U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law

Kate wrote: I doubt it was "the nation" that wanted to break the spell. It was more likely that the opposing party didn't want the same President in power for so long, essentially barring anyone else with Presidential aspirations from getting elected to office.

Yeah, that's how they got 75% of the states to sign onto it alright. :faint:

LadyJazzer wrote: There was no coup, but thanks for playing.

There was a coup - but thanks for playing.

No, there wasn't...but thanks for playing...

Oh, I forgot... We're in your fantasy world... :Snooze

There was no coup d'etat. There was a popular president, who was elected...along with an unbreakable majority of Congress, ALSO elected, and they packed the court, as was their Constitutional right, with the judges of their choice and who were confirmed. You've conveniently ignored my reponse in a previous message:

How did he happen to HAVE that huge majority in Congress?... Oh wait... He came in after Herbert Hoover started the Depression, and the people were fed up with the incompetence of the REPUBLICAN administration that destroyed the economy. So, they cleaned house, and kicked out all of the Republicans... Dang... That must hurt.

FDR succeeded because the Republicans blew it, and the Dems took over control... How did they get control?...They were voted in by the PEOPLE who were fed up with the Republicans.

If the Republicans didn't like it, they had the same Constitutional rules to change it ... by voting their party back into office and replacing the court....

Ironic isn't it that the man chosen to lead the country out of the ill-informed Republican governance that brought on the Depression and Crash of 1929, elected someone they saw as their savior to the previous Hoover administration's elitism and nincompoopery. Who would have thought that the same moronic idiocy that didn't work in 1929, would be the "Call of the Righties" in 2011?

Isn't it also fascinating that this alleged "dictator", "usurper", was ELECTED to the office FOUR TIMES... I guess if the PEOPLE were so unhappy, or thought he was doing such a lousy job, or that he had somehow STOLEN their country from them, they could have run a better candidate and voted him out of office... That's how it's done... Elections... (A difficult concept for you, I'm sure...if you can't suppress the vote, play games with the ballot boxes, or find enough ways to do dirty tricks on your opponents...) But if he was so bad, why didn't they vote him out and replace him?



The Dictionary I looked up only had two definitions:

A) a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power.

Both of which, of course, are lies in the case of FDR...

Synonyms
overthrow, rebellion, revolution, uprising.


There was no coup...But thanks for playing.

PrintSmith wrote:

Kate wrote: I doubt it was "the nation" that wanted to break the spell. It was more likely that the opposing party didn't want the same President in power for so long, essentially barring anyone else with Presidential aspirations from getting elected to office.

Yeah, that's how they got 75% of the states to sign onto it alright. :faint:

Ratified by 75% of the state legislatures, who were comprised of politicians, not the population.

The Republicans, though they did enjoy the majority in both houses at the time, needed plenty of Democrat votes to reach the necessary 2/3 in each house. The state legislatures or ratification committees, if they were disposed to favor the amendment, were so disposed as a result of the complicity shown by the 3 branches of the DC government to take from the states powers that were reserved to them by the Constitution. No matter how you slice it, FDR's dictatorial demeanor gave the DC legislature and the states pause as to the length of time it was safe for one person to wield so much power and authority. Who knows how much more damage that man could have done above and beyond the carnage to the Constitution he was able to do had he been possessed with a health constitution and lived through his fourth term and gone on to rule from his throne for more terms after that. We might never have gotten out of the Depression if he hadn't died in the arms of his mistress when he did.

In your opinion....

Have fun... Your delusion grows boring.

Excellent spin. You earlier made the statement that "the nation" wanted the amendment when it was in fact the legislatures that ratified the same. Next, you will tell me that FDR was a founding father.

Your ability to spin any argument to fit your predetermined position is vastly entertaining to watch.