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

CFM said:
Not the answer to my question. Didn't think you would know.
Click to expand...

Notice also Stelakh has no argument he can present in his own words to explain how ObamaCare trumps the 10th amendment. All the bullshitter can come up with is cut and past material puking the linguistic gymnastic perverted blabberings of crooked judges and lawyers who are party loyalist appointed by politicians to violate their oath of office and ignore any honest interpretation of the Constitution.
 
Robo said:
Notice also Stelakh has no argument he can present in his own words to explain how ObamaCare trumps the 10th amendment. All the bullshitter can come up with is cut and past material puking the linguistic gymnastic perverted blabberings of crooked judges and lawyers who are party loyalist appointed by politicians to violate their oath of office and ignore any honest interpretation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

They consider cutting and pasting as actually have thought on their own.
 
piglet said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the beauty of that is that no only have I done so, but I didn't actually have to.

The Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional, and there's an end of it.

Run along.
 
Robo said:
Notice also Stelakh has no argument he can present in his own words to explain how ObamaCare trumps the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

I've done that once already, and I don't come on these forums on the weekends.

Your quotation of the Tenth Amendment notwithstanding, my comments are correct as pertains to this matter. If you are unable to understand them, that is your own deficiency, not mine.
 
Robo said:
Notice also Stelakh has no argument he can present in his own words to explain how ObamaCare trumps the 10th amendment. All the bullshitter can come up with is cut and past material puking the linguistic gymnastic perverted blabberings of crooked judges and lawyers who are party loyalist appointed by politicians to violate their oath of office and ignore any honest interpretation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

First things first.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that Congress can't impose duties on the People (which is why there are things like Jury Duty and filing tax returns). Especially when that imposition is actually for the "common welfare" of the people. Having access to affordable healthcare is certainly good for the "common welfare" of the people.

In the enumeration of powers, in the very first paragraph, you will find that Congress, "..shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and ecises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."

The Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is a tax, and therefore it is an item Congress is able to levy.

In addition to this, since Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and as health insurance is by its very nature interstate commerce, it falls under that authority.

And then there's good ol' (and now dead) Justice Scalia, who said that "...where Congress has authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective."

This granted Congress a very wide berth with which to operate in, and so they did, using "every power to make that regulation effective."

Justice Roberts wrote that, "...determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statue constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power."

In order to enact the ACA legislation, it had to be paid for, which is where the aforementioned tax comes into play. That made the mandate provision constitutional and thus allowed for moving forward with the rest of the Act.

Since the ACA was Constitutionally viable via the mandate, the next part was regulating interstate commerce and eliminating what insurance companies do best - refusing to pay.

One of the goals of the ACA was to stop insurance companies from being able to deny coverage to people who needed it the most, those with preexisting conditions. But to get that into effect means that people would in fact have to buy insurance while they're healthy. And, since people who choose not to get insurance wind up in emergency rooms and with bills that go unpaid, it was "necessary and proper" to enact the mandate.

These two items run in a circular manner, relying one on the other in order to function, and each makes the other Constitutional.

Finally, I have little need to prove to you that the ACA is Constitutional. As I have previously said, the Supreme Court deemed the ACA Constitutional, and they are the final say.

But it doesn't really matter what anyone you disagree with says. You will not admit that you are wrong, or that you understand the nature of the ACA and its Constitutionality.

Instead, you'll wet your panties and continue screaming until someone gives you another dolly and that Strawberry Shortcake dress you've wanted for years, listening only to your voice in the echo chamber of your tiny mind.
 
Stelakh said:
First things first.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that Congress can't impose duties on the People (which is why there are things like Jury Duty and filing tax returns). Especially when that imposition is actually for the "common welfare" of the people. Having access to affordable healthcare is certainly good for the "common welfare" of the people.

In the enumeration of powers, in the very first paragraph, you will find that Congress, "..shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and ecises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."

The Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is a tax, and therefore it is an item Congress is able to levy.

In addition to this, since Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and as health insurance is by its very nature interstate commerce, it falls under that authority.

And then there's good ol' (and now dead) Justice Scalia, who said that "...where Congress has authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective."

This granted Congress a very wide berth with which to operate in, and so they did, using "every power to make that regulation effective."

Justice Roberts wrote that, "...determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statue constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power."

In order to enact the ACA legislation, it had to be paid for, which is where the aforementioned tax comes into play. That made the mandate provision constitutional and thus allowed for moving forward with the rest of the Act.

Since the ACA was Constitutionally viable via the mandate, the next part was regulating interstate commerce and eliminating what insurance companies do best - refusing to pay.

One of the goals of the ACA was to stop insurance companies from being able to deny coverage to people who needed it the most, those with preexisting conditions. But to get that into effect means that people would in fact have to buy insurance while they're healthy. And, since people who choose not to get insurance wind up in emergency rooms and with bills that go unpaid, it was "necessary and proper" to enact the mandate.

These two items run in a circular manner, relying one on the other in order to function, and each makes the other Constitutional.

Finally, I have little need to prove to you that the ACA is Constitutional. As I have previously said, the Supreme Court deemed the ACA Constitutional, and they are the final say.

But it doesn't really matter what anyone you disagree with says. You will not admit that you are wrong, or that you understand the nature of the ACA and its Constitutionality.

Instead, you'll wet your panties and continue screaming until someone gives you another dolly and that Strawberry Shortcake dress you've wanted for years, listening only to your voice in the echo chamber of your tiny mind.
Click to expand...

Obama himself said that the Obamacare mandate wasn't a tax. The Supreme Court upheld it, wait for it, because they said that something the very person that pushed for it said it wasn't. Where was Obama when it was upheld saying they were wrong? That's right, he's not man enough to stand up and defend a previous statement.
 
CFM said:
Obama himself said that the Obamacare mandate wasn't a tax. The Supreme Court upheld it, wait for it, because they said that something the very person that pushed for it said it wasn't. Where was Obama when it was upheld saying they were wrong? That's right, he's not man enough to stand up and defend a previous statement.
Click to expand...

And the Supreme Court made it a tax. At that point, whether or not President Obama said it was a tax or a penalty became moot.

If you don't like that, take it up with the President, Congress and the Supreme Court.

The argument was that the ACA is unconstitutional, and it's not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top