Legal Scholar: Changes Made by Obama to the ACA are Unconstitutional

[francoHFW]

Yup, Pubs allow Obama illegalities and want him to delay the law for a year, and only Rush/Beckbots know the truth lol...

 

[Yurt]

You are lying. I said no such thing.

Reread what I wrote and we can try again: to this point, you are fail.

This is like the birfer nonsense of "send us more money so we can keep digging to get the truth."

yes you did liar. you flat out said the OP is wrong and dismissed.

thus, you hold the opposite view of the OP.

poor jake, gets caught being a liberal and tries his best to lie his way out.

That is not what I said, that is what you said.

you said the OP was "dismissed"

that means wrong...in normal human non troll response...so explain yourself how dismissed means...................what

i predict you will never explain it

 

[SwimExpert]

A distinction without a difference.

What?

No evidence was offered beyond the opinion of another. Much like Fox News when the talking head says, "Some people are saying...". In those cases the 'authority' is usually another Fox talking head. But such claims remain logical fallacies.

In terms of appeal to authority, it's only fallacy if the authority's expertise is in a field other than that which is being discussed, or when the opinion is presented as deductive. However, if presented for inductive purposes and when the authority's expertise is in the field being discussed, there is no fallacy. There is no need to present additional alternative opinions in order to avoid the argument being fallacious.

If you want to present an opposing opinion from some other expert in the field, your doing so would be equally logically correct.

 

[bripat9643]

A distinction without a difference.

What?

No evidence was offered beyond the opinion of another. Much like Fox News when the talking head says, "Some people are saying...". In those cases the 'authority' is usually another Fox talking head. But such claims remain logical fallacies.

In terms of appeal to authority, it's only fallacy if the authority's expertise is in a field other than that which is being discussed, or when the opinion is presented as deductive. However, if presented for inductive purposes and when the authority's expertise is in the field being discussed, there is no fallacy. There is no need to present additional alternative opinions in order to avoid the argument being fallacious.

If you want to present an opposing opinion from some other expert in the field, your doing so would be equally logically correct.

That is just plain incorrect. Whether inductive or deductive, if some authority's opinion is used to claim a position is correct, then it's a fallacy. It doesn't matter whether his credentials are "valid" or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Has anyone given documented objective proof of "Changes Made by Obama to the ACA are Unconstitutional"?

Nup, didn't think so.

 

[SwimExpert]

That is just plain incorrect. Whether inductive or deductive, if some authority's opinion is used to claim a position is correct, then it's a fallacy. It doesn't matter whether his credentials are "valid" or not.

Afraid you've got it wrong. Inductive logic does not attempt to establish definitive conclusions, only that a conclusion is probable. Thus, referencing the opinion of an authority on the subject matter is a legitimate means of argumentation. The expert's opinion is relevant and compelling, exactly because he is an expert on the subject. It is a logically correct way to reason. An error in reasoning only occurs when we use an authority whose expertise lies outside of the field in question. Thus, we tend to heed the advice of our family doctor who suggests that we see a specialist to treat an odd skin ailment. We would pay little heed to our mechanic who insists that we should treat our ailment with an OTC lotion.

 

[Faun]

Selective crony exemption from tax requirements, delay/postponement of critical dates and in/validation of existing policy is not w/in executive purview or administrative execution of the law.

Those acts materially and substantively change the foundation and "making" of the law.

It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.

Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law. This is yet another case of rightwingnuts pissing in the wind because, as usual, they are woefully misinformed by the rightwing blogosphere. In reality, companies which qualified for the exemption were give a one year extension from having to change their employees' medical coverage to a qualified plan under ObamaCare. And that extension was before ObamaCare goes into full effect next year, meaning the law was not changed. When the law goes into full effect, all companies with 50 or more employees will be bound by the law.

Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law

Really?
When were ALL plans to be "compliant"?

What constitutes a "small" group...wand when were they supposed to be in "compliance"?

Already explained.

 

[Faun]

Selective crony exemption from tax requirements, delay/postponement of critical dates and in/validation of existing policy is not w/in executive purview or administrative execution of the law.

Those acts materially and substantively change the foundation and "making" of the law.

It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.

Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law. This is yet another case of rightwingnuts pissing in the wind because, as usual, they are woefully misinformed by the rightwing blogosphere. In reality, companies which qualified for the exemption were give a one year extension from having to change their employees' medical coverage to a qualified plan under ObamaCare. And that extension was before ObamaCare goes into full effect next year, meaning the law was not changed. When the law goes into full effect, all companies with 50 or more employees will be bound by the law.

It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees

Really?

Is it of your learned opinion that these groups ONLY offered "mini meds"?

Local 1245 Health Fund
Local 237 Teamsters Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. Health and Welfare Trust Fund
Local 295 Welfare Fund
Local 381 Group Insurance Fund
Local 805 Welfare Fund

List of Obamacare Exempt Companies

Stupid fuck, you are dismissed.

You just dismissed yourself with that bit of idiocy as I never said the companies which qualified for the extension provided "only" mini-med plans to their employees.

Next strawman .....

 

[bripat9643]

That is just plain incorrect. Whether inductive or deductive, if some authority's opinion is used to claim a position is correct, then it's a fallacy. It doesn't matter whether his credentials are "valid" or not.

Afraid you've got it wrong. Inductive logic does not attempt to establish definitive conclusions, only that a conclusion is probable.

You don't know what you're talking about. Logic establishes where a syllogism (an argument) is correct. That's a necessary condition for reaching conclusions, but not a sufficient condition.

Thus, referencing the opinion of an authority on the subject matter is a legitimate means of argumentation. The expert's opinion is relevant and compelling, exactly because he is an expert on the subject. It is a logically correct way to reason.

Wrong. That may be effective propaganda, but it has nothing to do with logic.

An error in reasoning only occurs when we use an authority whose expertise lies outside of the field in question.

Nope. You can never say proposition 'A' is true because expert 'B' says it's true. That's not a valid argument because experts are often wrong. They aren't infallible.

[Thus, we tend to heed the advice of our family doctor who suggests that we see a specialist to treat an odd skin ailment. We would pay little heed to our mechanic who insists that we should treat our ailment with an OTC lotion.

Whether it's smart to consult experts on matters we are ignorant about is one matter. Whether the expert's opinion on any given claim is proof that it is true or false is another matter. Experts are not infallible. Their opinion, therefore, proves nothing.

And for your information, inductive logic is where you conclude that the sun will come up tomorrow because it has come up every morning in recorded history. Concluding that proposition 'A' is true because some "expert" says it's true is not an example of inductive reasoning. It's an example of a logical fallacy.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article states, "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

On the contrary, that is the fallacy in a nutshell. It is fallacious to believe the assertion must be true when your only evidence is that a certain authority made it. Without corroboration through empirical evidence, you can only conditionally accept the assertion.

The quality of the authority may make it more likely that the assertion is true, but, without actual evidence (and a competent authority will provide access to the evidence), it is not logical to argue that it is true, only that it is likely to be true. Further, it is not possible to disprove a statement that the assertion is false (note: without evidence it is not possible to prove that the assertion is false, but that is not the same thing as stating that the assertion is false and having the statement disproved).

The statement quoted is therefore simply incorrect and should be omitted from the article.

Why this takes a page to explain and why practically it is a fallacy to ARGUE from authority[edit]

Most people are not good at this stuff because it doesn't help them get attention from others. Some people are conditioned to develop an objective understanding of their surroundings to be better prepared. The latter group has a natural understanding of fallacies, why they are wrong, when they are used etc. For everyone else "Appeal to authority" is just a normal argument.

It is quite difficult to understand that claiming that "everyone" agrees or a person with a high social status agrees with an argument is a fallacy when to you social status is the only real truth. Expertise is also really an issue of social prowess, where a recognized expert may be quite inferior in competency to an unrecognized expert (who is perhaps even the person arguing against the expert).

For those interested in actual objective truth, there is no way to justify argument from authority in any way, shape or form. If you know that an expert agrees, you must know why he agrees. If you know why, present the argument directly, else it is assumed you are hiding ignorance and an ulterior motive. If you do not know why the expert agrees, then perhaps you are mistaken that he actually would agree in the specific situation being addressed, or perhaps the expert would be swayed by the counter arguments. Furthermore perhaps you are mistaken that the person is in fact an expert on the matter.

The expertise of the arguers and the "authority" would be determined by the outcome of the argument. At best authoritative status means the person is likely to have something influential to say on the subject. Trying to preclude someone from making an argument based on the belief that an authoritative source will disagree and win the argument is driven by the emotional need not to be deceived that the "authority" really was just that. This behavior is destructive to the spread of ideas and truth and should be recognized for the fallacy that it is no matter how it is used.

If the best you can do is to argue that someone else agrees with your belief, you shouldn't be arguing at all.

 

[Clementine]

This latest move by Obama is so sad and pathetic, as well as being transparently political and unconstitutional. His latest move to try to fix one of his many previous lies sinks him to a new low. Here is a key quote from a legal scholar. Even Howard Dean is questioning the legality of the move. Poor, poor Obummer.


“The president certainly has some regulatory and prosecutorial discretion in how he executes the law, but he has no legislative power,” Corbin said. “If his actions in this case (waiver, extensions, etc.) amount to him becoming a lawmaker rather than a law executor, they are unconstitutional.”

Though the Constitution is clear that “all legislative powers” belong to Congress, Corbin said it sometimes comes down to how those in power choose to “interpret” the law.

“I’m not sure he will be able to get away with it in this case because I think people are going to understand that if you are going to remove the law of any legal standing by having the enforcement mechanisms or the penalties stripped out, then what is the law?”
the professor added.


Here is the link to the full article. Obama to Alter Parameters of Obamacare Yet Again ? Does He Have the Authority to Unilaterally Change Laws Passed by Congress? | TheBlaze.com

He sounds exactly like a tyrant when he tells us that it's the law, we need to follow it or face fines and that he will not allow it to be repealed. Then he turns around and tells the big companies that they may ignore this law for a year and he tells unions that they will be exempt from the tax. Of course, congress doesn't have to follow this law. Now he's thinking about extending the law yet another year for big companies because he doesn't want pissed off people going to the polls in 2014.

He makes decisions based on what is best for him and the Dems, not what is best for Americans. Tyrant!!!!

He signs a law, then starts deciding who must follow it and who can ignore it. The constitution is so easy to ignore for him.

 

[SwimExpert]

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now this is funny. In citing and quoting this link you are appealing to authority. In an effort to argue that appealing to authority is a fallacy.

Just so you know, what you have linked is Wikipedia's version of a messageboard. It's people on the internet having a conversation. Nothing more.

This was so funny I had to address it by itself. More to come in a minute.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Legal Scholar: if you're a racist, changes Made by Obama to the ACA are Unconstitutional

Bringing in the race card says "I have failed in this argument therefore the only thing I have left is to call you a racist".

 

[AmericanFirst]

The former House of rep chief, Newt Gingrich was on CNN stating that the president has the ability to alter the law.

He would be wrong, as is obamaturd and the other libtards.

 

[SwimExpert]

You don't know what you're talking about. Logic establishes where a syllogism (an argument) is correct. That's a necessary condition for reaching conclusions, but not a sufficient condition.

It's kinda funny that you would suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the field of logic. I happen to be extremely well versed in this field of study.

As for some terminology, logic is the study of reasoning. Not all logic is syllogistic in nature. In deductive logic arguments are either valid or invalid. In inductive logic arguments are correct or incorrect (more often called strength vs weakness).

Nope. You can never say proposition 'A' is true because expert 'B' says it's true. That's not a valid argument because experts are often wrong. They aren't infallible.

Whether it's smart to consult experts on matters we are ignorant about is one matter. Whether the expert's opinion on any given claim is proof that it is true or false is another matter. Experts are not infallible. Their opinion, therefore, proves nothing.

You are presenting an example of deductive reasoning. As I said, when an appeal to authority is made in a deductive argument fallacy occurs. Not the case in inductive reasoning.

And for your information, inductive logic is where you conclude that the sun will come up tomorrow because it has come up every morning in recorded history. Concluding that proposition 'A' is true because some "expert" says it's true is not an example of inductive reasoning. It's an example of a logical fallacy.

You seem to be subject to the "general to specific" myth. It's a common (dangerously common) misconception that deduction means to argue from the specific to general, while induction means to argue from the general to the specific. Even though the mechanisms of action tend to follow such patterns, ultimately such a definition is false and the relation superficial.

Deductive logic is reasoning that yields definitive conclusions when its premises are true. That is, if the premises of a deductive argument are true, and the argument form is valid, then the conclusion must be true. It is impossible for the conclusion to be false. An example is the Socrates syllogism.

Spoiler

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

The argument form (AAA-1) is valid, and the premises are true. Thus, the truth of the conclusion must be true and it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Inductive logic does not deal with such definitive conclusions. Instead it is reasoning that seeks to present a conclusion as probable, or as more probable than another conclusion. In deductive reasoning a valid argument is one where a conclusion must be true if the premises are true. However in inductive logic, rational arguments can and often do contain true premises yet false conclusions. Thus, the arguments in inductive logic are said to be correct or incorrect, or somewhat more commonly (though also somewhat inappropriately) nowadays strong or weak.

Inductive logic therefore allows certain things that would be fallacy in deductive logic. Inductive reasoning allows a speaker to offer evidence that increases probability of aun uncertain conclusion even when deductive logic might forbid the same evidence were it used to claim a certain conclusion. Whereas deductive logic rejects correlation as evidence of a conclusion, inductive logic allows properly applied correlation as a contribution to probability. Where the opinion of an expert is insufficient to establish a deductive conclusion, it adds probability to an inductive argument.

 

[Antares]

It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.

Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law. This is yet another case of rightwingnuts pissing in the wind because, as usual, they are woefully misinformed by the rightwing blogosphere. In reality, companies which qualified for the exemption were give a one year extension from having to change their employees' medical coverage to a qualified plan under ObamaCare. And that extension was before ObamaCare goes into full effect next year, meaning the law was not changed. When the law goes into full effect, all companies with 50 or more employees will be bound by the law.

Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law

Really?
When were ALL plans to be "compliant"?

What constitutes a "small" group...wand when were they supposed to be in "compliance"?

Already explained.

Nope, sorry, that is a cop out.

 

[Antares]

It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.

Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law. This is yet another case of rightwingnuts pissing in the wind because, as usual, they are woefully misinformed by the rightwing blogosphere. In reality, companies which qualified for the exemption were give a one year extension from having to change their employees' medical coverage to a qualified plan under ObamaCare. And that extension was before ObamaCare goes into full effect next year, meaning the law was not changed. When the law goes into full effect, all companies with 50 or more employees will be bound by the law.

It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees

Really?

Is it of your learned opinion that these groups ONLY offered "mini meds"?

Local 1245 Health Fund
Local 237 Teamsters Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. Health and Welfare Trust Fund
Local 295 Welfare Fund
Local 381 Group Insurance Fund
Local 805 Welfare Fund

List of Obamacare Exempt Companies

Stupid fuck, you are dismissed.

You just dismissed yourself with that bit of idiocy as I never said the companies which qualified for the extension provided "only" mini-med plans to their employees.

Next strawman .....

It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.


Moron.

 

[Katzndogz]

The former House of rep chief, Newt Gingrich was on CNN stating that the president has the ability to alter the law.

He would be wrong, as is obamaturd and the other libtards.

Gingrich was on CNN. He has a job with CNN. He has to protect his job because CNN is liberal and does not tolerate dissenting opinions.

 

[Faun]

Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law

Really?
When were ALL plans to be "compliant"?

What constitutes a "small" group...wand when were they supposed to be in "compliance"?

Already explained.

Nope, sorry, that is a cop out.

Well there's certainly no point in me re-posting that other post. If you didn't understand it the first time, there's no hope you'll understand it a second time.

 

[Faun]

It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees

Really?

Is it of your learned opinion that these groups ONLY offered "mini meds"?

Local 1245 Health Fund
Local 237 Teamsters Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. Health and Welfare Trust Fund
Local 295 Welfare Fund
Local 381 Group Insurance Fund
Local 805 Welfare Fund

List of Obamacare Exempt Companies

Stupid fuck, you are dismissed.

You just dismissed yourself with that bit of idiocy as I never said the companies which qualified for the extension provided "only" mini-med plans to their employees.

Next strawman .....

It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.


Moron.

You sure do have a lot of nerve projecting that it's others who are the moron. In case you didn't notice in my words you quoted .... The words, "offered only "mini-med" plans to employees," is nowhere to be found. Why? Because I never said that. That was a strawman of your own creation.

 

[Faun]

The former House of rep chief, Newt Gingrich was on CNN stating that the president has the ability to alter the law.

He would be wrong, as is obamaturd and the other libtards.

Gingrich was on CNN. He has a job with CNN. He has to protect his job because CNN is liberal and does not tolerate dissenting opinions.

Well that's a rather rightarded excuse. Gingrich was hired by CNN FOR his dissenting opinions. He represents the rightwing view on Crossfire, a show which pits leftwing views against rightwing views.