Posted on 10/07/2013 7:23:06 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
If it's harmful to Americans, the Democrats want to stick with destructive laws!
I have listened to a great deal of the recent proceeding in the House. The Dems have the litany:
Passed by House and Senate
Signed by the President
Upheld by SCOTUS
Ratified in 2012 election
Ergo, settled law.
Over and over and over they deliver that. I have YET to hear a Republican engage the settled law assertion on the floor.
My Congressman ( Roe - TN-1) will get a call this morning
Thank you. I am capable of communicating to my Congressman, in my own words, which I just did.
This is precisely the same argument democrats used in 1850 to justify slavery.
Some things never change.
*sigh*
Good job.....
Yet passing a law to force Americans to purchase something or a service sounds strangely like a law that has SLAVERY to the state as a by product.
And sorry if I am wrong, but how is that defined anywhere in the Constitution.
and BTW the Supreme question begs to be asked but who the hell do they think they are approving such a abomination.
I do not live my live asking to "buy their leave".
If you truly want to see how Obama feels about laws that have been legally passed by the legislature and executive branches then all you have to do is go look up some of the questions he chose when he gave an exam.
All of his questions are about circumventing existing laws, or overturning existing laws legally passed.
This is his way of thinking, it always has been. Whether it’s gay rights or race based employment the same theme shines through - How we can get around the laws we don’t like that were passed legally to get our own selfish interests shoved down the throat of the majority.
Now that he’s on the other side (healthcare) he sure takes a different stance than all the lectures and exams he gave, and it must burn his butt that the other side is using his own playbook.
MUST READ: DEBT CEILING A DEMOCRAT RUSE
The debt ceiling propaganda is a radical ruse by obozo and his minions to try to force the Pubbies into a cave in on obozocare and push America that much further into the Marxist hellhole obozo promised his ignorant supporters in 2008!
Raising the debt ceiling WITHOUT reigning in SPENDING and telling those “non-essential” bureaucrats to get REAL jobs (if they can find them) is a recipe for the further destruction of what remains of America.
If he takes us into default, it will be because HE made the decision to do so.
FACT: We are nowhere near that even with a complete budget stall. The US takes in nearly $250 BILLION in tax revenues each month. This is more than 10 times what is needed to service the interest on the debt ($220BILLION/year).
What this shutdown does, however, is force Obama into a position where he would have to prioritize the spending for what is left. It would NOT be the total chaos being pushed by the Dems and their lapdog media.
If you want your country back, ignore these phony scare tactics.
PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH EVERYONE YOU KNOW. Don’t bother with the obozombies. They wouldn’t recognize a fact if it bit them on the ass.
So is the SECOND AMENDMENT! These bastards can’t have it both ways!!
If Obamacare is settled law then ALL laws are settled and congress can’t change any of them or pass any more laws. So, according to democrats, we don’t need the house or senate anymore.
If Obamacare is settled law then why does Obama get to keep changing it?
If Obamacare is settled law then ALL laws are settled and congress can’t change any of them or pass any more laws. So, according to democrats, we don’t need the house or senate anymore.
If Obamacare is settled law then why does Obama get to keep changing it?
If Obamacare is settled law then ALL laws are settled and congress can’t change any of them or pass any more laws. So, according to democrats, we don’t need the house or senate anymore.
If Obamacare is settled law then why does Obama get to keep changing it?
Sorry. I don’t know why it posted 3 times.
That it is a valid law (we dispute that, but Roberts made it difficult to argue to the low information types) has nothing to do with whether it should be defunded or delayed. Congress sets funding levels for any and all federal programs every year. That is its job. It can also pass laws delaying the implementation of federal programs. That is within its purview. To say that it is federal law is to obfuscate and argue against a proposition that is irrelevant. Congress has the power to withhold funding for all kinds of things— the Vietnam war, for one famous example that libs love. The war was considered legal, they just didn’t want the President to have any money to prosecute it. Same here.
Women voted in New Jersy from 1790 to 1807, if they met other requirements.
Wyoming passed women’s sufferage in 1869. They thought it would attract women (of which they felt a distinct lack).
Women won the right to vote in Utah in 1870 by the territorial legislature, but were disenfranchised by Congress in 1887, when civil marriage licences were also required to aid in prosecution of polygamy.
Colorado passed women’s sufferage in 1893.
After Roberts changed the meaning of the bill to a tax it should have been sent back to congress for a re-vote and then ratification, no?
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.