More independents agree with supreme court decision than disagree!

Howey said:
Really? Haven't y'all disenfranchised enough voters already? Women, blacks, gays, hispanics, the elderly, students and so on? Now you want to keep the DUMB from voting? Horrors! There won't be anything left of the Republican Party!
Click to expand...

Now you know why he's known as SmarterThanFew.
 
apple0154 said:
I think it's obvious Justice Roberts realized the vital importance of ObamaCare by not only refusing to strike it down but to officially state how it could continue to be implemented.
Click to expand...
1) it shouldn't matter whether it's a good idea or not. It should be about the constitutionality of the law.
2) by refusing to address the unconstitutionality of the mandate, he had no alternative but to 'spin' how it can be implemented. thus labeling a penalty as a tax for non participation.
 
Howey said:
Really? Haven't y'all disenfranchised enough voters already? Women, blacks, gays, hispanics, the elderly, students and so on?

Now you want to keep the DUMB from voting? Horrors! There won't be anything left of the Republican Party!
Click to expand...

Did I say I was a republican?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
1) it shouldn't matter whether it's a good idea or not. It should be about the constitutionality of the law.
Click to expand...

Of course it should matter if it's a good idea. The roll of the Justices is to interpret the Constitution and the first thing to consider is what was/is the purpose of the Constitution. If one is to interpret something it's extremely beneficial to understand the reason and/or context in which it was written. For example, one writes, "Wait till I get my hands on you!" If that was written by an adversary it would be reasonable to interpret it as a threat. However, if written by a lover it takes on a whole new meaning.

Now, let's look at the Preamble remembering that (Excerpt) The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. (End) Now that we know the reason/context in which it was written we read (Excerpt) We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpret?s=t

2) by refusing to address the unconstitutionality of the mandate, he had no alternative but to 'spin' how it can be implemented. thus labeling a penalty as a tax for non participation.
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind the foregoing Justice Roberts realized what Obama and the Dems were trying to accomplish. The least that can be said is ObamaCare, by ensuring everyone has access to medical care, promotes the general welfare and secures one of the blessings of liberty which is health. Due to the fact some selfish, greedy people tried to thwart ObamaCare justice Roberts explained how the government could get around the obstacle thrown in the way. Not only in the way of ObamaCare but thrown in the way of the Founding Fathers' intentions which was to form a more perfect union, to offer the people a better way of life. Justice Roberts was not going to see a logical, beneficial solution offered by the government derailed due to a technicality or word play.

After a century of nonsense that continues to this day as witnessed by Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) who said the medical fiasco has to be addresses one step at a time Justice Roberts put an end to that. They have been stepping for a hundred years! If they aren't there yet, get out of the way. :)

Justice Roberts upheld the Founding Fathers' intentions as opposed to the other conservatives who offered no alternatives/solutions. Rather than concur with Justice Roberts their obstructionist attitude was made clear for all to see.
 
apple0154 said:
Of course it should matter if it's a good idea. The roll of the Justices is to interpret the Constitution and the first thing to consider is what was/is the purpose of the Constitution. If one is to interpret something it's extremely beneficial to understand the reason and/or context in which it was written. For example, one writes, "Wait till I get my hands on you!" If that was written by an adversary it would be reasonable to interpret it as a threat. However, if written by a lover it takes on a whole new meaning.

Now, let's look at the Preamble remembering that (Excerpt) The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. (End) Now that we know the reason/context in which it was written we read (Excerpt) We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpret?s=t
Click to expand...
was the constitution written to RESTRICT federal power or EXPAND it? that's a very simple question.

apple0154 said:
Justice Roberts upheld the Founding Fathers' intentions as opposed to the other conservatives who offered no alternatives/solutions. Rather than concur with Justice Roberts their obstructionist attitude was made clear for all to see.
Click to expand...
please enlighten us as to the intentions of the founding fathers.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
was the constitution written to RESTRICT federal power or EXPAND it? that's a very simple question.

please enlighten us as to the intentions of the founding fathers.
Click to expand...

The constitution was written to define Federal Power, mostly in relation to the States, but also in relation to the people. By defining something you are limiting it, there was not much of a federal power at the time so expanding it was not a possability.
 
Jarod said:
The constitution was written to define Federal Power, mostly in relation to the States, but also in relation to the people. By defining something you are limiting it, there was not much of a federal power at the time so expanding it was not a possability.
Click to expand...
so if the constitution was to limit federal power by definitions, how is it conceivable that the feds would then have unlimited power via taxation?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so if the constitution was to limit federal power by definitions, how is it conceivable that the feds would then have unlimited power via taxation?
Click to expand...

I do not believe the Feds do have unlimited power via taxation. They cant tax you for speech or religen or having a gun as those things are specifically protected, not that is simply the extreem, I belvie the Court would define the limit somewhere this side on being able to tax anything that is not specifically an enumerated right in the Constitution.
 
Jarod said:
I do not believe the Feds do have unlimited power via taxation. They cant tax you for speech or religen or having a gun as those things are specifically protected, not that is simply the extreem, I belvie the Court would define the limit somewhere this side on being able to tax anything that is not specifically an enumerated right in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
but they CAN tax you for those things, with things like permits. so if the gov can tax you for things you DO participate in and can also tax you for things you choose NOT to participate in, how is that not unlimited power of the federal government?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
but they CAN tax you for those things, with things like permits. so if the gov can tax you for things you DO participate in and can also tax you for things you choose NOT to participate in, how is that not unlimited power of the federal government?
Click to expand...

That is a good point, but if the Permit Tax is consider unreasonable or unrelated to the cost you are causing the government to clean up for example, if the tax is such that it puts an unreasonable burden on free speech or the like, it will be shot down by the S. Ct., there are limtis to the taxation authority. I dont remember the cites right now, but there are cases directly on point. Mostly from the 60's.
 
Jarod said:
That is a good point, but if the Permit Tax is consider unreasonable or unrelated to the cost you are causing the government to clean up for example, if the tax is such that it puts an unreasonable burden on free speech or the like, it will be shot down by the S. Ct., there are limtis to the taxation authority. I dont remember the cites right now, but there are cases directly on point. Mostly from the 60's.
Click to expand...
again, I have to throw this back to the writing of the constitution. how is it conceivable that the founders, who had a first hand experience with an overbearing central government, would then write a document giving unfettered and unlimited ability to a central government to determine what limits were put upon their rights?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
again, I have to throw this back to the writing of the constitution. how is it conceivable that the founders, who had a first hand experience with an overbearing central government, would then write a document giving unfettered and unlimited ability to a central government to determine what limits were put upon their rights?
Click to expand...

They dident, they gave limits, and the arbitration of what those limtis are, in individual cases, was assigned to the Supreme Court.
 
Jarod said:
They dident, they gave limits, and the arbitration of what those limtis are, in individual cases, was assigned to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
I disagree. the USSC gave themselves that power, but it was not something assigned to the USSC. This is something i'm not able to reconcile. It seems that Conservatives and Liberals demand 'limits', or that no right is absolute, but leave it up to that very government that they intended to limit, to define the limits of their own rights. it's a self destructive paradox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top