Posted on 03/26/2012 4:55:06 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
0bama0care will be declared constitutional.
You state this as if it were a fact, not just your fear.
Another worthless opinion.
> Another worthless opinion.
I’m entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours.
>> 0bama0care will be declared constitutional.
>
> You state this as if it were a fact, not just your fear.
As you pointed out, this is my opinion. It has nothing to do with fear, but with my perceptions and assessments. Your response was unnecessarily insulting and condescending. Says more about you than it does about me.
LOL! Now THAT was funny!
But really, from what I’m seeing in the press and from the 0bamabots, it isn’t just negative waves.
Neither did income taxes.
Social Security never went away, either.
Neither did deductions from your paycheck, which FDR promised was just a war-time necessity that would be rolled back.
That’s what progressivism is. It’s the dialectic. It’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis, ever encroaching more and more.
Negative wave warning ...
Even if 0bama0care is knocked off by the SCOTUS, the progressives will be back. They are relentless. They will try again. They will stack the court. They will eventually get their way.
Right now, the progressives have the mob behind them. They have the wind at their backs. They have a long history, a long chain of successes. Yes, a few setbacks here and there along the way, but they continue to make progress.
Can you believe that NH, VT, MA, CT, NY all allow “gay” marriage? The very concept is illogical and irrational and reduces marriage to little more than a legal contract between any two parties. How can these states retain their laws against polygamy, polyamory, incest, pedophilia? What justification can they now have? But those are also items on the progressive agenda, so they will come to pass.
goo
The best hope we have is to create an informed majority to turn this ship around. We seem to have made a little bit of progress in that area, but the commies are getting aggressive about silencing us and marginalizing us.
I don’t know what it’s going to take. But I just don’t see any turns in our direction, at least none that are foreseeable.
All we conservatives seem to be able to do is slow down the progression to totalitarian collectivism. We just haven’t been able to reverse it. At this point, I don’t think we can.
I would love to see some good reasons for optimism. Maybe living up here in the Northeast makes that nearly impossible, being surrounded as I am by people with no moral compass and apparently no common sense.
I present the Four Horseman of the Non-Apocalypse ....
The legal foundation of this "pass it so you can find out what's in it" appalling attack on American liberty is made of sand. Even Justice Kennedy will get that.
AND (psst) ...... they're on a roll ......
Obama suffers his second 9 - 0 Supreme Court defeat in two months.
1. Is the financial penalty for not complying with the individual mandate a tax?
Essentially, the federal government argued that because the penalty is a tax, the plaintiffs had no standing to sue until after the tax had been assessed. The district court didn’t find this compelling, and ruled against the feds.
THIS IS NOT THE GAME PLAY.
DOESN’T MATTER THAT THE DISTRICT COURT RULED AGAINST THE FEDS. IN FACT THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF PENALTY AS TAX IS IRRELEVANT; A SIDESHOW.
AND WHY DO YOU THINK OBAMA’S LAWYERS STOOD DOWN ABOUT IT? ANSWER: THEY DID NOT WANT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION (EXPLAINED HERE BELOW), NOT NOW ANYWAYS.
2. Is the individual mandate an unconstitutional overreach of Congressional power?
This is the main event.
NO, IT IS NOT THE MAIN EVENT BUT MANY EYES HAVE BEEN DIVERTED TO IT. THE MAIN EVENT IS AN ATTACK FROM THE REAR THAT MOST OF YOU ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF (EXPLAINED LATER IN THIS POST).
THIS IS NOT THE GAME PLAY.
THE ANSWER IS YES, OF COURSE IT IS AN OVERREACH. BUT TO PLACATE AND PACIFY CONSERVATIVES AND PEOPLE ‘POLLS’, SCOTUS WILL THROW THE DOG A BONE AND STRIKE IT DOWN BUT IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME WHICH WILL BE A DEFEAT OF THE RIGHT WING.
3. Severability: What parts, if any, of the law may remain if the individual mandate is unconstitutional?
THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL ‘PART’ (NOT THE WHOLE) OF THE GAME WINNING (FOR OBAMA) PLAY.
SO THIS IS PARTIAL GAME PLAY. READ ON:
Typically, a major, massive law like the PPACA would have a severability clause: a line that says, “even if part x of the law goes down, everything else may remain law.” Such a clause is often used in laws that might contain one contentious bit, thereby preventing the whole law from being struck down with it. The individual mandate is a prime example of an element of a law that might warrant a severability clause; however, no such clause was written into the PPACA.
SEVERABILITY WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD SHOW THAT THE LEFTISTS WHO BACKED THIS LEGISLATION WANTED SOMETHING ELSE TO BE LEFT STANDING. WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO FOOL PEOPLE, TRYING TO KEEP SOMETHING UNDER COVER, YOU DON’T PUT OUT A RED FLAG THAT SAYS IF YOU WANT ME TO GIVE BACK THIS PART OF THE PROPERTY I’VE TAKEN, I MAY CEDE IT BACK TO YOU BUT I WANT THE OTHER GOODIES THAT I HAVE ALSO TAKEN FROM YOU.
THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE REALLY, THEY WANT SOMETHING MORE AND SLID IT RIGHT PAST YOU IN THEIR 900+ PAGE LEGISLATIVE BOWEL MOVEMENT CALLED THE PPACA.
THEY KNEW FROM THE FDR 1935 PLAYBOOK THAT OBAMACARE WOULD LAND IN THE SCOTUS. THEY ANTIPCIPATED THIS. THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE GOTTEN THIS FAR WITHOUT ANYONE CATCHING ON TO WHAT THEY’RE REALLY AFTER IS A CONFIRMATION THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY REALLY IS THE ‘STUPID PARTY’ AND IN THE CASE OF THE GOP-E, THE COMPLICIT SUBSIDIARY.
SO THE DEMS LEFT SEVERABILITY OUT AND ANNOUNCED IN THE PRESS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION. THIS WAS A LIE. REPEAT THIS WAS A LIE (EXPLAINED BELOW).
As with the AIA question, the Court has assigned a lawyer to argue the position that the mandate is severable, i.e., that the rest of the law may stand.
THIS IS THE GAME PLAY, THE PLAY THAT DETERMINES THE WINNER.
NOTICE THAT THE SCOTUS IS SETTING THE STAGE TO GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHAT IT REALLY WANTS.
NOW THINK SHARP.....THERE IS SOMETHING THE LEFTISTS WANT BADLY FOR SCOTUS TO LET STAND....WHAT COULD IT BE?
WHEN YOU KNOW THE ANSWER, THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THIS WHOLE FIGHT AND THE ANSWER WILL BE CLEAR AS SUNSHINE, SOMETHING YOU HAVE KNOWN ABOUT LEFTISTS FROM THE MOMENT YOU KNEW THEY WERE DECEIVERS.
The federal government takes a middling position here, arguing that parts of the law may stand, but that provisions relying on the individual mandate should not. They acknowledge there are dire financial consequences for the country, should certain parts of the law stand (most glaringly, guaranteed issue and pre-existing conditions clauses). But the rest of the law, they maintain, ought to remain intact.
YES, AS I WROTE ABOVE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS THE REST OF THE LAW TO REMAIN INTACT. READ ON:
The Court will likely take a very conservative approach to severability – they’re wary of overstepping their power where the legislature is concerned, and are unlikely to strike down the law in its entirety.
THIS IS THE MONEY STATEMENT. “UNLIKELY TO STRIKE DOWN THE LAW IN ITS ENTIRETY”, THIS IS THE GAME PLAY.
REMEMBER WHEN ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD REPEAL ‘PARTS’ OF OBAMACARE AND LET THE GOOD PARTS STAND?
4. Is the Medicaid expansion an unconstitutional coercion of the states?
THIS IS NOT THE GAME PLAY. IT IS A SIDESHOW, A DIVERSION FOR NOW.
IN FACT THE LEFT DOESN’T CARE ANYMORE ABOUT THIS PLAY ANY MORE THAN IT CARES ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
MY REVELATION TO YOU:
THE MAIN THING THAT THE LEFTISTS WANT STANDING IS FOUND UNDER TITLE IX
http://burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/hr3590_health_care_law_2010.pdf
THEY WANT TAXES, PURE AND SIMPLE.
IF THEY HAD PRESENTED INITIALLY UPFRONT WHAT THEY TRULY WANTED, THEY WOULDN’T HAVE HAD A SNOWBALL’S CHANCE IN HELL OF GETTING PASSAGE.
SO WHILE THE STUPID PARTY ARGUES ABOUT THE ‘PENALTY’ AS A ‘TAX’, THERE ARE IN FACT REAL TAXES, NOT PENALTIES, THAT ARE THERE IN TITLE IX AND THEY WANT THOSE LEFT STANDING.
IN FACT THEY ALWAYS WANTED THESE TAXES, BECAUSE TAXES ARE THE POWER THEY CRAVE. AND OF COURSE REAL TAXES ARE ALWAYS BACKED BY PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO PAY.
NOW THINK FOR A MOMENT YOU ARE A LEFTIST. YOUR FOCUS IS TO RULE THE CAPITAL. PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF CAPITAL IS JUST A MINOR INCONVENIENCE. SO WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU TAX IT. THAT’S HOW YOU WIN THE GAME OF CONTROL.
CONTINUE THINKING AS A LEFTIST.....HOW DO YOU PRESENT THE TAX ARGUMENT AND HOW DO YOU WRITE IT? YOU PRESENT IT BURIED IN A LARGE DOCUMENT THAT HAS ALL KINDS OF LEGAL DIVERSIONS AND GOOD SOCIAL INTENTIONS.
LET ME PUT IT TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CRUDELY....THE LEFTISTS DON’T GIVE TWO FARTS FOR HEALTHCARE OTHER THAN AS A ‘GOOD INTENTION’ RALLYING CRY ON PAR WITH “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN”. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THAT AS MUCH AS THEY CARE ABOUT TAXES.
HOW TO WRITE IT?
1) TAX THE PRIVATE HEALTHPLANS UNTIL EITHER:
A) THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS OR
B) THEY BUCKLE UNDER OR
C) BOTH A AND B.
2) TAX INCOMES OF 200,000 OR MORE AND WAIT FOR INFLATION TO PUSH PEOPLE’S INCOMES INTO THE TARGET ZONE.
NOW SIT BACK AND PAT YOURSELF ON THE BACK. YOU JUST DID A FAR GREATER JOB THAN YOUR GLOBAL WARMING COMRADES.
YOU HAVE ADVANCED THE LEFT’S AGENDA CONSIDERABLY AND IN JUST A FEW DECADES TOTAL CONTROL WILL BE AT HAND. THE LEFT SHALL RULE THE WORLD.
YOU ARE TRULY A GENIUS, AN EVIL GENIUS.
"After the election we will have more flexibility".
Flexibility to do ?
Everything he has done so far has been anti-american, I don't see that changing if he is reelected.
bmfl. wow.
> I present the Four Horseman of the Non-Apocalypse ....
I *LOVE* it!!
With all my heart, I hope and PRAY that you are right!
It was insulting and condescending, but necessary and intended.
You, and many like you, post too much opinion that you state outright as fact.
When I point it out you take umbrage.
Tough and I really don't care what you think {your opinion} about me.
You can jump up and down, hold your breath until you turn blue, respond or not, I don't care.
> You, and many like you, post too much opinion that you
> state outright as fact.
Indeed, we’ll all sleep better knowing that you are the self-appointed opinion watchdog.
How delightful.
> Tough and I really don’t care what you think {your
> opinion} about me.
>
> You can jump up and down, hold your breath until you turn
> blue, respond or not, I don’t care.
It appears that you are the one throwing the temper tantrum.
FReeregards. We have the same prayer.
Well, Judge Vinson in Florida vacated the entire law. He showed no concern for all you described.
Thank you very much.
America
Ever wonder why Obama actually wants this litigated before the election?
1) If ObamaCare is overturned it will ensure that 100% of the freebie wantin’ liberals show up to vote for thier goodies and relect obama who will replace a few more justices before his 2nd term is over.
2) If Obama wins it will be of the upmost important to show up and vote for your freebies so the evil GOP cannot repeal it.
If the Congress exempts all fed workers, and they have done that, then everyone else is exempt too,,,case closed.
“...the individual mandate doesn’t regulate commerce, it compels it: people who don’t own health insurance aren’t engaging in commerce. If Congress, then, has the right to force people into the health insurance market, what can’t they force people to buy?”
I won’t be forced to buy a d@mn thing. Guaranteed. Come and get me.
Not really the great revelation you’re making it out to be. Everyone knows the law removes the tax exemption for employer plans. That’s just not discussed much because it’s not an issue for the courts. It’s constitutional.
Everyone ought to remember too that Obama argued against the individual mandate in the primary and wanted single payer socialized medicine. The mandate only got put in in order to satisfy Blue Dog Democrats. Obama won’t mind it being repealed as it rules that out as an option and gives every Democrat the cover to vote for single payer next time they have enough of a majority to pass a new health care law. Now maybe people are beginning to understand why the individual mandate was the conservative option for stopping single payer. It was the middle ground that pulled the Blue Dogs away from single payer. Once it’s struck down, it’s just a matter of time before Dems are in power again and pass the new single payer Democare. And they’ll certainly be trying to muck up health care in the meantime and keep it as inefficient and expensive as possible to keep the public demand for “hope and change” high.
By playing his hand prematurely, Bobo got the Blue Dogs impounded and it'll easily be a decade before single-payer can come around again...As Bobo's full house is about to set to a straight flush...
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.