A Question for Rightwingers

[BDBoop]

This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer. Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?

Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.

No, Dear. It's everyone who has read your posts. We're still waiting for you to post the Clarence Thomas decision that shows he's an idiot.

You think the federal government has unlimited powers and abilities to spend, it's an infantile mind set

Over 72 hours later, and you're still butt hurt.

Boring, Frank. Beyond boring.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer. Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?

Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.

No, Dear. It's everyone who has read your posts. We're still waiting for you to post the Clarence Thomas decision that shows he's an idiot.

You think the federal government has unlimited powers and abilities to spend, it's an infantile mind set

She has no ability to argue. She merely cheers posts she agrees with and insults those she doesn't. Better left on ignore. Even Truthnatters has more going for her than this waste.

 

[BDBoop]

Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.

No, Dear. It's everyone who has read your posts. We're still waiting for you to post the Clarence Thomas decision that shows he's an idiot.

You think the federal government has unlimited powers and abilities to spend, it's an infantile mind set

She has no ability to argue. She merely cheers posts she agrees with and insults those she doesn't. Better left on ignore. Even Truthnatters has more going for her than this waste.

Ignore?! Now why didn't I think of that?

Oh, right; because I'm not a pussy.

 

[The T]

I've got a question for right-wingers...


Why are you so fucked?

Hush, tenderloin. Some grownups and some liberals are talking.

After what you did to this country, I'm being kind.

So DAVE is responsible? Really?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is this scumbag a leftwinger?

John G. Roberts Jr

He's supposed to be apolitical but in this case he voted politically and with the left. He imposed the greatest tax hike in the history of AMerica.

Yes, indeed.

There is no excuse for what he did.

There was legal precedent that he could have used:


"A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another"


United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

.

In order for the limitations regarding Congress’ authority to tax and spend as expressed in Butler and other cases to come into play, one of the three general conditions must first apply:

The spending power [of Congress] is of course not unlimited…but is instead subject to several general restrictions articulated in our cases. The first of these limitations is derived from the language of the Constitution itself: the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of "the general welfare…" In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress. Second, we have required that if Congress desires to condition the States' receipt of federal funds, it "must do so unambiguously . . ., enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation…" Third, our cases have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.”

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

In the Healthcare Cases, the majority acknowledges Butler and determined that indeed the spending power claimed by Congress was in ‘pursuit of "the general welfare…"’

Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa-tions. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchas-ing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

We have already explained that the shared responsibil-ity payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it.

Butler is consequently not on point.

 

[jillian]

I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?

why would that make the difference?

are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?

This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer. Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?

Why? Because I already knew it was constitutional if at least one rightwingnut judge wasn't a hack.

My point, since you weren't smart enough to grasp it, was that you whining pissants don't care about being forced to pay for health insurance. It's all about your obama derangement syndrome.

Thank you for reinforcing the fact that you don't have two brain cells to rub together

 

[hjmick]

I've got a question for right-wingers...


Why are you so fucked?

Hush, tenderloin. Some grownups and some liberals are talking.

After what you did to this country, I'm being kind.

Dave you BASTARD! You singlehandedly daved the country!

 

[AmericanFirst]

i appreciate your consistency.

but auto insurance is ok?

I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?

why would that make the difference?

are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?

The idea of a national pool of money to take care of everybody whether they can afford it or not is socialist economics and wrong in this country. Obamacare is unconstitutional, doesn't matter what a bunch of lawers in black robes say. Lawyers have ruined this country anyway.

 

[BDBoop]

/passes out fresh hankies

 

[Contumacious]

ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?
.

HUH?

Yo jilly, thou are confusing the Constitution (1787) with the Communist Manifesto.

As always, Heil Hitler.

.

riiiiiiiiiiiight.. because i'm such a pro-hitler type.

Yes, you is. granted, not by design but by stupidity...but a nazi nevertheless.

idiota...

puta.....

but if you have an issue with it, you can always complain to justice roberts.

pity people like you reflect so poorly on real conservatives.

Well Frau jill, I have been stating for years, that the ONLY difference between libruls and conservatives is the fact that the latter hate Negroes.

.

.

 

[Contumacious]

He's supposed to be apolitical but in this case he voted politically and with the left. He imposed the greatest tax hike in the history of AMerica.

Yes, indeed.

There is no excuse for what he did.

There was legal precedent that he could have used:


"A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another"


United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

.

In order for the limitations regarding Congress’ authority to tax and spend as expressed in Butler and other cases to come into play, one of the three general conditions must first apply:

The spending power [of Congress] is of course not unlimited…but is instead subject to several general restrictions articulated in our cases. The first of these limitations is derived from the language of the Constitution itself: the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of "the general welfare…" In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress. Second, we have required that if Congress desires to condition the States' receipt of federal funds, it "must do so unambiguously . . ., enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation…" Third, our cases have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.”

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

In the Healthcare Cases, the majority acknowledges Butler and determined that indeed the spending power claimed by Congress was in ‘pursuit of "the general welfare…"’

Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa-tions. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchas-ing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

We have already explained that the shared responsibil-ity payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it.

Butler is consequently not on point.

No, YOU are not on point:



4. From the conclusion that the exaction is not a true tax it does not necessarily follow that the statute is void and the exaction uncollectible if the regulation, of which the exaction is a part, is within any of the powers granted to Congress. P. 297 U. S. 61.


Identify by article section and clause the proviso which states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE A PURELY INTERNAL MATTER AND FORCE THE CITIZENS TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE

May I remind you that the states retained their sovereignty and only conferred to the federal government powers dealing with purely external matter such a foreign plicy and defense.

.

 

[BDBoop]

HUH?

Yo jilly, thou are confusing the Constitution (1787) with the Communist Manifesto.

As always, Heil Hitler.

.

riiiiiiiiiiiight.. because i'm such a pro-hitler type.

Yes, you is. granted, not by design but by stupidity...but a nazi nevertheless.

idiota...

puta.....

but if you have an issue with it, you can always complain to justice roberts.

pity people like you reflect so poorly on real conservatives.

Well Frau jill, I have been stating for years, that the ONLY difference between libruls and conservatives is the fact that the latter hate Negroes.

.

.

The latter? Sure you meant to say that?

 

[Listening]

But this bill was not sent to him as a tax unless the democrats lied about that. It was sent to him as being under the commerce clause. So basically he did just what Kagen would have done. He re wrote the bill and made it a tax before passing it. The judiciary have now moved into the womb of the legislators.

Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling

Ron Paul on today’s Supreme Court decision:

“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

.

ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?

his idiot son said it doesn't matter what the court says as to constitutionality.

dumb and dumber.

They are two elected officials.....

and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.

His son was right......

You are a moron.

 

[jillian]

Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling

Ron Paul on today’s Supreme Court decision:

“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

.

ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?

his idiot son said it doesn't matter what the court says as to constitutionality.

dumb and dumber.

They are two elected officials.....

and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.

His son was right......

You are a moron.

So because he's an elected official, you think the president is a genius?

Or is it only rightwingnuts who should be held I in Hugh esteem.

He and his son -- dumb and dumber ... And then there's you -- even dumber. *shrug*

 

[Dr Grump]

..

and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.

.

You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....

 

[jillian]

I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?

why would that make the difference?

are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?

The idea of a national pool of money to take care of everybody whether they can afford it or not is socialist economics and wrong in this country. Obamacare is unconstitutional, doesn't matter what a bunch of lawers in black robes say. Lawyers have ruined this country anyway.

There is nothing -- zip, zilch, nada -- in the constitution which requires any particular type of economic system in this country. And as was decided during the 1940's, the federal government using the general welfare clause and commerce clause for the public good is a lawful exercise of constitutional power.

And if you can't understand that the high court IS the final arbiter of the constitution, then you really have no idea what type if country you live in.

Its sad

 

[jillian]

..

and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.

.

You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....

Yeah, but he's a butthurt nutter who's cranky because he found out that at least one rightwing justice gave a damn about his legacy

 

[Listening]

..

and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.

.

You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....

The day I hit 40,000 is the day, I know I will be like Schillian.....don't have a life.

Of course, I'd say that each of my posts has about 100 times the content hers do. She is good for two or three short sentences....

Maybe I should have said 42,000 meaningless posts to a meaningless message board.

 

[Listening]

..

and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.

.

You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....

Yeah, but he's a butthurt nutter who's cranky because he found out that at least I e rightwingnuts justice gave a damn about his legacy

That is funny.

The SCOTUS rules on legacy....

No wonder this country is in trouble.

 

[Listening]

ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?

his idiot son said it doesn't matter what the court says as to constitutionality.

dumb and dumber.

They are two elected officials.....

and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.

His son was right......

You are a moron.

So because he's an elected official, you think the president is a genius?

Or is it only rightwingnuts who should be held I in Hugh esteem.

He and his son -- dumb and dumber ... And then there's you -- even dumber. *shrug*

They are elected officials...they walk....we talk.

I am afraid the rest means nothing.

I call Obama names....you can call them names...it plays out differently.

But, in this case....Rand was right.

If he is dumb...you are braindead.