You nuns, grab your coat hangers we got babies to murder

I Love America said:
I guess GayRod doesn't want to share his interpretation of the 9th
Click to expand...

Stelakh coward under his leftist commie rock when I challenged him to explain the Roberts court decision that legalized the crime of ObamaCare and tell the class how it trumped the 10th amendment. He's such a fucking clueless dope!
 
Bobo said:
Stelakh coward under his leftist commie rock when I challenged him to explain the Roberts court decision that legalized the crime of ObamaCare and tell the class how it trumped the 10th amendment. He's such a fucking clueless dope!
Click to expand...

You mad?

Yeah, you mad.

Poor Bobo.
 
piglet said:
Stelakh coward under his leftist commie rock when I challenged him to explain the Roberts court decision that legalized the crime of ObamaCare and tell the class how it trumped the 10th amendment. He's such a fucking clueless dope!
Click to expand...

I have a life outside of this forum, piglet. But you can rest assured that I have too much fun giving you a spanking to let it go for too long.

Justice Roberts did not agree with the Conservative opinion that Congress was going to use the affordable Care Act as a form of pressure against states.

In fact, to prove the point that the Conservative stance at this time was purely political, he quoted comments from a different, earlier, ACA case a few years before where the dissenting Justices actually spoke the opposite of what they finally wound up with in the case to which you refer.

The sticking point was whether or not the Federal government was allowed to give subsidies to help low-income citizens get insurance.

The argument from the dissenters was that as written the law didn't allow for subsidies where the fed didn't have its own exchanges.

Now they were saying that subsides are ONLY allowed in states that have state exchanges and that argument was set upon a single phrase in the entire Act: "...established by the state." At the time, there were 34 states that decided to rely on federal exchanges.

Justice Roberts said that while the challenge had some life in it, the theory it was based on didn't. To prove his point, he quoted Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas from the 2012 case that said the ACA mandate was a tax.

Roberts wrote:

It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. (2012) (SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting) (slip op., at 60) “Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation. But those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and the tax credits. So it stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well."
Click to expand...

The reason he found the way he did is because he understands that while the law was ambiguous, "Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner. It would not have used such a winding path of connect-the-dots provisions about the amount of the credit."

He used their own words against them to prove they were wrong.

Just like I do to you, piglet, every time you open your be-lipsticked mouth.

As to the ACA and the Tenth Amendment, the argument is simply invalid.

Take a closer look at the Tenth Amendment, piglet.

Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the powers, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Which means, for people with tiny minds like little girls such as yourself, that Congress can effect the enumerated ends of Article I, Section 8, but actually gives them the authority to create any reasonable unenumerated method to achieve those ends.

The Tenth Amendment validates those powers and authorities. So the only argument you could make as regards the Tenth Amendment is whether or not Congress has the authority to use such means to an end.

But, Congress had the power and authority to create the Affordable Care Act, per Article I, Section 8 as validated by the Tenth Amendment.

And then there's the argument that the ACA violates State's rights. That goes awry, too.

Since Congress had the power and authority to create the ACA per Article I, Section 8 as validated by the Tenth Amendment, then another little part of the Constitution kicks in: the Supremacy Clause, which says, "Hey, States. Congress created a law legally and guess what? It's a Federal law so it trumps yours. Neener, neener."

On the OTHER hand, if Congress did NOT have authority, the ACA would STILL not violate the Tenth Amendment.

You see, piglet, the important thing to remember abut this is that the Tenth Amendment is silent about the scope of power; and the Constitution makes sure we're aware in its text that the Tenth Amendment is a reminder of how power is meted out in our governmental setup. If the Federal Government doesn't have power to do something, then the states or the people have it. But it doesn't mean the Federal government can't step in if there's a vacuum at both levels.

You see, when you read the Constitution (some day) and understand it (likely never), you might just realize what a fool you are.

Aren't you getting tired of getting spankings from me on a daily basis?

I mean, sure, it's fun for me, but honestly, how much of a masochistic little girl are you?
 
Last edited:
CFM said:
There's one way to prove you haven't been anywhere near my mother. Wanna guess what it is?
Click to expand...

You don't know who she is because she was a crack addict that left you on the doorstep of the Rear Entrance Club near the corner she worked?
 
Stelakh said:
I have a life outside of this forum, piglet. But you can rest assured that I have too much fun giving you a spanking to let it go for too long.

Justice Roberts did not agree with the Conservative opinion that Congress was going to use the affordable Care Act as a form of pressure against states.

In fact, to prove the point that the Conservative stance at this time was purely political, he quoted comments from a different, earlier, ACA case a few years before where the dissenting Justices actually spoke the opposite of what they finally wound up with in the case to which you refer.

The sticking point was whether or not the Federal government was allowed to give subsidies to help low-income citizens get insurance.

The argument from the dissenters was that as written the law didn't allow for subsidies where the fed didn't have its own exchanges.

Now they were saying that subsides are ONLY allowed in states that have state exchanges and that argument was set upon a single phrase in the entire Act: "...established by the state." At the time, there were 34 states that decided to rely on federal exchanges.

Justice Roberts said that while the challenge had some life in it, the theory it was based on didn't. To prove his point, he quoted Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas from the 2012 case that said the ACA mandate was a tax.

Roberts wrote:



The reason he found the way he did is because he understands that while the law was ambiguous, "Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner. It would not have used such a winding path of connect-the-dots provisions about the amount of the credit."

He used their own words against them to prove they were wrong.

Just like I do to you, piglet, every time you open your be-lipsticked mouth.

As to the ACA and the Tenth Amendment, the argument is simply invalid.

Take a closer look at the Tenth Amendment, piglet.

Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the powers, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Which means, for people with tiny minds like little girls such as yourself, that Congress can effect the enumerated ends of Article I, Section 8, but actually gives them the authority to create any reasonable unenumerated method to achieve those ends.

The Tenth Amendment validates those powers and authorities. So the only argument you could make as regards the Tenth Amendment is whether or not Congress has the authority to use such means to an end.

But, Congress had the power and authority to create the Affordable Care Act, per Article I, Section 8 as validated by the Tenth Amendment.

And then there's the argument that the ACA violates State's rights. That goes awry, too.

Since Congress had the power and authority to create the ACA per Article I, Section 8 as validated by the Tenth Amendment, then another little part of the Constitution kicks in: the Supremacy Clause, which says, "Hey, States. Congress created a law legally and guess what? It's a Federal law so it trumps yours. Neener, neener."

On the OTHER hand, if Congress did NOT have authority, the ACA would STILL not violate the Tenth Amendment.

You see, piglet, the important thing to remember abut this is that the Tenth Amendment is silent about the scope of power; and the Constitution makes sure we're aware in its text that the Tenth Amendment is a reminder of how power is meted out in our governmental setup. If the Federal Government doesn't have power to do something, then the states or the people have it. But it doesn't mean the Federal government can't step in if there's a vacuum at both levels.

You see, when you read the Constitution (some day) and understand it (likely never), you might just realize what a fool you are.

Aren't you getting tired of getting spankings from me on a daily basis?

I mean, sure, it's fun for me, but honestly, how much of a masochistic little girl are you?
Click to expand...
So you spank yourself outside this forum?
 
Stelakh said:
I have a life outside of this forum, piglet. But you can rest assured that I have too much fun giving you a spanking to let it go for too long.
Click to expand...

That will be the day bullshitter! Thus far I’ve raked you over the coals to no end.

Justice Roberts did not agree with the Conservative opinion that Congress was going to use the affordable Care Act as a form of pressure against states.
Click to expand...

The word “justice” has no correlation with Roberts or any of the other political pawns on the Court.

In fact, to prove the point that the Conservative stance at this time was purely political, he quoted comments from a different, earlier, ACA case a few years before where the dissenting Justices actually spoke the opposite of what they finally wound up with in the case to which you refer.

The sticking point was whether or not the Federal government was allowed to give subsidies to help low-income citizens get insurance.
Click to expand...

There’s no authority awarded the federal government in the Constitution to give subsidies to anybody. Every federal social and corporate welfare program in operation by the feds is unconstitutional.

The challenge I put to you bullshitter was for you to defend in your own words, (not the linguistic gymnastics of the pawn partisan lawyers on the crooked Court), with evidence from the Constitution proving that the ACA is constitutional. I notice you have avoided such individual thinking for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Stelakh said:
As to the ACA and the Tenth Amendment, the argument is simply invalid.

Take a closer look at the Tenth Amendment, piglet.

Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the powers, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Which means, for people with tiny minds like little girls such as yourself, that Congress can effect the enumerated ends of Article I, Section 8, but actually gives them the authority to create any reasonable unenumerated method to achieve those ends.
Click to expand...

It’s apparent bullshitter that you either have no concept of the definitions of the words “necessary” and “proper.” or you’re another swindling lying lawyer.

Let’s take the word “necessary” first. That word means actions/laws that the States or the people cannot do for themselves. The ACA was instituted in the State of Massachusetts by a Governor Romney, proving that States certainly can create healthcare plans all by themselves, and millions of Americans already had health insurance no thanks to the feds. The ACA federal plan becomes unconstitutional by those facts alone, unless you can prove otherwise.

Secondly, the word “proper” means that the feds only have the power to do what is enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the feds. So, bullshitter show me the article or amendment in the Constitution that authorizes a power of the feds to create a health insurance plan for the nation.

Thirdly, you seem to fail to understand the wors “forgoing powers.” I’ll list them for you,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

You see bullshitter there’s no power listed there or in any amendment to the Constitution that authorizes the feds to create a national health insurance plan.
 
Stelakh said:
The Tenth Amendment validates those powers and authorities. So the only argument you could make as regards the Tenth Amendment is whether or not Congress has the authority to use such means to an end.
Click to expand...

I repeat, the federal government IS NOT awarded any power to create a health insurance plan for the nation by any authority of the Constitution. Show me the article or amendment that proves me wrong bullshitter.

But, Congress had the power and authority to create the Affordable Care Act, per Article I, Section 8 as validated by the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

You’ll explain that bullshit in your own words or forever be a fucking lying asshole.

Article or amendment please!

And then there's the argument that the ACA violates State's rights. That goes awry, too.
Click to expand...

There’s no such animal as “States Rights” that’s a misnomer. States don’t have rights, States have constitutional “powers.” The ACA certainly does violate the “POWER” of the States to make all laws within the Constitution not authorized as a power of the federal government, by the Constitution. The federal government has no constitutional power to confiscate/usurp a State power. The 10th amendment “reserves” all powers to the States or the people that are not enumerated by the Constitution as a power of the federal government.
 
Stelakh said:
Since Congress had the power and authority to create the ACA per Article I, Section 8 as validated by the Tenth Amendment, then another little part of the Constitution kicks in: the Supremacy Clause, which says, "Hey, States. Congress created a law legally and guess what? It's a Federal law so it trumps yours. Neener, neener."
Click to expand...

That bullshit will only fly when you produce the article or amendment to the Constitution that proves that bullshit bullshitter. I’ll understand if you can’t!

On the OTHER hand, if Congress did NOT have authority, the ACA would STILL not violate the Tenth Amendment.

You see, piglet, the important thing to remember abut this is that the Tenth Amendment is silent about the scope of power; and the Constitution makes sure we're aware in its text that the Tenth Amendment is a reminder of how power is meted out in our governmental setup. If the Federal Government doesn't have power to do something, then the states or the people have it. But it doesn't mean the Federal government can't step in if there's a vacuum at both levels.
Click to expand...

OK bullshitter explain this,

Who decides there’s a vacuum? The feds? If that’s so, then nothing in the Constitution is worth the paper it’s written on unless you can prove something is, because the Feds can simply write any law they want in the name of “A VACUUM.”

Explain also where the alleged “vacuum” was/is in Massachusetts when they had their system of the ACA that the feds based their laws on.

While your at it bullshitter, post the constitutional artical or amendment that gives the power to the feds to fill any perceived vacuums left by the States or the people.

You see, when you read the Constitution (some day) and understand it (likely never), you might just realize what a fool you are.
Click to expand...

We’re in the process bullshitter of proving who has read and understands the Constitution. Thus far you’ve posted nothing but crooked lawyers bullshit and I’ve explained the actual meanings of the Constitution that any honest and sane person with average intellegence can and would understand and agree.

Aren't you getting tired of getting spankings from me on a daily basis?
Click to expand...

Even your dreams are fucked up bullshitter! You couldn’t spank me intellectually on your best day. That’s because you’re a brainwashed, brain-dead neo-commie leftist.

I mean, sure, it's fun for me, but honestly, how much of a masochistic little girl are you?
Click to expand...

Blessed are the little children bullshitter! Out of the mouth’s of babes shall come the truth. Read it and repent!
 
Robo said:
So, you're claiming that the Little Sisters are getting taxpayer's dollars to cover their lawyers? So, you're claiming that no taxpayers dollars would be financing the court and the government's lawyers if it weren't for the Little Sister's case?



Seems to me your alleged "facts" and "truth" are highly suspicious. Why would the Little Sisters be using the church's lawyers and paying court cost for a case that has no merit because all they need to do is fill out a post card according to you? How come the geniuses on the courts are bothering to hear the case if all the Little Sisters need to do is fill out a post card?

Hey Stelath, I think you're full of shit! I think you're a leftist anti-Christian brainwashed Atheist asshole!
Click to expand...


And you are a credit to the christian religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top