Posted on 02/24/2016 10:55:52 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
That's how you provide political incentive to move.
I figure that, properly motivated, it would take two weeks, tops for Congress to have something in place.
Besides, the exemptions are not about coverage, but the "Cadillac Tax."
Christmas starts as soon as patriots can get Trump up to speed with about one page of excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions written by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices.
In fact, if you see Trump before I do then you can hand it to him.
Consider the Obamacare insurance mandate for example. Note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
” 4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
”Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” - Linder v. United States, 1925.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach as evidenced by unconstitutional Obamacare.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
What is unconstitutional about reversing something unconstitutional? Doing that would be upholding the constitution, according to his oath of office.
There is nothing unconstitutional about reversing Zero’s executive orders. But attempting to legislate by EO in the same fashion, which Trump implies when he says “I’ll do good ones”, is unconstitutional, whether 0bama does it or Trump does it.
There is nothing unconstitutional about reversing Zero’s executive orders. But attempting to legislate by EO in the same fashion, which Trump implies when he says “I’ll do good ones”, is unconstitutional, whether 0bama does it or Trump does it.
There is nothing unconstitutional about reversing Zero’s executive orders. But attempting to legislate by EO in the same fashion, which Trump implies when he says “I’ll do good ones”, is unconstitutional, whether 0bama does it or Trump does it.
I agree. I had not heard that statement quoted until today. At his rallies and town halls he consistently refers to Obama’s EOs as “not the way you’re supposed to do things”. I watch most of his speeches and interviews. Do you remember when where he said that?
Try Preparation H.
Can we maybe leave that for the second week?
A please note Rubio the Zuckerberg puppet will be ramming thru amnesty .
He needs to be shut down for good.
Whatever Trump is planning to do with respect to INTRAstate healthcare for example, he actually needs to be pushing a healthcare amendement to the Constitution on the campaign trail. This is because the feds need the constitutionally express consent of the Constitutions Article V state supermajority before the feds can touch intrastate healthcare.
In other words, Medicaid and Obamacare, for example, were wrongly established outside the framework of the Constitution imo, regardless what state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to believe.
Good start! One thing Obama has done is create little divisions of employees to carry out his executive orders. They are going to have to be removed with the EO.
Oh, you bet. Push a constitutional amendment in a presidential campaign.
You really don't have much of an ear for politics, do you?
That's not really Trump's style.
"I won't refuse it. I'm going to do a lot of things," Trump said when asked if he would use executive orders in an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I mean, he's led the way, to be honest with you," he added, referring to Obama.
The Republican primary front-runner said his executive orders, unlike the president's, will be for the "right things."
"But I'm going to use them much better and they're going to serve a much better purpose than he's done," he said.
Noting that I will gladly vote for Trump if nominated, please consider the following.
Trump is evidently as much a constitutionally low-information citizen as most citizens, except for FReepers, likely are. If you asked him why the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wrote its Section 8 of Article I for example, Section 8 being most of Congresss limited powers, I would not be surprised if he did not know how to answer that question.
I'm not afraid of what Trump might do, but rather the means he'll employ to do it and the precedent it will set.
I think that Trumps heart for the country is in the right place. And regarding your point, if I understand you correctly that is why I have been ranting for months that Trumps supporters need to get him up to speed on the feds constitutionally limited powers.
Trump is used to corporate management - from the top down with him at the top. That's how he's used to doing things, and I believe that's how he intends to proceed, constitutional limitations be damned.
That I like.....and don’t forget as president he can also tell ABC he/s never coming on while Stephanopoulous is still employed there.
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.