Someone who agrees with Randy - "Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right" Rand Paul quote
Originally Posted by fixacr
What does the constitution say about this? I think our founding fathers would be quite surprised that only the parts that these new conservatives agree with are really important. Never thought a Senator would need a civics lesson.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Well I have been calling him a lying, socialist, liberal , racist, dirtbag ..........
He just keeps on proving my point.
Who Judges The Judges?
Virtually everything the Supreme Court does involves an interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution. Their sole purpose is to apply the true meaning of the Constitution to concrete factual situations and to legislation enacted by the States or the Congress. The most authoritative sources for the genuine meaning of the Constitution are the people who wrote, debated, and ratified it; and among them, James Madison was the chief architect. Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay explained in detail the true meaning of the Constitution in a series of articles collectively called The Federalist Papers.
In the early years of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Marshall explained, "The opinion of The Federalist has always been considered as of great authority." Madison reiterated this point: "And on the distinctive principles of the Government…the best guides are to be found in: … the book known by the title of The Federalist, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all and rarely declined or denied by any, as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed and those who accepted the Constitution of the United States on questions as to its genuine meaning…".
Yet often the Supreme Court rules in a manner that is directly contrary to the intent of the Founders.
In 1936, in ruling on the "general welfare" clause, the Court said, "The power of Congress to authorize appropriations of public money for public purposes is not limited by the grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."
Madison told us otherwise: "With respect to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Thomas Jefferson concurred with Madison: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The Court simply ignored the express meaning of the Constitution.
There are very few Constitutional scholars who would agree that the Supreme Court can be overruled by the Congress. Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the right to decide only those cases involving its original jurisdiction ("affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party"). In all other types of cases "…the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." So there is no doubt that the Congress can remove or restrict that appellate jurisdiction, and prevent the Court from deciding anything else beyond its original jurisdiction.
This is where we enter the realm of political power. Congress certainly has the power to control the Court by removing its jurisdiction to decide most issues, if it has the political courage to do so. But if, as the Court and legal scholars would have us believe, the Legislative branch has no control over the Supreme Court beyond confirming or rejecting judges, and the Executive branch has no control over the Court beyond nominating judges, then we must conclude that the Constitution established two branches of government that can check and balance each other, and a third branch — the judiciary — that can dictate to the other two, dictate to the People, dictate to the States, and yet which itself is subject to no control whatsoever.
Can it seriously be suggested that the Founders intended to create a group of potentates — federal judges — with lifetime tenure and totally beyond all control; that the Founders intended to create a judicial panel of authoritarian monarchs capable of exercising absolute and unlimited power; in effect, to create a class of kings whose decisions cannot ever be reversed? Such a startling idea runs exactly contrary to the entire basis upon which our new nation was founded. Yet that is precisely what those who now run our federal government expect us to believe and accept.
Even more fundamentally, the People did not surrender their capacity to think, to read the opinions of the Court, and, if appropriate, to conclude that the Court is wrong when their decisions contradict the expressed meaning of the Founders. And to correct that wrong through our elected representatives. Any other result would mean that the Constitution intended to establish an unelected, unaccountable, and uncontrollable tyranny over the nation. Did a free People intentionally grant to the federal judiciary the power to enslave them? We today apparently believe so, because we today believe that the dictates from the Supreme Court cannot ever be challenged.
"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing [the Constitution], if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed...". – John Marshall, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court (1803).
"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in the usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve." – James Madison ("The Virginia Report" to the Virginia House of Delegates on the Virginia Resolutions, 1799).
As Madison feared, our Constitution has been "subverted". By the federal judiciary. They have assumed the role of kings, and the People, the only true source of federal power under our Constitution, obediently bow down before them. Madison would be appalled. But why should we care what the Constitution actually says, or what the Founders intended?
We find self-governance too hard, and we happily surrender our freedom so that the government may take care of us. We are becoming the only people in history to voluntarily throw away our liberty and embrace servitude.
CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.
Change your vacuum pump oil now.
Test. Testing, 1,2,3.
Look at it this way: we have all lived to see an historical event that will be remembered for as long as man kind walks the face of the earth, the single largest tax increase in the history of the world. Another first for the good ole U.S.A., kinda brings you back to when Neil walked on the moon don't it? What a grand accomplishment, thanks Hussein.
Politicians need to changed like diapers, and for the same reason.
(read it somewhere)
"With regards to the mandate, the individual responsibility program which I proposed, I was very pleased to see that the compromise from the two houses includes the personal responsibility principle. That is essential for bringing health care costs down for everyone and getting everybody the health insurance they deserve and need." Mitt Romney 2006
Just for the record - if a politician's lips are moving they are lying.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Did that work Net ? Ive heard Mass heslth care is a disaster.
The Circus is in town, the Clowns have spoken.
“Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards". -Vernon Law-
"Never let success go to your head, and never let failure go to your heart". - Unknown
"To face tragedy is the greatest challenge; to overcome tragedy is the greatest success" -Ranal Currie-
Post Alito's opinion.
Originally Posted by hscudd
Fox News just announced that the Romney Campaign has collected over $1,000,000 since the SCOTUS decision this morning!
I like Romney and I am also in favor of the mandate that he was in favor of in Mass., from what I know of it. I think we need to make most people pay at least something. Its a fact that pretty much everyone at some point will need expensive medical care. If we give them the right to choose not to have health care and they get very sick or even just go to the emergency room then the rest of us end up paying for it when they dont pay their own bill. I"m really surprised that so many of you "conservatives" are willing to pay for the other guy. We all know damn well that whether the person "elects" to buy health care or not, if he gets really sick he will be using our health care system, whether he has money to pay the bill or not. And then as I've said the rest of us through higher costs will foot the bill. Now, if there was a system in place where if you didn't have health care or verifiable assets, then a hospital could turn you away then maybe we could debate it.
I have to agree with Gib's Son. We are about to have five straight month's of how wonderful a thing this program is. This is the proverbial chicken in every pot. Obama hasn't flipped the switch on his machine yet, he's still flying around on our dime. He now owns every urban center, every union, all the public sector, all the education sector, a majority of women, virtually all minorities, and most of our young adults. And now the supreme court.
I have a hard time grasping how much this country has changed in just my generation. And there's no turning back the clock.
Very depressing day.
Sorry but govt shouldn't force commerce because thats what this is. The mandate was the way to finance this horrible bill.
A victory for Obama is a middle class tax increase. Now Roberts is a liberal and Obama has a liberal court.
You fail to buy health coverage then they tax you. Then you have less money and no insurance.
There is so much wrong with this bill other than the mandate. Its a manipulation by Obama to turn us towards single payer. It was his intention all along.
With the economy going down hill the medicaid numbers are going to balloon out of control.
With less payong income taxs whos going to pay for that ?
Originally Posted by forged alloy
I disagree. Obamacare is the last thing any Dem wants to talk about. Now they HAVE to talk about it.
The decison doesn't make it a good law. Its still a disaster and the American people know it.
I think this ensures his defeat. Even Obama knows this is a tereible law.