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

The Dude said:
You lower class conservatards are stuck on food stamps
As people get more college they get more progressive
As they get more college they earn more
Fact
Click to expand...

Blacks are lower class conservatives? They're stuck on food stamps to the proportion of 1 out of every 3 1/2.
 
Stelakh said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you insist that such laws were “necessary” to be instituted by the feds even though the States could do it themselves, right? You insist that it was “proper” even though the Constitution mandates that only the ”forgoing” powers of article one section eight and amendments to the Constitution are ”proper” actions to be taken by the Congress, right?

So in other words, you’re insisting that the Congress has the power to do whatever Congress wants as long as they add a tax to the legislation and unattach the Constitution’s perfectly evident instructions as to the meanings of the words “necessary & proper,” right? That makes you a BIG central government authoritarian.
 
Stelakh said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have the NEED, but you can’t. All you can do is puke the preposterous garbage the crooked bastard Roberts opined. You can’t think for yourself. You have no rational arguments. You’re just another BIG central government authoritarian bullshitter.

You can’t and won’t answer the question of what the federal Congress ”CAN’T” do in the name of the power to tax and stretching the commerce clause as a mandate to force the people to buy a product. You won’t and can’t answer how forcing the people to buy a product correlates with the farce statement that America is a “free” country.

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.
Click to expand...

Oh but you can’t prove what I’ve said is wrong. I have the actual wording of the Constitution to prove my points, all you have the puke from a corrupt partisan gang of appointed judges on the partisan ideological court.

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...

Even your closing statement here proves your ability to think for yourself and make rational arguments is non- existent. All you can do is prove that you know all about little girl’s toys, proving you’re a closet transvestite.
 
I'll wait for Stelakh to present to the class What the United States Congress "CAN'T" do in the name of "The Power To Tax," and or "The Commerce Clause."

I'll wait for him to explain to the class what the following means.

"The powers not delegated to the United Stated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

I'll understand if he can't rationally explain any of that.:rofl2::cof1:
 
Robo said:
So you insist that such laws were “necessary” to be instituted by the feds even though the States could do it themselves, right? You insist that it was “proper” even though the Constitution mandates that only the ”forgoing” powers of article one section eight and amendments to the Constitution are ”proper” actions to be taken by the Congress, right?

So in other words, you’re insisting that the Congress has the power to do whatever Congress wants as long as they add a tax to the legislation and unattach the Constitution’s perfectly evident instructions as to the meanings of the words “necessary & proper,” right? That makes you a BIG central government authoritarian.
Click to expand...

I included no such insistence to anything. I merely stated fact and provided the reasons that the ACA is Constitutional. Now you want to change it.

I also did not say whether or not I agree with it. You seem to have a problem with assuming far too much and not understanding the scope of what someone posts, that's on you.

Not only do I have a need to prove to you the ACA is Constitutional, nobody else does either.

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled that it is legal, and the Supreme Court has the final say on such matters. And that means simply: You are wrong.

(Incidentally, I note you mentioned that I quoted Justice Roberts but remained silent on the fact that I also quoted Justice Scalia. Why is that, I wonder?)
 
Stelakh said:
I included no such insistence to anything. I merely stated fact and provided the reasons that the ACA is Constitutional. Now you want to change it.
Click to expand...

“Is constitutional?” Well genius if you’re claiming that the ACA is constitutional, and your provision relative to that pronouncement is the Roberts opinion, then by what excuse do you claim you’re NOT insisting that the Congress can pass any law they want and it will be constitutional as long as it has a tax attached and a power to regulate commerce that’s stretched to include a mandate that an alleged “FREE” people buy whatever product the Congress thinks is necessary and proper? Isn’t that essentially your position?
 
Stelakh said:
I also did not say whether or not I agree with it. You seem to have a problem with assuming far too much and not understanding the scope of what someone posts, that's on you.
Click to expand...

So you’re making the argument that the ACA is constitutional but you don’t agree that it is?

Not only do I have a need to prove to you the ACA is Constitutional, nobody else does either.
Click to expand...

Since you’re the one attempting to make the pro-constitutional argument for the ACA, why should I expect anybody else to assist your failed/failing arguments?

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled that it is legal, and the Supreme Court has the final say on such matters. And that means simply: You are wrong.
Click to expand...

The court doesn’t make anything constitutional, it simply “legalizes” or says Congressional statutes are “illegal” according to how many waves the cowards are willing to make among the other two bodies of the government all relative to the partisan ideologies therewith.

Relative to “constitutionality,” that is subjective in relation to the citizen observer and his/her, honesty, common sense, ability to think for themselves and the incentive to actually be interested enough to give a flying fuck.

(Incidentally, I note you mentioned that I quoted Justice Roberts but remained silent on the fact that I also quoted Justice Scalia. Why is that, I wonder?)
Click to expand...

By what particular alleged prejudice do you imagine that would make a difference to me? I’m neither leftist or rightist. I’m a “constitutionalist.” Right and left are simply two sides of the same corrupt coin.
 
Robo said:
“Is constitutional?” Well genius if you’re claiming that the ACA is constitutional, and your provision relative to that pronouncement is the Roberts opinion, then by what excuse do you claim you’re NOT insisting that the Congress can pass any law they want and it will be constitutional as long as it has a tax attached and a power to regulate commerce that’s stretched to include a mandate that an alleged “FREE” people buy whatever product the Congress thinks is necessary and proper? Isn’t that essentially your position?
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong again. I am not basing the statement that the ACA is Constitutional solely on Justice Robert's opinion. Once again, you're ignoring my reference to Justice Scalia's opinion.

What my position is is entirely irrelevant to your original question.

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court, not just one of its Justices, deemed that the ACA is Constitutional.

Have you tried taking your argument up with them?
 
Robo said:
So you’re making the argument that the ACA is constitutional but you don’t agree that it is?.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it, do you?

Whether or not I agree with it is entirely irrelevant. The ACA was deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which has the final say on the Constitutionality of law in this country.

The court "legalizes" laws by determining their Constitutionality. They say, "Yes, it is Constitutional" or "No, it is not Constitutional."

Again, if you are dissatisfied with that, then take it up with the Court and your legislators.
 
Stelakh said:
No, you are wrong again. I am not basing the statement that the ACA is Constitutional solely on Justice Robert's opinion. Once again, you're ignoring my reference to Justice Scalia's opinion.
Click to expand...

I know, you don’t bother to think for yourself. You applaud corrupted court opinions that promote your prejudices.

You can’t and won’t explain in your own words WHAT laws the Congress CANNOT pass and be deemed constitutional by the court as long as the law has a tax attached and or is deemed so by way of a stretched Commerce clause that mandates that an “alleged” free people buy some product that Congress thinks is necessary and proper.



What my position is is entirely irrelevant to your original question.

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court, not just one of its Justices, deemed that the ACA is Constitutional.

Have you tried taking your argument up with them?
Click to expand...

In your own words, is the ACA constitutional and why?

So far your argument is “YES” because the Court say’s so.

That’s all you got!

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or the people.”

What does that mean to you?
 
Stelakh said:
You just don't get it, do you?

Whether or not I agree with it is entirely irrelevant. The ACA was deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which has the final say on the Constitutionality of law in this country.
Click to expand...

Yada, yada, yada!

The court "legalizes" laws by determining their Constitutionality. They say, "Yes, it is Constitutional" or "No, it is not Constitutional."

Again, if you are dissatisfied with that, then take it up with the Court and your legislators.
Click to expand...

The Court ’makes” nothing constitutional or unconstitutional. Only concerned, honest citizens can do that.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”

What’s that men to you? Where is the ACA delegated to the United States by the Constitution?

What can’t the feds do in the name of the Commerce clause, the power to tax or the general welfare?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top