Supreme Court ObamaCare

Regarding the Militia Act - what the left wants to ignore about that point is that the law passed said that when troops were called into service by the federal government they were required to present themselves equipped in the manner specified by Congress - which, as it turns out, actually was one of the specifically enumerated powers contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Congress didn't need to distort the intent of a preamble to secure additional powers for themselves, they didn't need to come up with new definitions for words, didn't need to invent anything at all because the exercise of that power was specifically delegated to Congress by the States in the language of the Constitution.

I did, however, get a kick out of Obama's little speech. I don't know how he considers a 7 vote margin in the House of Representatives a "strong majority" given that it represents less than 2% of the entire number of votes, but perhaps his memory about what the vote counts on it were 2 years ago is a bit faded. It would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by a democratically elected legislature? Really? Since when? The high court has been doing that for over 200 years now, how could it possibly be "unprecedented"?

And we've got you to keep regurgitating the fantasy interpretations of the "sovereign citizens" nutjobs.

Does not seem proper for a President to attempt to persuade a Supreme court to vote one way or the other. But he is an ex-Constitutional law professor, how dare the SCOTUS question his law? LOL

Something the Dog Said wrote: No, the state of Colorado is expressly prohibited from negotiating a treaty with Iran, because it is expressly forbidden from doing so because it is not sovereign but instead is subservient to the federal government. The state of Colorado can not create it's own currency either which if it was truly sovereign, would be allowed. See the Constitution:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Bear with me here a moment Dog. For the sake of our discussion, without the delegation of power from the States to coin money, negotiate trade agreements and treaties and to declare war, wouldn't Colorado have the sovereignty to do all three as a free, independent and sovereign State? Of course it would, and so would every other State. The power and authority that the States had by virtue of their sovereignty was delegated to the Congress in the Constitution. All of the powers exercised by the federal government are delegated powers. This is what the 10th Amendment made very clear. The powers held by the States that were not delegated to the United States, or prohibited from being independently exercised by the States going forward because they had been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, were powers and authority that were reserved for the States and the people to continue to exercise themselves. Delegated and surrendered are not interchangeable terms Dog. The States did not surrender these powers to the United States, they delegated these powers to the United States. The States did not surrender their individual sovereignty for a single sovereignty, they had only recently fought a war to escape being collectively subjugated to a single sovereignty. What in the world possess you to think, or believe, that they decided to return to being collectively subjugated to a single sovereignty once again and surrendered to it everything that they had won for themselves at the risk of their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor? The whole problem they had with their former sovereign was that a legislature other than their own, the Parliament of Great Britain, proclaimed to have the ability to subjugate them however it pleased. Are we really to believe that they willingly subjugated themselves to another one and placed themselves totally at its mercy as you are arguing?

PrintSmith wrote: It would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by a democratically elected legislature? Really? Since when? The high court has been doing that for over 200 years now, how could it possibly be "unprecedented"?

In Obuma's fantasy world where he is the czar.

A lib wrote this.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... _blog.html

.............."But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.

I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice. ".....................

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: No, the state of Colorado is expressly prohibited from negotiating a treaty with Iran, because it is expressly forbidden from doing so because it is not sovereign but instead is subservient to the federal government. The state of Colorado can not create it's own currency either which if it was truly sovereign, would be allowed. See the Constitution:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Bear with me here a moment Dog. For the sake of our discussion, without the delegation of power from the States to coin money, negotiate trade agreements and treaties and to declare war, wouldn't Colorado have the sovereignty to do all three as a free, independent and sovereign State? Of course it would, and so would every other State. The power and authority that the States had by virtue of their sovereignty was delegated to the Congress in the Constitution. All of the powers exercised by the federal government are delegated powers. This is what the 10th Amendment made very clear. The powers held by the States that were not delegated to the United States, or prohibited from being independently exercised by the States going forward because they had been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, were powers and authority that were reserved for the States and the people to continue to exercise themselves. Delegated and surrendered are not interchangeable terms Dog. The States did not surrender these powers to the United States, they delegated these powers to the United States. The States did not surrender their individual sovereignty for a single sovereignty, they had only recently fought a war to escape being collectively subjugated to a single sovereignty. What in the world possess you to think, or believe, that they decided to return to being collectively subjugated to a single sovereignty once again and surrendered to it everything that they had won for themselves at the risk of their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor? The whole problem they had with their former sovereign was that a legislature other than their own, the Parliament of Great Britain, proclaimed to have the ability to subjugate them however it pleased. Are we really to believe that they willingly subjugated themselves to another one and placed themselves totally at its mercy as you are arguing?

These magical "States", where did they receive their mythical powers? By the citizens of this great country, which allowed their representatives (since obviously despite your worship of them, there is no physical incarnation of these magical "states") to act in their behest. They decided they did not want a loose affiliation of "sovereign" states, revoked the Articles of Confederation and created the strong and vibrant Constitution which still serves today. You may quibble about delegated and surrendered, but they are quite meaningless, since the citizens of the United States decided to create a nation, not an affiliation of "sovereign" territories. Does the phrase ONE nation, INDIVIDISIBLE, with liberty and justice for all" ring a bell. Can you point to any action that the state can perform that does not have to be in accordance with the US Constitution and the federal government? If the states were truly sovereign, could they not decide such matters as the hours that their citizens are allowed to work, decide what vehicles could be used on their highway, decide what quality of air and water they could have, etc. No, they must do so in accordance with the decisions of the federal government. Does not sound very sovereign to me. No, the states are a subset of the federal government in a manner similar to the counties being subsets of the states. They are allowed "sovereignty" only in the areas that the citizens (not these magical "states") decide they shall have. For example, the state of Colorado has no power to divide, merge or eliminate counties, only the citizens can do so. According to your previous post, that means that the state of Colorado is not a sovereign entity. Since it can not control the counties, thus it can not be sovereign, can it?

mtntrekker wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: It would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by a democratically elected legislature? Really? Since when? The high court has been doing that for over 200 years now, how could it possibly be "unprecedented"?

In Obuma's fantasy world where he is the czar.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- ... care-case/

Federal courts strike back! "In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law"

Obama the dictator really needs to go.

neptunechimney wrote: A lib wrote this.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... _blog.html

.............."But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.

I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice. ".....................

And the decision we will read will be well reasoned by SCOTUS backed by court cases.

Obuma is just setting the stage for any decision that might go contrary to his way of thinking. Got to keep control of all his worshippers.

Think Justice Kagan leaked the decision to her old boss Barack?

It will be interesting to see what Justice writes up in response to the Reagan era judge's demands.