MORE: NYT:
Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensalcola, Fla., ruled that the law will remain effect until all appeals are concluded, a process that could take two years. However, Judge Vinson determined that the entire law should fall if appellate courts agree with his opinion that the insurance requirement if invalid.That is, the judge rejected the severability argument.
The judge’s ruling came in the most prominent of the more than 20 legal challenges mounted against some aspect of the sweeping health law...
The plaintiffs include governors and attorneys general from 26 states....
Posts
207 comments:
1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»Somewhere, Pelosi is exclaiming "you can't be serious!".
So...who was the brainchild that forgot to add a severability clause?
That judge better be careful here. In fact, he needs to be removed from the bench because, with this kind of rhetoric, he is formenting violence.
The next time anyone commits a violent crime, it will obviously be his fault.
My understanding is there is a severability clause; that doesn't stop a judge from saying "nope, not severable. You're outta here!" I could be wrong though.
Of course, partial Obamacare is even worse than total Obamacare.
Is this judge gay?
Is this judge gay?
Weaksauce.
Barry really should get with the GOP and pick some stuff that we can all agree on should be kept, pass it and then dump the rest. He won't but he should . . .
Cue "concerned" NYT editorial in 3, 2, 1...
Wow they spent two years on this at the expense of fixing the economy.
Obamacare is now the poster child for wasteful, inefficient govt in 2,000 pages or more.
"Wow they spent two years on this at the expense of fixing the economy."
You really think anything coming out of this White House would fix the economy?
Sheila Jackson Lee just smirked and said that judge's ruling was unconstitutional and he's fired forthwith; "He's messing with the 'O' he'd better watch out!"
Actually, that above might be a paraphrase!
Cheers.
Wow they spent two years on this at the expense of fixing the economy.
By they do you mean Obama et al., the Attorneys General et al., or both?
who was the brainchild that forgot to add a severability clause?
After they passed it, they read it, and found out too late that it wasn't in it. If only they had given the public a few days to look at it and find the errors...
Then again, it might have helped if they read it themselves...
Is this judge gay?
who knows or cares. what he did say is that I don't have enter into a financial health cost marriage against my will.
Did Pelosi ask him to make his decision first before reading it?
So...who was the brainchild that forgot to add a severability clause?
The people who wrote it in the first place. They assumed, incorrectly, that it would be embraced by the whole American population.
Original Mike said...
You really think anything coming out of this White House would fix the economy?
Of course. Just like the vet fixed my dog.
"garaji mahal said..."
We are all garaji mahal now.
Think about it folks.
Imagine for a moment that it is constitutional for the federal govenrment to force you to buy health insurance.
Why can't they force you to buy life insurance? After all, if you die, you can't pay your bills. This hurts society.
Why can't they force you to buy dental insurance? After all, tooth decay can kill.
And since you're going to die, why can't they force you to buy burial insurance? Everyone is going to die, after all, and everyone who dies without burial insurance is getting a free ride on the "system."
And really, if they can force you to buy insurance products, why can't they force you to buy other types of products? Diet Coke instead of the unhealthy regular coke?
The proposition that the govenrment has the power to force you to buy things is ridiculous on its face in an ostensibly free society.
It won't stand - no matter what courts do.
I believe lack of severability was by design. They couldn't pass it without the mandate as a guaranteed funding source and a way to avoid free riders. CBO score would've been worse, and the narrow margin they had to pass it just wouldn't have been there.
Also there were those who thought -- perhaps correctly, but this judge didn't agree -- that lack of severability provided a shield for the mandate: "You can't strike this down without striking down the whole thing, and you wouldn't want to do that."
As they say in baseball, even in the bottom of the ninth, it ain't over till its over. We still need a fat lady on the SCOTUS to sing.
who knows or cares. what he did say is that I don't have enter into a financial health cost marriage against my will.
I just remember a ruling not too long ago that the judge being possibly gay made the ruling unjust. Maybe it was just that one time why it was important.
Mad Man:
I mean Obama and the control freak Dems who could have come up with a few small ball bills [i.e interstate competition or vouchers]that could have helped cover many people.
Instead they went for a grand slam with no one on base. I guess that is what happens with a president who has never had a 9-5 job.
For once (and for now) a common sense ruling that aligns with a simple and straightforward reading of the Constitution. On to the appeals...
Garaji--like the new avatar? You've inspired me!
I've "never been prouder to be a Floridian"
How long before the issue lands in the Supreme Court?
I just remember a ruling not too long ago that the judge being possibly gay made the ruling unjust. Maybe it was just that one time why it was important.
Weakersauce.
@the troll:
I just remember a ruling not too long ago that the judge being possibly gay made the ruling unjust.
No, the argument was that a gay judge has a conflict of interest in ruling on gay marriage; while I mocked that argument whenever it was made, I never LIED about it. But then I'm not a troll, like garage mahal.
Nobody said that the rulings of gay judges are inherently unjust.
Or maybe the multiple rulings against even give the Senate and the President the cover they need to follow through with repeal?
Garaji--like the new avatar? You've inspired me!
LOVE it man! Nice work. Now we just need Original Mike to put up.....# 77 perhaps?
ganajeh was just trying to drop a metaphorical growler in the thread to derail it.
What concerns me is that the gummint argued that Obamacare is justified by the fact that "all Americans are consumers of medical insurance." That is patently untrue for the tens of thousands of expatriate Amerikans who not only don't participate in Amerikan healthcare but also don't get the Medicare benefits they have paid for for over 45 years.
@Comrade X:
He never has anything substantive to say, just drops steaming piles of tu quoque and snark. He is uninterested in trying to persuade anyone of anything, he's just here to fling feces at Team Red on behalf of Team Blue.
If he actual cared about progressives and their causes, he would argue substantively on their behalf without first insulting the people he wished to persuade.
If he actual cared about progressives and their causes, he would argue substantively on their behalf without first insulting the people he wished to persuade.
Every so often, he does. More often, it's just weaksauce (tm). Every once in a long while, he'll try to pass off Bush's environmentally friendly house with Gore's Monster Mansion(s).
Someone help me out here. I get the feeling that when I was a kid, Walter Cronkite would have been able to rig this outcome as some kind of outlier, and all the sheeple would have gone along with it.
This internet thing is really screwing the MSM's pooch.
He never has anything substantive to say, just drops steaming piles of tu quoque and snark.
Oh boo-hoo. Do what I usually do when I see a post from you. Just keep scrolling.
So does SCOTUS rule on this in 2012, or 2013?
If the former, and SCOTUS rules 0-care (or just mandate) unconstitutional, I wonder if that may help Obama win re-election, because it would take the issue off the table.
I haven't read it yet, but a holding the says the law is beyond Congress' enumerated powers is not a holding that the law "violates people's rights." It's a structural argument the plaintiff-States were making, not an individual rights argument.
> So...who was the brainchild that forgot to add a severability clause?
The people who wrote it in the first place. They assumed, incorrectly, that it would be embraced by the whole American population.
Wasn't it Lenin who said that the greatest fool of all is the revolutionary who believes his own propaganda?
If the Obama health care law is not unconstitutional then nothing is.
Ruled against the Medicare mandates being unconstitutionally coercive. A lot of conservatives I read feel that has a shot in the Supreams.
LOVE it man! Nice work. Now we just need Original Mike to put up.....# 77 perhaps?
Or he could stick with "Mike" and put up Coach McCarthy!
AllenS as a veteran of the group should put up #21 or #80, right?
Joy & gratitude!
PackerS
AllenS as a veteran of the group should put up #21 or #80, right?
Or maybe #79. Or #76
Let me guess - the judge is a Republican appointee!
More than just saying that a severability clause was overlooked in the Act, Judge Vinson said the entire thing is necessarily inseverable:
The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional.
[O]n the unique facts of this particular case, the record seems to strongly indicate that Congress would not have passed the Act in its present form if it had not included the individual mandate. This is because the individual mandate was indisputably essential to what Congress was ultimately seeking to accomplish. It was, in fact, the keystone or lynchpin of the entire health reform effort…
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.
Better yet.
OK, I guess this is a big enough occasion to take the time to figure out how to do this.
Maybe we might end up a free country after all.
Marxists should be free to speak and vote, but they have no right to enslave us.
The requirements of the Federal government in various facets of individual life say one should behave in such a manner or be penalized.
In the SOTU Obama touted the Bruce Randolph school in Denver. Look closely at how the school accomplished what they did. Local TV station ran a story on the Principal, in closing the reporter stated that the principal had receiver exemptions from district and union rules. Look what happens when the government gets out of the lives of individuals, they achieve.
Big government struggles to control lives but is an abject failure in being a good nanny.
THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS OUT OF ORDER!
Oops, kind of got ahead of myself there...
WV: storta - shorter aorta - courtesy of Obamacare.
Looks good, OM!
OK, I guess this is a big enough occasion to take the time to figure out how to do this.
Looking good. Looking real good.
The three amigos?
"How long before the issue lands in the Supreme Court?"
The sooner the better, I believe, while the experience of Egypt is still in the forefront of everyone's minds.
The lesson is simple: You can push a people too far. And Democrats (and remember that ONLY Democrats voted for this unconstitutional law) are pushing people too far.
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct that mistake or I fear the Potomac will run as the Nile.
The three amigos?
I think Rapistberger is going to be getting a real good look at the three of us come Sunday. Up close and personal like.
" ... all Americans are consumers of medical insurance."
Horseshit.
Anabaptists are forbidden. As are all Muslims. Many other religions frown on gambling.
Millions and millions of people are not participants in the insurance ponzi scheme - some by choice, some by poverty, some by religious mandate. Some just because Obama wants it (like me).
And that's why it is crumbling and the govenrment lawyers must fucking lie to the court system in trying to prop up their corrupt scheme.
I guess judges don't like lawyers lying straight to their faces.
garaji is pulling legs. Standard is the appearance of impriory.
Appointed by Reagan, so there'll be some hurdles. Need a Bush-appointed judge to back him up.
Jon said...
So does SCOTUS rule on this in 2012, or 2013?
If the former, and SCOTUS rules 0-care (or just mandate) unconstitutional, I wonder if that may help Obama win re-election, because it would take the issue off the table.
The session starts first Monday in October, so, theoretically, it could be this year.
The Professor is the true font of knowledge here.
Florida -- Hey Moby, you sound like Frances Piven, urging violent revolution if you don't get your way. You know quite a few people have died and been injured in Egypt?
You know that, right?
"You know quite a few people have died and been injured in Egypt? You know that, right?"
Yes. Patriots all ... securing their freedoms. Proud of 'em. You should be too.
I intend to emulate 'em if necessary to secure mine.
Ain't workin' on Barack Obama's plantation picking his insurance-cotton.
An irony in all of this is the uncertainty it creates. Insurance companies don't like uncertainty. they usually react but increasing rates to increase reserves.
And of course, the lack of a mandate, now that pre-existing is gone; by definition will increase rates.
As long as we pursue an insurance model for health care in US we have the conflicting issues of: coercion/healthy paying for the sick vs uninsured due to cost/heavy financial burdens due to illness.
We want it to be "fair" but I see "unfairness" in both positions
Florida is a Moby, people. He wants to make the right look bad.
Do you consider me a Moby, Seven?
Typically when part of a law is found unconstitutional, only those provisions that cannot be decoupled from the offending portion are struck down. The judge(s) will rule on which portions violate the constitution and which will remain intact. So a severability clause is unnecessary. The Roberts court recently ruled parts of Sarbanes-Oxley unconstitutional but only struck down the offending provisions--not the whole law.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, all the much-lauded goodies from the ACA are impossible to achieve without healthy people paying into the system. Unless they want to turn the "penalty" into a tax, and piss off the 5 people who truly believed their taxes weren't being raised, the ACA simply cannot finance itself.
"As long as we pursue an insurance model for health care in US we have the conflicting issues of: coercion/healthy paying for the sick vs uninsured due to cost/heavy financial burdens due to illness."
No, our problem is the current system (and ObamaCare is doubling down on the current system) is not an INSURANCE model. An insurance model would cover so called catastrophic costs only, similar to your house burning down or totaling your car.
@Seven Machos:
Surely there is nothing wrong with the violent overthrow of a dictatorship? After all, Mubarak could have been killing his subjects at any time, for any reason--that he's only doing it now when he's in danger of losing is because he's pragmatic, not because he's moral or legitimate. I don't see anything wrong with Florida approving of what Egyptians are trying to do.
@Florida:
Surely you can see the difference between the violent overthrow of a dictatorship and the violent overthrow of a constitutional democracy that allows peaceful resolution? As much as you don't like Obamacare, you had every opportunity to convince your fellow citizens and representatives not to adopt it; and even now it loks like many of them are changing their minds. Nobody's gone to jail or been shot for opposing Obamacare; you don't have the right to get your way, only to persuade others to let you have it.
If you can't see the distinction, then you deserve Seven Macho's critcisms.
Scott -- I don't know the first thing about you. But if you urged violent revolution where scores of people die and are injured because you lost a legislative or constitutional debate, and if you overtly used the vocabulary of slavery and some sort of black vernacular when talking about Obama, and if you did all the other things Florida does, I would consider you either:
a) one of the stereotypical mouth-breathing conservatives who the left uses to scare reasonable people about conservatism and limited government, or
b) a Moby who is very good at imitating said mouth breather.
Either way, I'd say that you are hurting the cause you support, either genuinely or falsely.
Gabriel -- There is nothing wrong with violent overthrow of a government like Mubarek's in Egypt. I support that revolution 10,000 percent.
There is something definitely wrong with such a violent overthrow here, now, in our political paradise.
After reading the first four pages of the Judge's opinion,this will be the predictable response of the left:
The Federalist!!! WTF!!!
The Federalist No. 51!! WTF!!!
The Federalist No. 45!! WTF!!!
Cohens v. Virginia!!! WTF!!!
Marbury v. Madison!!! WTF!!!
McColloch v. Maryland!!! WTF!!!
OK, I'll get in on the blog photo change too...I've chosen James Starks 'cuz I watched him play at the University of Buffalo (season tix holder). He was instrumental when they won the MAC by beating an undefeated Ball State team.
Packers by 3.
As far as this ruling goes, I am pleased...nobody should be told that they have to buy any such insurance, especially a redistributive 'scheme' disguised as a health plan. The way this thing went down and passed is garbage. How the left can talk this thing up with a straight face is truly frightening. These people are to be pitied. Control freaks and thieves one and all.
@Seven Machos:
I agree with what you said to Scott M, I just thought Egypt is avery bad example. Violence is perfectly acceptable to overthrow tyranny; of course it has to be ACTUAL TYRANNY and not an obligation to buy health insurance.
If my right to freedom of assmebly is denied because the city concil illegally refuses me the proper permits I do not have a moral right to kill people over it. I can sue, or move, or persuade everyone else to vote for a new city council.
Gabriel -- I agree with you exactly. Thank you for helping me to and challenging me to make my position clear.
It's a well written case. The judge rejected the idea that the health care market is unique in that the government could regulate an inactivity. (The judge ruled that not purcahsing health insurance was an "inactivity"...) The judge reasoned that there are numerous markets which all people eventually use. This fact does not mean the government can force them to use it by purchasing a product.
I think the severabilty clause was taken out to "raise the stakes." The Democrats believed that the judges would be nervous about striking down the entire law that was "helping so many people" and that the people wanted. This is what happened to the New Deal type laws that was eventually approved by the court However, the problem is that this law is unpopular. The drafters of the law never anticipated that it would remain so unpopular.
Professor;
Completely off topic but you might be interested in a potential independent presidential candidate taking it upon himself to direct an undercover operation regarding gun law enforcement in states across the country.
The wild West against the enlightened East.
You can imagine Mayor Bloomberg's reaction to a presidential candidate named Huntsman!
Gabriel: I like your eloquent (as usual) distinction, but I take some exception to: "you don't have the right to get your way, only to persuade others to let you have it." Because if a big part of "your way" is the "right to be left alone"--otherwise know as liberty-- that was the central tenet of the Constitution, we shouldn't have to persuade anyone in this country to allow us to keep it. Unfortunately, with a Federal government vastly overreaching it's supposedly limited powers, that's exactly where we are today. Note that I am NOT calling for violent overthrow of the government, just a conscious effort to get back to Constitutionality whether through abiding by the text or changing the text through the authorized methods (not just grabbing power where it's popular).
Don't Tread: welcome on board!
Oh, SNAP!
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Seven Machos said...
"Gabriel -- I agree with you exactly. Thank you for helping me to and challenging me to make my position clear."
Please, you are an active Usuper Internet Operative. Spreading the common line that you are a "conservative", and you want to "protect" Consevatives' good name. All BS, just like the Usurper is like Reagan. Just like the "civility" nonsense. It's the Journolist spiel, and you're part of it. How do you like licking the Usurper's boots?
I don't think garaji mahal is the same garage mahale that we know and love.
I call shenanigans!
Mick -- I don't think anyone who is here regularly would ever question my bona fides when it comes to conservatism, libertarianism, or limited government.
It was especially hilarious the other day to watch another poster utterly destroy your weak and silly arguments about citizenship, particularly with regard to Supreme Court cases.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time trying to get elected, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Fixed the Judges ruling.
"The session starts first Monday in October, so, theoretically, it could be this year."
It has to go to the 11th Circuit first.
Trooper -- Half the people in this thread are impostors. Another 60 percent are Mobys.
Says the man in the mask.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Own goal.
Seven Machos said...
Trooper -- Half the people in this thread are impostors. Another 60 percent are Mobys.
Me too?
You guys ever listen to that Billy Joel song called "The Stranger"?
Drew at AoSHQ has it just about right:
...it's hard to get too excited about this because nothing matters in the federal courts until Anthony Kennedy flips his magic coin but tossing out the whole law is a big, big boost politically for advocates of repeal.
Seven Machos: "Half the people in this thread are impostors. Another 60 percent are Mobys."
And 30 percent of both are kids, which is to say, they are FBI agents in disguise.
Althouse herself has been in hiding since 2006. The part of the Madison lawprof will now be played by Chip Ahoy's sock puppet.
Original Mike: "Says the man in the mask."
Touche. Whatever happened to New Mike, Mike Zero, and Diet Mike anyway...
Whatever happened to New Mike, Mike Zero, and Diet Mike anyway...
They left town with Mike Classic.
"Surely you can see the difference between the violent overthrow of a dictatorship and the violent overthrow of a constitutional democracy that allows peaceful resolution?"
Sure I do. Here, let me explain it to you: The peaceful resolution is the Supreme Court striking down this unconstitutional law.
That's why we have a Supreme Court, after all. To provide a check on Executive and Legislative branch power grabs.
A free people cannot be compelled by their government to buy products from third parties (especially when those third parties are funding re-election campaigns).
That's banana republic. If that's America ... then we need to reformulate America.
Look, I'm confident the Supreme Court will strike down this law and also confident that if they don't we'll see anarchy in the streets as people look to secure their freedoms just like the Egyptians are doing.
It's not hard to do. Watch and learn.
A government which can compel my children to buy things is making a slave of them and thus is a dictatorship. Will you stand idly by?
My children will not live under such tyranny my friend.
So the sooner the Supreme Court gets busy striking this law down the sooner we can get to figuring out another solution to this problem.
Hey, during the campaign Barack Obama was AGAINST the individual mandate. He was also for raising the capital gains tax on his friend Warren Buffet and Ted Turner and on his comrade-in-arms Michael Bloomberg.
I hereby propose we take their shit from them - through IRS force - and buy folks some health care with that unused and untapped wealth.
See, there's a solution to this problem.
These fucking oligarchs won't be yoking my kids, dude.
Shorter Florida: I will either get my way by judicial fiat or I will get my way through violence. Either way, I win.
"Florida is a Moby,"
Says the guy wearing a mask.
Florida's profile:
Profile Not Available
The Blogger Profile you requested cannot be displayed. Many Blogger users have not yet elected to publicly share their Profile.
If you're a Blogger user, we encourage you to enable access to your Profile.
Whatever happened to New Mike, Mike Zero, and Diet Mike anyway...
I really dig one of the Mikes. But I can never remember which one.
Original Mike (or "Mike Classic");
An insurance model would cover so called catastrophic costs only, similar to your house burning down or totaling your car.
I get your point but you're talking about benefits, not whether its insurance. Yes, I use the oil change example all the time. But rememeber most car insurances cover those nuisance pebble cracks in the windshield, a relatively minor problem and cheap to fix. And that touches on a difficult part of insurance coverage:
If we belief that payment for "X" incentivizes the use of "X" then just as the repair of the little windshield crack that will eventually become a huge crack, many health insures cover certain "prevention measures" in the hope of mitigating future costs.
Back to your original point, no one gets auto insurance and then says, "great now I can go out and have that accident I've been putting off". The same can't be said for health insurance, particularly in a world of no pre-existing conditions.
"I will either get my way by judicial fiat or I will get my way through violence. Either way, I win."
We have a choice.
We can live in a country where corrupt Democrats pass laws requiring us to buy shit from their campaign donors, or we don't have to live in that country.
I choose not to allow the Democrat Party to make slaves of my children.
So, they win.
As I said, I'm confident that we enjoy in the United States a check on abusive power grabs by one party. A check that Egyptians do not enjoy.
And that check is the Judicial system ... which is methodically moving towards a peaceful resolution to this corrupt power grab.
I reserve, as always, the God-given right to find other guards for the defense of my freedom should that become a requirement.
Barack Obama would do well to see how fast Hosni Mubarak had it all crumble beneath his corrupt rule the moment people decided enough is e-fucking-nough.
Let me explain the problem, people:
1. Health insurance companies are trying to operate like insurance companies, factoring in risk, etc.
2. The left believes everyone should have free or low-cost health care.
3. Eighty percent of the problem we have is really just the misuse by the left (and also in all likelihood a misunderstanding) of the word insurance.
Seven Machos said...
"Mick -- I don't think anyone who is here regularly would ever question my bona fides when it comes to conservatism, libertarianism, or limited government.
It was especially hilarious the other day to watch another poster utterly destroy your weak and silly arguments about citizenship, particularly with regard to Supreme Court cases"
And of course you're wrong again. You are an Obama Internet Brigade sleeper, who has gotten the "Obama is Reagan" assignment. Keep licking those boots. The Usurper would be mad that you got utterly destroyed, and couldn't refute any argument I made. The truth sets me free, and is acid in the face of a liar.
I intend to emulate 'em if necessary to secure mine.
No need to wait for our sake, Florida. Jump! Jump! Jump!
Whatever happened to New Mike, Mike Zero, and Diet Mike anyway...
Well, Big Mike has nothing to say and abstained. This legal minuet was always heading for the Supreme Court.
@lyssa, this Mike admires you, but I'm probably not the one you were thinking of.
Drive on.
Let me explain the problem people:
1) Democrats need campaign donors.
2) Insurance companies need customers.
3) PROFIT!
Democrats have teamed up with insurance companies: Democrats supply the enslaved customers, and insurance companies agreed to supply the re-election campaign money.
It's win-win for both.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with health insurance or health care - except insofar as Democrats are going to ensure that nobody gets any actual health care for the insurance they're forced to buy because that wouldn't be profitable for the insurance companies. Thus ... death panels.
That's the problem.
They know what insurance is.
They know what coercion is.
They know what corruption is.
They know where the money is.
A corrupt government is an illegitimate government and we are under no requirement as Americans to allow such a government to continue to exist.
It is our right ... no, it is our duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for our future security.
Just like Thomas Jefferson told us to do. And Josiah Bartlett and John Hancock and Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin.
I do not believe that Obama is Reagan. I have never compared Obama to Reagan. Obama has been a disastrous president for the United States. Ronald Reagan was among the five greatest presidents the United States has been graced with.
But, Mick, just so you know: Obama is a natural-born citizen. And the legitimate president of the United States. Also, you are a loon.
A corrupt government is an illegitimate government
Then all governments ever have been corrupt. You will never get rid of corruption. You can only limit it, contain it, and harness it.
There are purists on both sides -- all sides -- and they are always tyrants in their dark hearts.
The federal judge declared Obamacare unconstitutional. Therefore the executive branch must cease and desist the implementation of Obamacare. Continuing to implement creates a constitutional crisis.
I'd love to say you guys dodged a bullet, but this will be dragging on for at least a decade in some form or another. Enjoy!
"Then all governments ever have been corrupt. You will never get rid of corruption."
Macho, do you accept the premise that a corrupt government is by definition an illegitimate one and that we as Americans are under no obligation to continue supporting a corrupt government?
I think in your heart of hearts you agree with this fundamental premise.
The Usurper would be mad that you got utterly destroyed, and couldn't refute any argument I made. The truth sets me free, and is acid in the face of a liar.
Acid. Now we're getting somewhere. I think we've discovered the root of the whole birther phenomenon. Acid. Really bad acid.
On a practical side, I guess I should push for another policy renewal at work while Obamacare is at least temporarily NOT the law of the land?
I can't even imagine the confusion about to occur in the medical insurance biz.
do you accept the premise that a corrupt government is by definition an illegitimate one and that we as Americans are under no obligation to continue supporting a corrupt government?
No. Not at all. Corruption is endemic to government because humans are deeply, deeply flawed. Good leaders accept human psychological limitation and work with it. You can only limit and harness corruption.
If people really accepted your theory, we'd be having a revolution every day. And there'd be these camps...
"Corruption is endemic to government because humans are deeply, deeply flawed."
And so, you believe that we just have to accept that we have a corrupt government and pay whatever they tell us to pay to whomever they wish us to pay?
We're getting to why you and I fundamentally disagree.
See, I believe that even though people are deeply, deeply flawed that just because this is so doesn't mean we have to accept it. We can fight it. Violently if necessary, to try to end it.
Even though it will be an everlasting struggle.
Some are willing to fight nonetheless.
Some, like yourself, see corruption and say there is nothing we can do about it but accept it.
You're entitled to that opinion. I'd kindly ask you to step aside and get the fuck out of my way as I fight against it.
Somefeller -- No kidding. I'd like to get some tabs from Mick. But it's obviously some powerful shit. One or two trips and then walk away.
I mean, look how Mick's brain is all rotted.
I mean, look how Mick's brain is all rotted.
True, but he probably had a lot of fun along the way. Unlike poor Florida, who was just born like that.
By the way, I think the health insurance vs. health care distinction is an important one to point out. The issue is - it's very difficult to provide the latter for everyone without someone (consumers, employers, the government) providing the former, one way or another.
Florida -- Obama was duly elected by the people. The Congress that passed Obamacare was duly elected by the people. The Supreme Court has been duly chosen by duly elected Senates and Presidents. However much you may hate the law, you cannot say that it was somehow foisted illegally on you by a tyrant.
Get over yourself. If one person dies or gets a bruise because of some political uprising related to Obamacare, it would be a travesty.
The law is never final. We can always change it. We. The People.
You aren't serious, anyway, of course. You won't be taking to the barricades. But get over yourself. It's embarrassing. Also you are a Moby.
"The Supreme Court has been duly chosen by duly elected Senates and Presidents. However much you may hate the law, you cannot say that it was somehow foisted illegally on you by a tyrant."
Yes, I can.
A court today ruled that I could.
A court today said that a tyrant tried to force an unconstitutional law on the citizens of the United States.
That's tyranny. The tyranny of the majority is tyranny nonetheless.
Now, courts are prone to disagree and so we'll await the Supreme Court's decision.
I'm confident they'll do the right thing.
And I'm also confident that if they don't we haven't much need for them any more and that we'll need to find new guards for our defense.
And woe be unto those who would rule.
Woe.
"Get over yourself. If one person dies or gets a bruise because of some political uprising related to Obamacare, it would be a travesty. "
That has already occurred.
It occurred during town hall meetings when Democrats brought their union thugs to silence critics and beat up those who stood against Barack Obama.
Violence and intimidation and bribery was the method they used to get this law passed.
It is unconstitutional.
It is unjust.
And it will not stand.
I'm confident the Supreme Court will set things straight. And I'm equally confident that no matter what the courts decide, Democrats will not enjoy the fruits of this fucking labor.
No, they will not.
"I think the health insurance vs. health care distinction is an important one to point out."
Hmmm ... How many hospitals has Barack Obama ordered to be built?
If Barack Obama wanted to provide people with health care he could ask the Congress to build some hospitals and staff them with some doctors.
So how many has he built so far?
Even one hospital would be better than none ... so has Obama proposed the construction of even a single hospital?
Woe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE
Whoa.
Insurance protects your assets. A portion of the population does not believe in insurance because they have no assets and / or would rather just get free stuff from the dole.
About 20 years ago, we went to see Jay Leno in A.C. casino. One of his jokes got big laughs from the audience when he said "I was surprised to see so many of you blackjack players buying insurance at the $5.00 table- afterall most of you don't even pay to insure your car!"
How many hospitals has Barack Obama ordered to be built?
Can Obama order hospitals to be built? Are there federal hospitals? Only a tyrant would assume so.
"A portion of the population does not believe in insurance because they have no assets and / or would rather just get free stuff from the dole."
Millions of Christians and Muslims believe that insurance is nothing more than a fancy form of gambling.
People have a right to these beliefs even if you disagree with them. That's what's great about America.
They do not advocate that insurance be made illegal for you to participate in. They would like the same courtesy extended to them.
Is that too much to ask?
If you wish to purchase insurace, please, be my guest. Every payout you receive from it is something free you got from the others who paid.
Who is the leach, again?
I say if you receive an insurance payout, you leached off the others, who paid their premiums but got no such payout.
That makes YOU the leach, doesn't it?
I merely do not want to participate in such a sick system, where the saavy few leach from the many.
"Can Obama order hospitals to be built? Are there federal hospitals?"
Well, he could certainly ask, couldn't he? How many has he asked the Congress to build? You know, when he had overwhelming majories in both the House and Senate. How many did they build?
You maintain that Barack Obama just wants to bring people health care. If that were true, he'd be asking the Congress to build some hospitals, no?
You see he really isn't interested in bringing health care to people or he'd be building hospitals.
And to answer your question, yes there are federal hospitals.
Anyone care to guess how the Supreme Court will rule, judge for judge?
Well, I'm gonna stick my neck way out here (he said sarcastically) and speculate - nay, predict - the outcome:
Obamacare:
Roberts: against.
Alito: against.
Thomas: against.
Scalia: against.
Ginsburg: for.
Bryer: for.
Sotomayer: for.
Kagan: for.
Kennedy: against.
(now, tell me again how we're a "nation of laws" and not men)
I don't know. Seems like there used to be a better class of bullshit from the commenters on this blog. I remember being reticent to comment here 'cause I might not measure up. Now I'm just reluctant to be associated in any way with some of these clowns. Clowns-- you know who you are.
wv: bolyn-- I think I might just go bolyn instead.
"now, tell me again how we're a "nation of laws" and not men"
We are a nation of laws, not of men.
A nation of laws within the bounds of a Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence.
A very temporary majority of corrupt men may not force their tyranny on the minority for all time by passing unconstitutional laws while they hold temporary power through the corrupt devices of intimidation, violence and bribery.
We are a nation of laws.
Not men.
And it's going to fucking stay that way. Even if we have to take to the streets to secure freedoms for our children.
"Now I'm just reluctant to be associated in any way with some of these clowns. Clowns-- you know who you are."
Feel free to get the fuck out, dude. Nobody forcing you to participate here.
Leave.
If Kagan had any integrity she'd recuse herself...so she won't recuse herself.
My Supreme Court prediction: 8-1 to uphold, with Thomas the lone dissenter. There may be Bush v Gore-style fragmented submajorities in favor of the different rationales offered by the government (even some of the liberals may balk at the idea of the individual mandate being a tax, or at least of it being a tax of the sort that Congress is authorized to levy).
Anyone who's counting on Scalia's vote to strike down the foul thing should read his concurrence in Gonzales v Raich, which is directly on point here.
"My Supreme Court prediction: 8-1 to uphold ..."
Dude, don't bogart that blunt.
Pass it arouuuuuunnnnnnd.
Florida said...
Feel free to get the fuck out, dude. Nobody forcing you to participate here
Clown One reports in.
No, the argument was that a gay judge has a conflict of interest in ruling on gay marriage; while I mocked that argument whenever it was made,...
In a perfect world. Here we had a gay judge living with a partner in San Francisco. Given the dynamics in toto, I don't have that faith that the rule of law was rendered sans outside ultra vires influences.
"Clown One reports in."
Dude, you've added nothing to the conversation except your scat and so your absence will not be a loss.
If you're so ashamed to be associated with the comments here lately then get the fuck out. Nobody cares if you leave. We don't wish to be associated with you either.
We're only tainting your reputation, so piss the fuck off.
As for the Obamacare decision, on a SCOTUS level it's ultimately going to come down to Anthony Kennedy, and who knows where he's at with this.
The tide is turning.
"Anthony Kennedy, and who knows where he's at with this."
Let's hope he's a smart guy and values a free America. I think he is.
Either way he decides, that's what he's going to get: A free America.
How can he lose, really?
No far better for you all to have a country in which the sick who also happen to be poor have to sell their homes to buy cancer treatment. In this economy, their homes probably won't even do that!!! Congratulations! How's the state of the Union working out for you?
"No far better for you all to have a country in which the sick who also happen to be poor have to sell their homes to buy cancer treatment."
Barack Obama is not the champion of such people.
He has built no hospitals.
He has hired no doctors.
He has not handed out the first aspirin.
He wants to force people to buy insurance ... not provide people with health care.
If Barack Obama wanted to help poor sick people he'd ask the Congress for $1 trillion dollars worth of cancer medicine.
Did you know that Barack Obama has, today, before the Congress, a 2011 request for foreign aid totalling over $4 billion for countries in which the leader is a dictator? That's just 10 countries. Dictators control them and Barack is sending them $4 billion of your tax money.
That $4 billion could buy a lot of cancer medicine. Instead, Barack Obama is spending your tax money to dictators.
I want that money to go to poor people.
He's sending it to Mubarak.
Your record's skipping, Pavlova. You've managed to completely wear out the "sell their house to get cancer treatments" soundbite over the past weeks. Please learn a new line of faux outrage.
Obama/Pelosi/Reid promised to pass health care. They wrote the bill in secret. They would not let anyone read it. Just in case they wanted to read it, they made sure it was almost 3000 pages.
They passed health care. It is not their fault the courts ruled it unconstitutional. They kept their promise, made history (or his story). They did what they said they would do.
This just shows the dishonesty of the Democratic Party and the stupidity of the American voter.
The NYT read the injunction part wrong. As of now the law is DEAD.
((This question has come up a few places. I've also seen incorrect media reports that Judge Vinson's decision declaring all of ObamaCare unconstitutional "will have no instant effect on implementation." This is probably fueled in part because "senior White House advisors" are apparently saying that implementation will continue while the lawsuits play out.
That is incorrect, at least for the moment. The law is unconstitutional and that ruling is binding on the parties. Not just the 26 plaintiff states, mind you, as I've also seen erroneously reported. All parties to a lawsuit are bound, including and especially the defendants, that is, the U.S. departments attempting to implement ObamaCare.
That means that at this moment all parts of the law are unenforceable, including the guaranteed issue rule, the preparations for the exchanges, the minimum standards, the Medicaid expansion, the FSA adjustment, the 1099 debacle, and, of course, the individual mandate. The Obama Administration risks a contempt order if it attempts to continue to impose any of these ObamaCare requirements on the states. ))
That was from Malor over at Ace's. The law blogs are also in concurrence that the NYT was wrong.
"he law blogs are also in concurrence that the NYT was wrong. "
Wait, you mean to tell me that the NY Times tried to slip one past us?
That they deliberately tried to spin things Barack Obama's way even though the court ruled that Obama and the Democrats failed in their duty to uphold and defend the Constitution?
You seem to be implying that the NY Times cannot be trusted to tell us the truth.
Do tell!
No far better for you all to have a country in which the sick who also happen to be poor have to sell their homes to buy cancer treatment.
Is that your argument? That's it? No problemo. Craft a law that covers that relatively miniscule population. Not a law that all persons however situated to buy something whether they want it or not, and especially that sizeable group who does not.
Oh, I forgot, you just want their money. Right?
Florida -- You are a shrill tool. Your junior high school propaganda doesn't belong at Althouse.
Please up your game -- a lot -- or go back to whichever goofy hothouse of politics you came from.
Also, good luck at the barricades! Don't forget to bring a change of underwear.
Joubert -- The argument of most people on the left, when you get down to it, is that health care should be free or very cheap regardless of the social costs, the drastic diminishing in quality, and the loss of liberty necessary to make that happen.
Rarely do you get someone who is so open about it, though.
Pavlova is just further evidence that 3/4 of our laws were crafted simply so people could feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Seven machos:
I agree, and I get it. Truth is, mandatory universal socialized medicine has been a holy grail for the left going all the way back to Truman. Maybe even back to FDR, but back to Truman for sure. They could never get it though, mainly because the majority of Americans rejected it. Then, in 2008 all the stars were aligned politically: extreme liberal president and a super-majority in congress, no matter how temporal. In fact, maybe because it was so temporal. So they went for the gusto. Overreaching is what Obamacare is all about, and that will be its undoing.
The SCOTUS review this demands will in fact decide the continuation of the USA , or its end.
It's 1859 again. John Brown's Raid.
I wonder how long it will take for the obama trial balloon to float the idea that "well obamacare can survive without the mandate" much like howard dean blabbed last summer as the popularity of it shrank. I think they have to lose the 11th circuit before they will cry uncle. It will never make it to the SCOTUS
What the hell has gotten into you people? Do you realize how stupid, how childish, and how futile you sound suggesting riots in the streets where people get killed or a fucking breakup of the Union over Obamacare?
Get fucking serious, you ass clowns. Moreover, stop with the pussy suggestions and come right out and say it.
Pogo: admit that you support a civil war -- a civil war! -- if the health care law of 2010 is not rescinded by the Supreme Court.
Florida: admit that you want hundreds of thousands of people to riot in the streets, and people to die, and property to be looted if the health care law of 2010 is not rescinded by the Supreme Court.
If you can't man up and say these things you allude to, just stop. For the love of God, man. Especially you, Pogo. I mean, really.
@Florida
Heh. Pretty easy to get your goat, oh Great Flame Warrior.
I did say some of these clowns. Its just so much easier when you self-identify.
Well, you know what they say, if the shoe fits...
wv: icanz-- icanz go or stay as I prefer. Not much you can do about it, clown.
Florida;
Democrats have teamed up with insurance companies: Democrats supply the enslaved customers, and insurance companies agreed to supply the re-election campaign money.
I think you have the political alliances wrong. Insurance companies have been ambivalent about this process from the get-go. they understood that "no pre-existing condition"s was going to be a push but they knew that open, hard political opposition would not sit well. Early on they agreed to ending that with the assumption that something (i.e. a mandate) would make that economically feasible.
All in all I believe they're relatively displeased with the outcome, a lot for access but nothing for cost control and quality.
If you were looking for a large early ally of Obamacare I would suggest Big Pharma. Their interests were generally protected. Besides they're much bigger companies (i.e bigger donors)
But obviously YMMMV.
Mick;
You're a funny guy!
Seven, I am taken aback: I neither expect nor counsel a civil war, should Obamacare survive SCOTUS review.
By 'end of the USA' I mean it will mean our nation can be legislated to do absolutely anything Congress demands without limit. The noble experiment is over.
Either that or we return to first principles.
I fervently hope and pray our economic stressors do not crumble into bloodshed. We came through the 1930s with few violent spells (but not none), so hope for the same seems reasonable.
I don't advocate a civil war but at what point do the American people get to say "enough"?
It's clear that this was rammed down our throats, that we cannot afford it and that it will bankrupt our country. If judges, beholden to the Democratic party, side with Obama on this then it will mean that the slide is complete.
What then?
Re-reading my own comment, I can see how you responded thus, especially with Florida's posts.
But we are not of a piece. Rather than a violent civil war, I expect a long painful decline and then dissolution, should Obamacare continue. This has been the case with every other socialist state.
"I'm just reluctant to be associated in any way with some of these clowns. Clowns-- you know who you are."
That's what you said. I have no idea which of the people here you were denigrating and don't really care.
I just made the observation that if you're reluctant to be associated in any way with the fine people here then don't let the fucking door hit you in the ass on the way out.
You've added nothing to the conversation ... except to denigrate other people who do contribute.
You've left a giant turd in the middle of the room and are bitching about the smell.
So, you know ... leave.
Either add to the discussion ... contribute to the converation ... educate us with your wisdom ... or you know your complaints are just going to fall on deaf ears.
If you think people here don't have it right then advance a fucking argument. Take a chance.
Don't just fling your scat about.
"I don't advocate a civil war but at what point do the American people get to say "enough"?"
If the United States Supreme Court allows the Democrat Party to force Americans to purchase products from their political donors ... then enough will be quite enough.
Egypt will look like fucking Disneyland.
My bad, Pogo. I saw end of the United States + John Brown in 1859 and I assumed = Civil War in 1860/61.
You are right that I was buttered up by Florida's silly allusions to violent revolution.
When you chimed in like I interpreted, I sort of blew a gasket. I know you better, though. I should have thought it through. I apologize.
The broader lesson here, kids, is that Mobies and idiots are enough to push a man to insanity.
Egypt will look like fucking Disneyland.
See what I'm talking about. Come out and say it, Florida. Say that you are advocating violent revolution and armed insurrection if the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
This stupid and dangerous. It's also why I say you are a Moby.
Florida is a Moby, people. He is trying to make the right look bad.
I was ignoring the FLA comments, and missed the unfortunate juxtaposition.
Pogo said...
I was ignoring the FLA comments, and missed the unfortunate juxtaposition.
Even though it might make for some disjointed threads, I do wish more blogs had a Bozo Button: "This person is a Bozo. He/she contributes nothing of value. Stop showing me comments from this person."
Yeah, I can always scroll through Bozo comments; but with some of our more verbose Bozos, that gets tiresome.
You wacky Althouse hillbillies, agitating for civil war again! Ya'll so funny. Wanna cracker?
What the hell has gotten into you people? Do you realize how stupid, how childish, and how futile you sound suggesting riots in the streets where people get killed or a fucking breakup of the Union over Obamacare?
Part of the problem is that some people are looking at this issue as an argument over ObamaCare. Others are looking at it as a battle over whether to establish the precedent that the federal government can do essentially anything to us against our will and beyond its enumerated Constitutional powers in the guise of regulating "interstate commerce" and creating "necessary and proper" enabling legislation.
It's reminiscent of when some people defended Bill Clinton: "He lied about a few blowjobs. Big deal, everyone lies about sex!" Meanwhile others said: "He violated his oath of office, he lied while giving testimony under oath to a court, and he looked the American public in the eye and lied to us with a straight face. It is a big deal!"
The two sides may never understand each other.
Seven: My bad, Pogo. I saw end of the United States + John Brown in 1859 and I assumed = Civil War in 1860/61.
I agree with you, but find your defense somewhat confusing. Too often of late, you seem to be the guy standing with us on King Street in Boston, telling us not to riot because it will make the Colonials appear barbaric.
I'm just curious where you draw the line. At what point would you use violence to defend the Republic? Ever? If the Socialists take it over, are you expecting tanks in the streets? Because thats not how it would happen.
Stevie: The NYT read the injunction part wrong. As of now the law is DEAD.
Thanks for the quotes. MSM is in spin mode, so I've been chasing that one down all day, trying to figure out if there really was a stay or not.
The boys at Powerline have a good smack-down of Ezra Klein
[and I get to use "smackdown" on Ezra "shove them through plate glass windows" Klein]
Fen -- The best professor I ever had was in law school, and he was -- I am told -- a leftist Straussian, and he had a case named after him that went all the way to the Supreme Court about just this issue: he advocated the right to revolution.
I agree with this great, great man about the right to revolution. However, it is not something to be taken lightly. It is not something to be bandying about like some policy choice. People will die in a revolution. Innocent people. Children.
As long as people are able to change laws they don't want, there's utterly no need for violent revolution. In this case, we as people who disagree with Obamacare have had and will have ample opportunity to change this law.
I do agree the law is unconstitutional. I would advise that you start thinking the way people like Randy Barnett think: let's try to make some simple structural changes that will provide opportunity to limit federal government growth.
Finally, Florida really is a Moby. He is advocating the exact violence over policy that the left charges that the Tea Party and the right advocates. Think about it.
Oh, and Fen: Obama is a natural-born citizen. This is simply an indisputable fact. American pussy is American pussy.
So let's get past that. Let's not waste valuable political capital on it.
Seven Machos said...
"Oh, and Fen: Obama is a natural-born citizen. This is simply an indisputable fact. American pussy is American pussy.
So let's get past that. Let's not waste valuable political capital on it."
And of course you are an Obama bootlicker. A foreign dick is a foreign dick, that's what makes him ineligible, and gave him British citizenship at birth. How can a natural born Citizens citizenship be "governed" by Britain? Since when is a pic on a website proof of ANYTHING? Next time you apply for a passport just whip out your laptop and show them a pic of your BC.
Mick -- There is a law that says that a person who the son of a foreign man and an American woman is born an American.
More hilariously, as a brilliant commenter demonstrated the other day, the Supreme Court cases you try to "cite" say the opposite of what you think they say.
Also, the Equal Protection Clause matters and has meaning.
Finally, Mick, if you are going to continue to post here, please up your game. That means every phase of the game, too -- html, coherence, ability to say interesting things, everything. Thank you.
Seven Machos said...
" Mick -- There is a law that says that a person who the son of a foreign man and an American woman is born an American."
You are obviously an Obama Bootlicker internet operative, just sitting here at your lonely outpost doing the bidding of the Usurper. You mean like this from Minor v. Happersett, and repeated verbatum in Wong Kim Ark?
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
AND if a Congressional statute is needed to make him an American citizen, then he is certainly NOT a natural born Citizen. Besides British law says he still may be a British Subject.
Maybe you want to reread the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
Dumb ass: a statute made everyone a United States citizen who is a United States citizen. Moreover, no federal court and no law has ever put forth the bizarre notion that an American born abroad is somehow less American (Obama's birth in the USA notwithstanding).
None of this matters. Obama is president. There is absolutely no recourse for you and your silly birther arguments. You cannot win. If shrill morons like you don't go away, he is more likely to be until 2016.
In short, dude: beat it. Your one-trick pony is dead and you need to take it somewhere else.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
So what?
Maybe you want to reread the Declaration of Independence:
I would, but it was written by people who weren't Natural Born American Citizens.
I'm not going to trust a pack of dirty foreigners to tell me what's what.
There is absolutely no recourse for you and your silly birther arguments.
Thats not entirely true. Several states (Arizona leading) are pushing bills that would require candidates provide proof to get on the ballot.
I'm sure it will be a nightmare for the lawyers, but if Obama can't get on all 57 ballots, he can't win a 2nd term.
Here it is:
"would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the Arizona ballot to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president."
"...is a model for other states, and similar efforts are under way in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Georgia, and Texas"
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/arizona-birther-bill-deny-obama-reelection
Fen -- There was a good discussion about those laws here the other day. I was initially for them. The poster who utterly demolished Mick convinced me otherwise, though. In a nutshell, the law asks private citizens running for president to produce a document that is totally out of their own control.
Incidentally, said demolisher is, like me, a conservative/libertarian who finds the birthers noxious and ridiculous and shrill.
Seven Machos said...
"Dumb ass: a statute made everyone a United States citizen who is a United States citizen. Moreover, no federal court and no law has ever put forth the bizarre notion that an American born abroad is somehow less American (Obama's birth in the USA notwithstanding).
None of this matters. Obama is president. There is absolutely no recourse for you and your silly birther arguments. You cannot win. If shrill morons like you don't go away, he is more likely to be until 2016.
In short, dude: beat it. Your one-trick pony is dead and you need to take it somewhere else."
Spoken in the true Alinskyan way like a true Obama Internet Operative. Must be a lonely existence, licking the boots of the Usurper. Many times, in dicta of citizenship cases, the SCOTUS has affirmed the Vattel definition put forth in Minor and in WKA. No statute is needed to make a child born in America of US Citizens a US Citizen. Statute is needed to make a foreign born child a citizen (like you), thus they are not natural born. It's not about being "less American", it's about POTUS eligibility. Use some logic. The WELL KNOWN reason for the nbc requirement is to prevent foreign influence, so how can anyone born abroad be eligible?
And yes we the people can throw a tyrannical government out in it's ear, just read the Declaration of Independence. Your coordinated lies are obvious Journolister.
And who are you, the thread monitor? Better call some of your Obama licking buddies, you're in WAY over your head.
Seven Machos said,
"Incidentally, said demolisher is, like me, a conservative/libertarian who finds the birthers noxious and ridiculous and shrill".
Sure you are, and Obama is just like Reagan.
From Minor v. Happersett and repeated verbatum in Wong Kim Ark:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
SCOTUS only gave the Law of Nations (most cited SCOTUS referrence of the 19th century) meaning of nbc here, but hey it doesn't mean anything, right? It also says that the definition isn't in the 14th Amendment, since that was in 1866 and those cases were in 1874 and 1898 ("the constitution does not, in words say who is a nbc")
The 25th Amendment provides the means for Congress to remove an ineligible POTUS by using the Quo Warranto Statute of the DC District Code. His Presidency would be null and void. Anything signed by him would be NULL AND VOID (including Obamacare, and the 2 Communist SCOTUS appointments.)
By the way the Arizona law (10 other states are drafting similar laws) would also force anyone to declare any foreign citizenships, not only the BC.
So you think that the USA is the only place with poor people - do you Florida? My view is that you should help BOTH the poor in your own country and the poor in other countries!!!!!! If you made some cuts to your defence budget you could afford it!!!!
Fen said...
" Here it is:
"would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the Arizona ballot to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president."
"...is a model for other states, and similar efforts are under way in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Georgia, and Texas"
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/arizona-birther-bill-deny-obama-reelection "
Of course that whole article is a lie. The legislation would also force a candidate to declare all foreign citizenships (Obama supposedly has/had 4, including the possibility he is British to this day).
The law wants to vet the candidates' natural born Citizenship, not whether they were born in the US.
pavlova8 said...
" So you think that the USA is the only place with poor people - do you Florida? My view is that you should help BOTH the poor in your own country and the poor in other countries!!!!!! If you made some cuts to your defence budget you could afford it!!!!"
So easily the youth put on the chains of tyranny. It used to be that young Liberals didn't trust anyone over 30. Now they are in love w/ the nanny state, cared for, for the most, part by Old White Lawyers.
Revenant said...
"Maybe you want to reread the Declaration of Independence:
I would, but it was written by people who weren't Natural Born American Citizens.
I'm not going to trust a pack of dirty foreigners to tell me what's what."
You're right, they weren't natural born Citizens. The Grandfather clause of A2S1C5 allowed them to be POTUS. The founders warned against foreign influence repeatedly (see G. Washington's Farewell Address). Federalist #68, and John Jay's note to Wasington during the 1st Constitutional Congress are evidence:
July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
If the reason for the clause was to prevent foreign influence, then how could it be remotely possible that the children of foreigners, or those born abroad are eligible?
Obama's foreign father makes him ineligible no matter where birth occured, and everything he signed, including Obamacare, is Null and Void.
"In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/
pavlova8 said...
So you think that the USA is the only place with poor people - do you Florida? My view is that you should help BOTH the poor in your own country and the poor in other countries!!!!!! If you made some cuts to your defence budget you could afford it!!!!
Exactly what the Soviets said for 50 years.
Maybe if we privatized Social Security, we wouldn't need to cut defense, although foreign aid is less an anti-poverty program (and we all know how well those work) than bribes for countries to like us (and we all know how well those work).
PS Notice Pavlova is talking about our money, not hers.
Somewhere in Dear Old England, Lady Thatcher smiles knowingly.
"Others are looking at (ObamaCare) as a battle over whether to establish the precedent that the federal government can do essentially anything to us against our will and beyond its enumerated Constitutional powers in the guise of regulating 'interstate commerce' and creating 'necessary and proper" enabling legislation.'
Precisely.
It's not about ObamaCare- really. They will implement ObamaCare some other way (by taxing Soros would be my idea).
It's about how corrupt Democrats with temporary power used violence, intimidation, bribery and supplication to one-sidedly push legislation through the Congress that they knew to be unconstitutional on its very face.
Now, one of two things is going to occur:
1) They're going to get away with it.
2) They're not getting away with it.
ObamaCare is a linchpin issue. It stands as the crossroads in how America is going to function going forward. Your stance on ObamaCare defines you as a person:
1) If you are for it ... you are a facist statist and you are my childrens' enemy.
2) If you are against it ... you stand as a solid American protecting your country.
The question is this: Does the federal government have complete and total power over individuals - so much power that they can force you to give your labor to their campaign donors?
To enslave you? That is the issue. We're talking about indentured servitude here.
If Democrats win that fight then they have succeeded in destroying my country and I will react accordingly and with all due force necessary to secure for myself and my family new guards for the defense of our freedoms.
Others will join me.
Democrats crossed a line. It's that simple.
If they succeed ... American will become Egypt and people will take to the streets. Because the alternative is the destruction of America at the hands of the Democrat Party.
Ain't happening on my watch.
"Florida really is a Moby. He is advocating the exact violence over policy that the left charges that the Tea Party and the right advocates."
No, I'm not.
I honestly believe that America is a wonderful place. We enjoy protections from the sort of corruption that Barack Obama represents.
That protection is in the very court system which yesterday struck down his law ... which ruled it as a shining example of the kind of unconstitutional power Barack Obama and the Democrat Party wants to wield.
The courts ... part of the genius of our founding fathers ... are protecting us from the Democrat Party which seeks to enslave us to the betterment of their campaign donors - the insurance companies.
I am advocating that we allow that court process to take its natural course and am positive that the Supreme Court will protect Americans - that they'll do the right thing.
I'm also of the belief that if they do not ... then our country has been altered fundamentally in ways that will result in Egypt-like demonstrations against the abuse of power. Democrats won't enjoy a moment's peace even if they succeed.
ObamaCare is a corrupt abuse of power and if it is allowed to stand then the country has been damaged by them.
I'm not advocating violence ... like Francis Fox Piven I'm merely pointing out what I believe will happen should the court do the wrong thing.
Egypt is an example of what happens when one political party has complete and total power to enslave a people.
It will occur here if the Democrat Party is not stopped.
My view is that you should help BOTH the poor in your own country and the poor in other countries!!!!!! If you made some cuts to your defence budget you could afford it!!!!
I think YOU should help poor people in America.
How much $ are you sending?
PS, our "defence budget" keeps hundreds of millions of people safe every day.
No far better for you all to have a country in which the sick who also happen to be poor have to sell their homes to buy cancer treatment
You can't find 2 documented instances of this.
I do agree that should Obamacare proceed as is, it does spell the end of this nation.
We will have become a socialist authoritarian country, and a republic no more.
Whether that would end with a whimper or cause fists to fly is unclear to me.
I don't think pointing that out means you are asking for it to occur, though, anymore than saying eating rotten meat will make you sick is a wish for that illness.
America's poor have homes to sell? What a country!
" My view is that you should help BOTH the poor in your own country and the poor in other countries!!!!!! If you made some cuts to your defence budget you could afford it!!!!"
We don't spell it defence dear. You colonialists spell it that way.
Since we kicked your asses in 1776, we changed the spelling to "defense."
I bet that you do believe we should give our money to Europe, since you live there are are on the receiving end of it.
I believe that it is immoral that Barack Obama, through his foreign aid budget, funds terrorists and dictators.
He stands with dictators ... as recently as a few months ago he requested $1.5 billion to continue funding Mu Barack's illegitimate regime.
That money could have gone to curing cancer and feeding poor people the world over.
Instead, Barack Obama gave it to a corrupt dictator. Because he's with them. He's on their team.
I say it's time to crush that team.
Hoo 'rah.
Post a Comment