Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2012, 10:09 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2012 10:15 AM by germanyt.)
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(03-04-2012 09:58 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Was I swinging?
There was definitely a swing.


The Supreme Court and Obamacare



Tuesday, April 03, 2012 – by Ron Paul
Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the
constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate
requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced
by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but
we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when
it comes to protecting liberty. It's doubtful the entire law will be
struck down. Regardless, the political left will continue its drive
toward a single-payer, government run health care system.

The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government's powers
under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of
the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to "regulate"
commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim
otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because
they don't want to limit federal power in any way.

The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to
regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing
tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22,
Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause
was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they
passed through each state – a practice that had proven particularly
destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.

But the Supreme Court has utterly abused the commerce clause for decades, at least since the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn.
In that instance, the Court decided that a farmer growing wheat for
purely personal use still affected interstate commerce – presumably by
not participating in it! As economist Thomas Sowell explains in a
recent article, the Wickard case marked the final death of
federalism: If the federal government can regulate "anything with any
potential effect on interstate commerce, the 10th Amendment's
limitations on the power of the federal government virtually
disappeared."

It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that
liberty-minded Americans must oppose. Why should a single swing vote on
the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare?
The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in
Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty
against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism
and states' rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals
on a godlike Supreme Court.

While I'm heartened that many [color=#090]conservatives[/color]
understand this mandate exceeds the strictly enumerated powers of
Congress, there are many federal mandates conservatives casually accept.
The Medicare Part D bill – passed under a Republican President and a
Republican House – mandates that you submit payroll taxes to provide
prescription drugs to seniors. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, also passed by
Republicans, mandates that companies expend countless hours of costly
manpower producing useless reports. Selective service laws, supported
by defense hawks, mandate that young people sign up for potential
conscription. I understand the distinction between these mandates and
Obamacare, but the bigger point is that Congress routinely imposes
mandates that are wildly beyond the scope of Article I, Section 8.

Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while
liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The
federal leviathan continues its steady growth, sometimes boldly and
sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no
mistake: The statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject
incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles. We must
forcefully oppose lawless government, and demand a return to federalism
by electing a Congress that legislates only within its strictly limited
authority under Article I, Section 8.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 12:04 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(03-04-2012 10:09 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(03-04-2012 09:58 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Was I swinging?
There was definitely a swing.
I sure as fuck wasn't up to bat.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 10:42 AM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
I'm afraid any chance of me voting for Obama has gone out the window. His ignorant and thugish remarks concerning the SC ruling on his health care law are the straw that breaks the camels back.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/...ice-preps/

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 10:49 AM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(05-04-2012 10:42 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I'm afraid any chance of me voting for Obama has gone out the window. His ignorant and thugish remarks concerning the SC ruling on his health care law are the straw that breaks the camels back.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/...ice-preps/
Were you ever going to vote for him in the first place? You seem to be on good terms with both Romney and Paul.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 11:10 AM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(05-04-2012 10:49 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(05-04-2012 10:42 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I'm afraid any chance of me voting for Obama has gone out the window. His ignorant and thugish remarks concerning the SC ruling on his health care law are the straw that breaks the camels back.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/...ice-preps/
Were you ever going to vote for him in the first place? You seem to be on good terms with both Romney and Paul.
A Romney/Obama general wasn't set in stone for me. Paul/Obama certainly was. But I had strongly considered Obama over Romney. Now I'm not so sure. Between the Patriot Act, NDAA, and now his comments to the Supreme Court I just don't fell like I can lend any support. He tried to bully the SC into siding with him and made himself look incredibly stupid in the process.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 11:59 AM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(05-04-2012 11:10 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(05-04-2012 10:49 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Were you ever going to vote for him in the first place? You seem to be on good terms with both Romney and Paul.
A Romney/Obama general wasn't set in stone for me. Paul/Obama certainly was. But I had strongly considered Obama over Romney. Now I'm not so sure. Between the Patriot Act, NDAA, and now his comments to the Supreme Court I just don't fell like I can lend any support. He tried to bully the SC into siding with him and made himself look incredibly stupid in the process.
What is you problem with the NDAA bill?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 01:20 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(05-04-2012 11:59 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(05-04-2012 11:10 AM)germanyt Wrote:  A Romney/Obama general wasn't set in stone for me. Paul/Obama certainly was. But I had strongly considered Obama over Romney. Now I'm not so sure. Between the Patriot Act, NDAA, and now his comments to the Supreme Court I just don't fell like I can lend any support. He tried to bully the SC into siding with him and made himself look incredibly stupid in the process.
What is you problem with the NDAA bill?
It allows American citizens who are constitutionally given a trial by jury to be detained indefinitely without warrant and without trial. An American citizen accused of terrorism should by arrested, tried, and jailed just as if he had stolen a car or murdered someone. This overreach by the federal government is probably the scariest piece of legislation I know of.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 01:48 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(05-04-2012 01:20 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(05-04-2012 11:59 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  What is you problem with the NDAA bill?
It allows American citizens who are constitutionally given a trial by jury to be detained indefinitely without warrant and without trial. An American citizen accused of terrorism should by arrested, tried, and jailed just as if he had stolen a car or murdered someone. This overreach by the federal government is probably the scariest piece of legislation I know of.
Didn't Obama put a note on the end that only allows him to do that?

All you really have is a slippery slope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 01:49 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(05-04-2012 01:48 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(05-04-2012 01:20 PM)germanyt Wrote:  It allows American citizens who are constitutionally given a trial by jury to be detained indefinitely without warrant and without trial. An American citizen accused of terrorism should by arrested, tried, and jailed just as if he had stolen a car or murdered someone. This overreach by the federal government is probably the scariest piece of legislation I know of.
Didn't Obama put a note on the end that only allows him to do that?

All you really have is a slippery slope.
So only Obama having the authority to make the call makes it better?

Are you telling me you're okay with (or in favor of) NDAA?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
Well just read all the posts, I had to exams today so I may not retain all of the posts I have read. Here's my take so far.

Romney vs Obama = I'm voting for Obama hands down, actually when it comes to any republican candidate I'm voting Obama. If an Independent were to run that was more in line with my views then I would consider it. Not that it would matter since our congress is completely incapable of getting anything worthwhile accomplished.

Romney isn't all there. I would have to go for Obama in this. I don't give a shit who the vice is, it won't matter in the long run. Romney reminds me of Bush all over again.

The healthcare law/bill or whatever it is, as it currently stands is quite unconstitutional. Based strictly on the fact that I haven't gone to the doctor in nearly 2 years and I have no need for it right now. I hate the fact that I have to pay for car insurance because somebody else can't drive. So I can't stand the idea that I may have to pay for health insurance, forced that is. If, in fact, it says that. We do need a healthcare law that would be more in line with universal. As it stands right now, my step-dad is paying for expensive insurance coverage and has to dig deep in a hole just to get service. If he has a surgery on his knees like he needs then he's out of work for a while and his medical bills are piled on.
The current state we are in is basically "fucked." Most people in the US still don't have medical coverage and yes they could go to charity hospitals and/or the emergency room but you get billed for it and if you don't pay your credit is shot. Even if you can't pay they hassle you to death, threaten to freeze your account and so on.

As for the economics, it's all screwed up and I don't fully understand the whole arena nor would I ever suggest I did. Isolationist ideas are not quite the way to go, as a matter of fact I think our economy would suffer for this plan. Ron Paul is all for pushing toward an isolationist way of life, at least for the most part. This guy don't even accept the facts of evolution and was a doctor, that alone disqualifies him as anyone I should take serious. I have an issue with doctors who can't accept evolution as you can tell.

I'm more in line with Liberal views by the way.

Germany, why are you posting my favorite comedy channel as real news. C'mon man even if you like the Fox site, really? Tongue

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: