20% of new Obamacare Waivers are restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Pelosi’s District!

Originally posted by Drakmarine
reply to post by Realms

 

2. Constitution must be a living document. Anybody who thinks that the founding fathers meant for their work to never be changed/interpreted is a moron.
.

Um, there is a mechanism in place to change it. It is called an amendment.
That be the path. Not pushing through laws, usurping all rules and have it go to the courts, only to have a cease and desist order, but ignore it.

Originally posted by Janky Red

The SCOTUS, does not judge new laws, they judge disputed decisions which have been appealed from lower courts
State and Federal alike. The Constitutionality of a decision is a matter of opinion of 9 people...

If no law is breached, there is no reason to make a decision. If no new law is made, there is nothing to determine a breach OF. Therefore, I stand by my original statement. They are not mutually exclusive.

Tell me how a chartered entity, like a corporation is now afforded the rights and stature of an individual?

A miscarriage of justice and abuse of SCOTUS powers would be the most logical answer. It's not within their purview to make such a decision.

Would you argue that the constitution afforded, the legal protection of a ficticious entity and the consideration
of an individual, to the individual AND his/their creation?

I don't think the Constitution speaks to that question at all. It's silent on the point, and so the SCOTUS overstepped their mandate to make such a determination, which is becoming a more and more common occurrence. Probably another abuse of the "Commerce Clause", but I haven't studied up on it, because the point doesn't bother me. I can't say that I care about it much.

This perversion was created in the courts. by perverted opinions of supreme court justices inching forth their
insane opinions... Nowhere in the constitution can one infer a fabricated legal entity, is in fact a human.
A shoehorned example of opinion reigning over the constitutional intent itself.

I can agree with that in it's entirety.

reply to post by Realms


I don't even know how to respond to that... That has nothing to do with anything. Enjoy your life living in ignorance, I guess. Also you should probably 2nd line that before a mod comes through.

reply to post by macman


I don't see why you think that I think that ammendments are not the right mechanism for change, but you have done an excellent job of illustrating my point. You, when reading my post, must have thought, "hey this guy thinks the constitution needs to be interpretted, he must not think the ammendment process is a good idea." When in reality, I said nothing regarding the ammendment process so you wouldn't know that I think ammendments are clearly the real way to update the constitution for the modern era and that I think Congress consistently over steps its boundaries as our legislature. So thanks to the ambiguity of the written word interpretations are necessary. Thank you for demonstrating that so clearly.

reply to post by Drakmarine


Thanks right back.
You stated that the Constitution is a living document.
It is not, as this implies that the laws as stated need to be changed via the Judicial branch and/or Govt running rampant and saying 1+1=5, just to suit the situation.

It is not a living document. There is a mechanism to change it, and it is not followed.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You are the epitome of the Elitist Liberal Totalitarian.
You know best.
What you know is truth.
Everyone else is stupid.
If they don't agree, apply Alinksy rules for attack.

The foundation of the Country was designed as such so that any citizen can read and interpret it. It is people like you that has twisted into this idea that the peons can't possibly understand it, so you must read and dictate from on high.
You offer little except your distorted view on how things should be, as decided by you. Instead of allowing people to govern and provide for themselves.

If that is true...why did the original document include the SCOTUS in it...with the purpose of ruling on if laws are Constitutional???




As far as me being an elitist and knowing all....I'm not the one claiming to know better than the SCOTUS...those are your friends doing that.

reply to post by macman


Thanks, I guess, you proved me right once again look up the definition of a living document. Here, I'll give you the wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org...

A living document can have a framework for its change and still require a group to provide context so that it is not misinterpretted. So you've proven once again that the written word can be deceptive as to its meaning and that some people cannot understand it. So a LIVING DOCUMENT, must be interpretted. Thanks.

reply to post by nenothtu

When it comes to how I live MY life, MY opinion IS the only one that matters

Which doesn't mean that your opinion is correct.

Would you agree?

reply to post by nenothtu

If no law is breached, there is no reason to make a decision. If no new law is made, there is nothing to determine a breach OF. Therefore, I stand by my original statement. They are not mutually exclusive.

LOL...so the SCOTUS only hears cases when they already know a law has been breached????




Come on...that is weak...just give it up.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Honestly, you might be Sol himself.
Deflect and attack.
I stand by what I said about you, as it is the truth.

Originally posted by Drakmarine
reply to post by macman

 

Thanks, I guess, you proved me right once again look up the definition of a living document. Here, I'll give you the wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org...

A living document can have a framework for its change and still require a group to provide context so that it is not misinterpretted. So you've proven once again that the written word can be deceptive as to its meaning and that some people cannot understand it. So a LIVING DOCUMENT, must be interpretted. Thanks.

Wow, Wikipedia?? Really?
Didn't you and your buddy basically damn me yesterday for using it as a source?

I suggest you look at the definition within the realm of Constitutional arguments.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You are the epitome of the Elitist Liberal Totalitarian.
You know best.
What you know is truth.
Everyone else is stupid.
If they don't agree, apply Alinksy rules for attack.

The foundation of the Country was designed as such so that any citizen can read and interpret it. It is people like you that has twisted into this idea that the peons can't possibly understand it, so you must read and dictate from on high.
You offer little except your distorted view on how things should be, as decided by you. Instead of allowing people to govern and provide for themselves.

If that is true...why did the original document include the SCOTUS in it...with the purpose of ruling on if laws are Constitutional???

As far as me being an elitist and knowing all....I'm not the one claiming to know better than the SCOTUS...those are your friends doing that.

Your relating of having SCOTUS included does not mean that the citizen is to be given instruction on how to read or understand the document.
Every retort of yours is basically a combination of deflect, distort, attack and misdirect.
That's it. You talk a good game, but you have really said nothing.

reply to post by macman


I don't know who my "buddy" is, but I doubt I condemned the use of wikipedia. Every once and a while I get on the hate wikipedia bandwagon, especially when it comes to trying to use it as a scholarly source, but for definitions its quite useful I think. Anyway I'd love to read your opinion on this, do you have a link somewhere where you feel its adequately expressed?

reply to post by macman

Your relating of having SCOTUS included does not mean that the citizen is to be given instruction on how to read or understand the document.
Every retort of yours is basically a combination of deflect, distort, attack and misdirect.
That's it. You talk a good game, but you have really said nothing.

Pay attention...because I'm going to directly address the first comment you made....so you can't accuse me of "deflecting".

Ready...I'll even repeat what I'm responding to.

Your relating of having SCOTUS included does not mean that the citizen is to be given instruction on how to read or understand the document.

Yes, it does mean that the citizen needs to be given instruction....because the SCOTUS has the final say.

You can THINK the Constitution says whatever you want...but if the SCOTUS says otherwise...your OPINION of what the Constitution says is not correct.

So yes...since the founders included the SCOTUS in the Constitution to have the FINAL say on the Constitutionality of laws...then that should suggest to you that they did believe the document will be interpreted differently in the future.


There...no deflection...your turn.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

If that is true...why did the original document include the SCOTUS in it...with the purpose of ruling on if laws are Constitutional???

Just wanted to re-quote that before you realized you'd said it...

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Janky Red

 

You argue from both sides of the fence.
The issue of Corporations is not part of this issue, yet you use it as a stepping stone.
The application of Case Law is as Progressive as it gets.
You seem to argue for Case Law and condemn it all at once.
Your statement that the SCOTUS only hears cases that have been sent up is a matter of semantics.
The Judicial branch is to determine if a law was broken and if a proposed law is constitutional.
Seems to me that it is working its way up the chain, and by all rights and definition will be deemed unlawful.
And no amount of twisting and turning or holding up the Commerce Claus in defense will make it constitutional.

edit on 18-5-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

The corporation is part of the issue when you look at what spurred the desire to address healthcare itself.
The O'Romney approach was a misguided attempt to make a basic thing such as treatment available
to people. The corporation enters the discussion when you observe the current paradigm and only viable to ensure an American can get access to a doctor and not be bankrupted when life takes its toll. The practice of
rescinding legal contracts after a contract was executed is above all notions of law, this is also a reason
for attempting to address the healthcare situation, this was also due to corporate dominance.

The application of case law precedence, Stare Decisis, was developed long before the progressive movement ever existed, it also predated MARX and the Beatles if that makes you feel better. The state of the corporate humanity can be attributed to the people who exalt and defend industry endlessly, hardly modern a progressive attribute, of commie business haters, no?

You have your idea of the Supreme court slightly off... The active role of the SCOTUS is to be the ultimate decision after matters are appealed, the law is not proposed at the time, it is already in practice and applied.
Parties are then arguing the application of a ruling based upon said law... It is a minutia, but it does make a difference conceptually.

I don't think the health care mandate is constitutional, but I don't think contractual recision is either.

I think anyone that cares about the constitution and Americans can see both sides of the fence, a fence always has two sides.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

If that is true...why did the original document include the SCOTUS in it...with the purpose of ruling on if laws are Constitutional???

Just wanted to re-quote that before you realized you'd said it...

Ok.....

And....

reply to post by Drakmarine


Here you go.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Nice, you actually answered a question.
No, you are wrong. We the people are the holders of it. Not the Govt. That is why it was designed for anyone to read and understand. There is supposed to be Judicial restraint applied, not activist on the benches viewing each case compared to foreign law, case law and the like. The Judges life should be very simple. Does it go against the law and/or Constitution? In this case, with Obamacare, yes it goes against both.

What you pitch is Rule of Man, as man is the Judges.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by nenothtu

 

When it comes to how I live MY life, MY opinion IS the only one that matters

Which doesn't mean that your opinion is correct.

Would you agree?

To the extent that it bears on MY life, it is correct and absolute. I have no desire to apply it to your life, until that starts encroaching on my decision making ability. To be honest, I don't care about how the rest choose to run their health care options, or what sort of co-ops they set up. It's none of my business until they try to force me into that particular van.

In short, you can do as you please with it, but count me out of that loop.

The unconstitutional and illegal part of all this is the individual mandate. You can do as you please, as long as I'm not required to participate in the scheme in any form, and against my will. Slavery was allegedly abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation.

If folks insist for whatever reason on having the government mother them, I think it's only fair to provide an opt-out mechanism. I don't pay into the ponzi scheme, and have no rights to expect anything out of it. Seems fair enough to me.

Since that mechanism is NOT provided in the "law", I simply refuse to participate in any manner. Push comes to shove, I'll quit working for externals again, so that no taxes at all are generated on my part for them to "fine" or add punitive "taxes" to, or however you want to define it, and just move back to the farm and live off of what I raise. I've done it before, and have no doubt I can do it again.