🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Senate Dem Asks South Carolina's Top Attorney to 'Call Off the Dogs'

The biggest challenge is the individual mandate. No where does the Constitution allow the gov't to impose a requirement simply for living here.
So we see the Dums think of the citizens as basically criminals who haven't been caught yet. They remain the party of Fuck You.

From a technical standpoint, the bill doesn't require anyone to buy insurance. It simply imposes a penalty for failing to do so.

and you wonder why people call you a stupid idiot......sheeeesh.

Calling someone a "stupid idiot" is redundant. So it's an honor in my book that those trying to call me dumb reveal their own ignorance in the process and while I understand legal nuance isn't sexy, but if you're running around griping about the constitutionality of a bill, it's helpful to understand what the bill does.
 
The biggest challenge is the individual mandate. No where does the Constitution allow the gov't to impose a requirement simply for living here.
So we see the Dums think of the citizens as basically criminals who haven't been caught yet. They remain the party of Fuck You.

From a technical standpoint, the bill doesn't require anyone to buy insurance. It simply imposes a penalty for failing to do so.

That's called a distinction without a difference. This will be the first time that the gov't has imposed a penalty simply for existing.
 
Yeah. That the numbers are cooked.

When the facts are against you, dismiss the facts.

What facts? That's the only poll done for that race and it's from a firm that has a history of cooking their numbers to favor Republicans. At this point, Rasmussen is only slightly more credible than Strategic Vision.

Actually Rasmussen has a track record that far exceeds any other polling source for accuracy. But it is always easier to shoot the messenger.
 
Seriously, Republicans want to do whatever they can to prevent people from getting healthcare. They will challenge the Constitutionality and they will lose.....just like they always do

Try and word it properly.. moron

It is not republicans trying to prevent people from health care... trying to prevent health care being provided at the expense of others... try government bureaucracy being kept out of health care more than it's grubby little fingers are already in it

Hell.. I want everyone to have the opportunity to buy health care for themselves.. I want regulations changed so that the average Joe and Jane can look into group policies being offered by more places other than just the employer... but I certainly am not for entitlement-care
 
Seriously, Republicans want to do whatever they can to prevent people from getting healthcare. They will challenge the Constitutionality and they will lose.....just like they always do

Try and word it properly.. moron

It is not republicans trying to prevent people from health care... trying to prevent health care being provided at the expense of others... try government bureaucracy being kept out of health care more than it's grubby little fingers are already in it

Hell.. I want everyone to have the opportunity to buy health care for themselves.. I want regulations changed so that the average Joe and Jane can look into group policies being offered by more places other than just the employer... but I certainly am not for entitlement-care

Aha! See! Rightwinger was right. You just said "I certainly am not for care." You've proven his point.
 
If Constitutionality is not a problem, as the liberal hoards claim, then why is a challenge a big deal? Surely, instead of 'calling off the dogs', they should be saying 'bring it on'.
 
Who gives a shit!

Republicans are dogs and they will do what dogs do. They will challeng in court and Lose

No big deal

Where exactly in the Constitution do you find Health Care? Rights are endowed by the "Creator" or, if you prefer they are, "Natural Rights" which can not be conferred by Congress, only protected or taken.
You liberals seem to think you have a right to my labors (wealth) just because a corrupt bunch of knaves have lied to the gullible American public and now hold office.
The education system shines through clearly in your colossal ignorance of the Constitution which has given you the freedom and prosperity to be so damn stupid without being enslaved (yet) or starving to death.

Where is it excluded specifically? The founding fathers never envisioned that the Constitution would be an absolute. thats why we have courts. This should have been taught to you in school

You are free to challenge anything you believe to be Unconstitutional

Good luck

Try understanding the enumerated powers... you should have learned reading comprehension in school..
 
OK. Challenge the Constitutionality. And once it is found Constitutional, we will move on the a real single payer universal system, and remove the thieving health care insurance industry.

You forget.....now they call it "Affordable Health Care" not universal health care.

Universal Health Care was a pipe-dream they quickly dropped once the costs became painfully apparent.
 
I agree with willowtree


Send the Big bad woof woofs out to dig up some bones.


AHROOOOO!!!! Nelson simple minded comments are like a full moon!! AHROOOOOOOO!!!!
 
I wonder how Constitutional it is to exempt one State from paying higher Medicaid costs in their State and then expect the rest of the county to pony up to cover those costs in that State????
 
The Week Magazine - News reviews and opinion, arts, entertainment & political cartoons

Yet this seemingly free vote may have costly consequences.

DeMint's and Ensign's argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.

The theory exerted a lively influence upon the politics of the 1790s, when it was enthusiastically promoted by the party led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The heart went out of the theory in 1805, when then President Jefferson purchased Louisiana from the French in 1805. The Constitution had said nothing about THAT either.

The Civil War finished off the theory for all practical political purposes. Since 1865, the doctrine of enumerated power has subsisted at the remote margins of American politics. Are Republicans proposing now to resurrect the constitutional theories of Roger Taney?
 
But will the voters recognize that what looks like an attempt to reverse 200 years of constitutional history is really just an exercise in blowing off steam? That conservatives — after denouncing judicial activism for 35 years — are not now ourselves looking to the courts to fight our battles for us?
 
The biggest challenge is the individual mandate. No where does the Constitution allow the gov't to impose a requirement simply for living here.
So we see the Dums think of the citizens as basically criminals who haven't been caught yet. They remain the party of Fuck You.

From a technical standpoint, the bill doesn't require anyone to buy insurance. It simply imposes a penalty for failing to do so.

That's called a distinction without a difference. This will be the first time that the gov't has imposed a penalty simply for existing.

It's quite a world of difference in legal terms.
 
When the facts are against you, dismiss the facts.

What facts? That's the only poll done for that race and it's from a firm that has a history of cooking their numbers to favor Republicans. At this point, Rasmussen is only slightly more credible than Strategic Vision.

Actually Rasmussen has a track record that far exceeds any other polling source for accuracy. But it is always easier to shoot the messenger.

You guys like to claim that, but never have any evidence to support the claim. That's telling.
 
Seriously, Republicans want to do whatever they can to prevent people from getting healthcare. They will challenge the Constitutionality and they will lose.....just like they always do

So, this means you don't want to call off the dogs? Good for ye!

Who gives a shit!

Republicans are dogs and they will do what dogs do. They will challeng in court and Lose

No big deal

Why are you so certain a Constitutionally based challenge to the Act (if it passes ultiamtely along the lines of the Senate version) would fail?

Is it because you have faith in liberal Justices ignoring the basic precepts of the Constitution to make their "rulings," perhaps?

And won't you look stupid(er) if the SCOTUS finds its way clear to actually upholding the Constitution and terminating that health careless bill? :clap2:
 
I wonder how Constitutional it is to exempt one State from paying higher Medicaid costs in their State and then expect the rest of the county to pony up to cover those costs in that State????

It's constitutional. Or do you really think federal spending is spread equally across all states?
 
I wonder how Constitutional it is to exempt one State from paying higher Medicaid costs in their State and then expect the rest of the county to pony up to cover those costs in that State????

It's constitutional. Or do you really think federal spending is spread equally across all states?

Her question was not whether inequality of the distribution of proceeds from legislation among the states might survive a Constitutional challenge.

Her question was instead, I surmise, directed at the question of Equal Protection. If ONE state can be entirely EXEMPTED, then on what basis must any other state be "mandated" to pay?

Are the citizens in New York deserving of the denial of the largess totally gifted to some other state? If so, on what possible good faith basis can they justify that disparate treatment?
 
What facts? That's the only poll done for that race and it's from a firm that has a history of cooking their numbers to favor Republicans. At this point, Rasmussen is only slightly more credible than Strategic Vision.

Actually Rasmussen has a track record that far exceeds any other polling source for accuracy. But it is always easier to shoot the messenger.

You guys like to claim that, but never have any evidence to support the claim. That's telling.

And you like to dispute the claim but never offer any reason, much less evidence.
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf
 

Forum List

Back
Top