Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Jun 28, 2012.
pretty good if hes gone back to drinking i'd say.
You mean the POTUS who gave us Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act?
I'd say he feels "accomplished" today.
You mean one of the GOP nominees we are supposed to blindly support because we know we will get conservative jurists?
Like it or not he interpreted the Constitution and made a decision based upon his interpretation (as the swing vote) that the federal government has the ability to tax (in what seems to be an unlimited capacity) citizens. I hope the Republicans use this position to fire Obama, as he insisted this was not a tax.
While I DON'T like the outcome of the decision, and I'm not a lawyer, he made the decision he had to make based upon merits of the issue.
If Obamacare is to proceed, IMHO, we will see taxes like we've never seen before to fund it, as it has been affirmed. Either that or a deficit that will bankrupt our country.
George Bush is a traitorous globalist who laid the groundwork for every bit of this. How does he feel?
He's sequestered in his multi million dollar estate surrounded by his private security force. He's in tall cotton. What's he care about the common man?
We'll see both.
Side note: the country is already bankrupt
You nailed it, as did Certifiedfunds. GW was but one in a long line of usurpers, each waiting patiently for their turn to inflict as much damage as they could get away with.
He did NOT interpret the constitution. He interpreted th law. It was purposely written to define the mandate a penalty, not a tax, because the law's backers knew it wouldn't pass with a tax. Roberts should have stuck with that wording, and all the screaming by the law's supporters that there was no tax associated with it, and deemed it clearly unconstitutional on the grounds that the gov has no ability to make citizens buy something. He over stepped his authority and stomped on the intent of the COTUS. This is a good example of the difference between judicial review, which is constitutional, and judicial activism which is not.