Posted on 03/07/2017 7:59:07 PM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
Don’t know whether your are serious or sarcastic, but until I see enough evidence that others here on FR and elsewhere get that most federal law is unconstitutional, I’ll do just that. Whatever it takes. I hope you get that the only legal protection against federal and Islamic tyranny is the Constitution as written ans originally understood and intended. If you do get that, then you should be standing along side me, doing the same thing.
REPEAL every damn word of Obamacare, period, as promised over the years.
The mess isn't just the bill that passed through Congress, there are thousands of "add ons" to the bill, put in place by un-elected officials in the Department of Health and other offices.
If you can't pass a complete REPEAL, and start from scratch, then let it implode, as Obamacare.
> We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate to completely repeal
Republicans are clowns
Ryan’s strategery spans years. It doesn’t lean forward, it leans back. Ryan is back on his heels rather than on the balls of his feet kicking ass. And we’re to fall in line behind his loser strategy. Typical pastel Republican small ball.
You may think it’s unconstitutional, and I may think it’s unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. So unless you are advocating an overthrow of the government, stamping your feet and yelling is about all you can do
But Congress is bound by the Constitution as well. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which are made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land (Art VI, Cl 2 - the "Supremacy Clause").
This means that if Congress does not legislate according to and within the confines of the Constitution, then their legislation is NOT the law of the land. What then? The Constitution is silent. But to those whose hearts are for the rule of law of the Constitution could reasonably infer a right of any federal branch to call out an unconstitutional federal act. There is no constitutional "judicial supremacy".
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendment X.
The tenth amendment confirms that any power not delegated to the feds by the Constitution or prohibited to the states belong to the states and the people of those states. So any federal act that is clearly assumes unconstitutional power (there are many) are ACTUALLY powers of the states. So constitutional state sovereignty confirmed by the tenth amendment includes nullification and voiding unconstitutional federal acts because those acts impinge upon the constitutional powers of the states.
It shouldn't be a question of "if" but of "how" to validly and reasonably challenge unconstitutional federal acts either by another federal branch or by a state. I have suggested one way to do it. If you can build on that or have a better way, great. But most of the Supreme Court decisions in the last 50-75 years have not been constitutionally based and the Constitution does not mandate that we must live with that.
Our FORM government is a Constitutional Republic. It rests upon the supremacy of the Constitution as the law of the land. Overthrow is being advocated and implemented by those in governmental POSITIONS who daily ignore and erode the Constitution, and therefore, overthrow of our form of government. This is advocating the overthrow of those people and acts that repeatedly and wantonly violate our Constitution. This is defending our government against those IN governmental positions who want to overthrow our form of government.
Challenging an act of a government official or officials with clear and convincing constitutionally-based reasoning is not overthrowing our government. It is defending our government against the corruption and treason of twisting or voiding the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.
Roberts is a tin horned dictator who should have been impeached within the hour. He has brought nothing but disgrace, shame, and disrepute on the court.
Is this even legal/constitutional? They broke the intent of our rules. The thing that surprised me is that I didn't think the rats were this smart...who masterminded all this trickery?
The punk “Sundance” either doesn’t know what he is talking about—or he does, and is intentionally deceptive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
Mark Levin and Larry Kudlow have both been explaining this quite clearly.
No, people need to stop reading sloppy disinformation such as this article.
Only “Constructional” with a compromised court.
I’m experiencing deja vu.
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.