without any regard to practical reality.
Here's a tip teabaggers -
when people have two conflicting views regarding the Constitution, ultimately, the Supreme Court decides who is right.
So get over it.
Because the Supreme Court has NEVER made a ruling that ignored the constitution.
Hell Supreme Court precedents can and have been overturned by other supreme court rulings. Meaning according to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court has been wrong before. Imagine that.
The fact remains there is a difference between their OPINION of what is constitutional and what actually IS constitutional.
Please PM when you do.
The teabaggers will swear something is unconstitutional till they are blue in the face without any regard to practical reality.
Here's a tip teabaggers -
when people have two conflicting views regarding the Constitution, ultimately, the Supreme Court decides who is right.
So get over it.
Because the Supreme Court has NEVER made a ruling that ignored the constitution.
Hell Supreme Court precedents can and have been overturned by other supreme court rulings. Meaning according to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court has been wrong before. Imagine that.
Are you trying to justify your position by citing Supreme Court cases that haven't even happened yet?
No, my position is that the Supreme Court isn't always right
I never said I get to decide what is constitutional. I quite clearly stated the Constitution tells us what is constitutional. I of course can have an opinion whether something is or is not constitutional based on what the document says and what I know about those that wrote it. I can have an opinion just as the supreme court has an OPINION on the matter. The difference here is I believe in absolute truth and you apparently don't. I can differentiate between what IS constitutional and what the supreme court OPINES is constitutional. You apparently can not.
And yes your are dodging as you have failed to confront the ramifications of your position:
That such a stance renders any and all legislation made by congress constitutional until someone challenges it.
That the supreme court is always correct when it decides whether something is constitutional. Problems really abound from that one such as the convenience of circular logic and the fact that every SC decision would have to be unanimous for it to be true.
It would mean that the constitution is a living document that would need to be changed based on the rulings of the Supreme Court which is not how the document is supposed to be lawfully modified. If you want an extreme example it would mean if the Supreme Court decided woman didn't have the right to vote, disallowing women from voting would not be constitutional based on your ridiculous argument that the Supreme Court said so.
And last but not least the question of the thread which no one seems to be able to come up with a reasonable answer for.
Bern, you can write all you want, argue all you want, pontificate all you want.
But the SCOTUS, not you, decides what is constitutional. I know that is a shocker, but we think it is time for you to be told the truth. We will wait awhile on the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
And you can dodge simple questions all you want. I understand that the SCOTUS is the last say on what is constitutional. The fact remains there is a difference between their OPINION of what is constitutional and what actually IS constitutional. To view it any other way results in the ramifications previously mentioned. Either come up with a cogent argument as to why those ramifications are not true under your interpretation or get a room with your intellectual neophyte fuck buddy spidey and let the grown ups talk.
If you think mandating that people buy health insurance is constitutional what CAN'T government make you do? What legal argument could you possibly muster?
The fact remains there is a difference between their OPINION of what is constitutional and what actually IS constitutional.
No there isn't.
The fact remains there is a difference between their OPINION of what is constitutional and what actually IS constitutional.
No there isn't.
Thanks for admitting your ridiculousness. You understand that saying so means that if the supreme court decided that women having the right to vote was unconstitutional and thus repealed, there decision would be constitutional and legal, despite what the actual document says about women having the right to vote, correct?
Bern80 is merely being immorally stubborn now: can't admit the wrongheadedness of his argument.
Thanks for admitting your ridiculousness. You understand that saying so means that if the supreme court decided that women having the right to vote was unconstitutional and thus repealed, there decision would be constitutional and legal, despite what the actual document says about women having the right to vote, correct?
It would be legally binding, yes, until all the Justices that voted for it were impeached and removed from the bench, and replaced with more sane Justices, which I imagine would happen in a matter of weeks.
Thanks for admitting your ridiculousness. You understand that saying so means that if the supreme court decided that women having the right to vote was unconstitutional and thus repealed, there decision would be constitutional and legal, despite what the actual document says about women having the right to vote, correct?
It would be legally binding, yes, until all the Justices that voted for it were impeached and removed from the bench, and replaced with more sane Justices, which I imagine would happen in a matter of weeks.
On what grounds would you be able to impeach them?
It would be legally binding, yes, until all the Justices that voted for it were impeached and removed from the bench, and replaced with more sane Justices, which I imagine would happen in a matter of weeks.
On what grounds would you be able to impeach them?
Whatever grounds the Congress wanted. As far as impeaching and removing goes, Congress answers to no one except the voter.
Bern80 has had his questions answered over and over. He simply will not accept the answer. He is wrong, and it is time to move on.
On what grounds would you be able to impeach them?
Whatever grounds the Congress wanted. As far as impeaching and removing goes, Congress answers to no one except the voter.
Hard to admit it when there's only one answer isn't it. Actually no, the government official must be guilty of an impeachable offense.
