“Combative”Obama on FOXNEWS 6pm

When are you people going to learn that the constitution means nothing to politicians? It is a symbolic piece of paper that has been disregarded whenever the government decides to do so.

Most of the time your schtick is pretty lame. But that one was pretty funny.

they are 2 different lawsuits dealing with 2 seperate things. The symbolic one is an argument claiming the unconstitutionality of mandating HC on everyone. The Landmark one submitted by Levin is in regards to A1 S7 C2 of the constitution that says all laws must have a yea or nay vote before it is sent to the pres.

The landmark suit is only being submitted if Obama goes ahead with "deem and pass" which says that basically the house "deems" that the senate passed the bill and sends the bill to the president without having to vote on it themselves. The argument is the lack of a vote, which no bill can become law without a vote from both houses.

We might as well disband the House and declare Obama the Emperor if he can create laws without the approval of a bicameral congress.

Congress is a bunch of career politicians trying to maintain the status quo. There is no such thing as a super majority. Every man for himself, and you see how quick they will throw someone under the bus when it doesn't meet their self-serving needs.

when are you going to learn that Obama's fucking agenda means shit if the supreme court deems it unconstitutional? that very same "piece of paper" is the legal basis for all rights, laws, and bills, including this one. It trumps all ideologies. If it has been disregarded, then the bill is dead in the water.

ya know you don't HAVE to be a massive cynic? you can brush that chip off your shoulder and embrace the constitution. just sayin

Filing a lawsuit doesn't mean anything. That's up to a judge to determine constitutionality.

I can embrace the constitution all day long, and it won't change one thing. All I get is one vote, same as everyone else. What I do know is that I am not niave enough to believe that the constitution is some magic thing that is going to protect me from the government.

When people worry about semantics, they fail to ask the really important questions. I did not see one single question with substance in the entire interview with Baier. Every single question was about how it was going to pass. Did he not for one second think to ask a simple "What the fuck is in the bill?" kind of question?

you should feel honored. I took you off of ignore long enough to see this question. Now pay attention, lad.

I'll copy and paste for you the first half of US Constitution Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2, because it is what is pertinent here, and I'll further highlight what you need to read as a minimum.



Clause 2: From bills to law
“ Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approves, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.


I don't buy that mandating insurance is unconstitutional, Article 1, Section 8 gives vague powers to collect taxes for the "general welfare" of the people. So if you came here to argue that, you won't get it from me.

However, Mark Levin's LLF, is sueing the government if the bill passes the congress through the "deem and pass" manuver where as Pelosi's House "deems" the bill before them is the same as the senate bill that passed dec. 24th, and agrees that it is passed without actually voting on it themselves. Clause 2 clearly states that all bills must pass with a yea or nay vote. To do otherwise negates the need for a House and effectively reduces us to a unicameral Congress if a law can be passed based on the vote of one house.

Pelosi is using this manuver because she is afraid to bring the bill to an actual vote. Theres still alot of people who need to flip for her to get to 216, don't be fooled by the few who have turned. They were expected to turn and accounted for. She still doesn't have 216. Her claim that the senate bill matches the current bill is based on a promise that after the bill is passed she will readdress all the changes that have come before congress since dec. 24th.

Madison specifically talked about the general welfare clause in the Federalist papers. He basically explained that it is not an open door for Congress to do anything it wants. If that were the case, is mandatory gym membership ok too, since it might be in the 'general welfare' ? How about 3 servings of Broccoli a week being mandatory?? THe possibilities are endless which is exactly why it cannot be used in that fashion.

agreed, but that is still the constitutional basis for the bill. It is up for the discretion of the congress and a 2/3s majority to decide what is going too far and what is acceptable.

It is just a matter of time before things like that occur. They will use it in that fashion, and it will be up to a judge to decide. Nobody knows the outcome and there are people who have been fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade for decades. Sometimes people are stuck with what they get, whether they want it or not.

On ignore, huh? Then how you did you see my question? No matter.

Glad you've not drank the Kool-Aid about the constitutionality of "mandated" coverage.

Deem and and pass have never been ruled upon by the Supreme Court, but they have been reluctant to touch the mechanics because it is a political question. Under the political question doctrine, court's normally won't touch these issues. This court, I am not so sure. But, they argument for constitutionality is that deem and pass is indeed a yes vote. But, this may all be moot since they probably will have the necessary votes.

I doubt Baier saw all the questions first of all. Secondly, I would guess that the vast majority of the questions received were of a similar type.

If Obama could have had a single payer, he would have it. THAT is his goal. He has stated as much in the past...and that it will take 10-15 years for it to be implemented. What he understands now is that this bill plants the seeds for single payer. Even this bill is inciting a visceral reaction from the public...had he demanded single payer there would have been millions marching on DC to stop it.

It might be a moot point anyway....if this passes, and Congress changes hands, I would expect the first order of business will be repealing major sections of this bill. If Obama vetoes them, so be it....legislation will come to a screaching halt...which in and of itself is a good thing... THe 2012 elections will be a referendum on this health care bill...and given that only the tax increases will be in place, I think it will be hard to make a case in favor of it.

Any lawsuit would take a few years to crawl its way up to the SC anyway.... it might be repealed before then.

Right..because where in the constitution does it say that the federal government can mandate that your citizenship requires you to purchase something. It doesn't. This will be fought endlessly by the states.....

Virtual war is going to be started in this country because of this mandate. Citizens en mass are going to ignore it, and sue. States are going to sue, and change their constitutions as well. All started because Obama needs to implement his marxist vision and satisfy his massive ego.

I'm sure he didn't, but why that question? It was clearly intended to reenforce a Republican talking point. And, yes, I suspect the questions were very similar because it is the Fox News channel, and most viewers lean to the right. Either way, it was a loaded question.

He could have had at least a public option passed, but he was too naive. He had record level approval ratings when he took office. He pissed it away letting congress argue. It wasn't like he handed them a bill to debate when he started this process. He came up with a bunch of bullshit principles and said "have at it". He was too hands off, and now he pretty much gets none of what he originally wanted. I don't think he realized how partisan congress really is.

It was a lack of experience on his part, but I think he is starting to understand that now. He wants this thing done and over with so he can get on to appearing to rescue the economy.

i told you i took you off

from what I understand, the Supreme Court won't touch it due to seperation of powers. In other words the Supreme Court won't make it a habit to grind all legislation to a halt so they can review the constitutionality of every bill, because we all know there will be someone out there who is willing to submit a legal challenge to just about anything. The Congress however, still does have a lawful order to operate with in the bounds of the constitution. In the case of a landmark bill like this, which the right has a definate case against the bill if the "deem and pass" is used, the Supreme Court would step in and hold the congress accountable for its actions.

one defense for "deem and pass" is that it has been used in the past, but that doesn't make it legal or permissable to use now. If it was wrong in the past then it is wrong now.

You could probably have said the same thing (why did he choose that one) regarding any question he asked from the emails.

I agree completely that he fucked this process up. They were trying to not make the mistakes of Clinton, didn't realize how bad Pelosi and crew would fuck it up, and generally misread their/his election and misread the mood of the American people.

In short, I think inexperience and arrogance are what did him in on this issue (even if it passes) ....which by the way, were 2 of the biggest criticisms of him before his election.

It has an inherent yes or no, so the process does not bother me. but, like I said I think Pelosi will whip up the votes.

it has a yes or no from the senate but not from the house. the yes or no has to include a definative vote tally that can be recorded by the house. Pelosi is avoiding this so her liberal members who serve in conservative districts can say that they didn't vote fro it because there never really was a vote.

By following the laws of the constitution, passage of the bill through deem and pass is a paradox. It can't possibly pass and be sent to the president, there was no vote to get it there. If it does get to the president then it gives creedence and a legal basis to take it to the supreme court.

:stretch: so what is the problem? bill is struck down. next

it'll only be struck down if they use the deem and pass. otherwise it'll legally be fine if it gets the 216. the supreme court won't interfere with the discretion of the congress if the congress has deemed the bill acceptable by a super majority.

so then the bill stands. anything else, Robin?