12 state Attorneys General contend that Obamacare

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

No way the supreme court will even hear this case. Passed by 60 senators, passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President, no way will the judges get involved in a law like this. If they did there would be no end to arguments over which state gets what. Will Nebraska sue in court saying the space program shouldn't just be in Texas, Florida and California? No way will there be a consensus that this is unconstitutional

[keepthefaith]

No way the supreme court will even hear this case. Passed by 60 senators, passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President, no way will the judges get involved in a law like this. If they did there would be no end to arguments over which state gets what. Will Nebraska sue in court saying the space program shouldn't just be in Texas, Florida and California? No way will there be a consensus that this is unconstitutional

 

Nor should it have to. Congress should have enough integrity to avoid bribes with taxpayer money.

 

If it does reach the Supreme Court, it could very well be a setback for the Dems as the court is still a 5-4 majority of justices that actually defend the constitution.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Nor should it have to. Congress should have enough integrity to avoid bribes with taxpayer money.

 

If it does reach the Supreme Court, it could very well be a setback for the Dems as the court is still a 5-4 majority of justices that actually defend the constitution.

Defend the Constitution? What do you mean?

[GG]

No way the supreme court will even hear this case. Passed by 60 senators, passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President, no way will the judges get involved in a law like this. If they did there would be no end to arguments over which state gets what. Will Nebraska sue in court saying the space program shouldn't just be in Texas, Florida and California? No way will there be a consensus that this is unconstitutional

 

I'm guessing the argument would be along these lines:

 

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[Alaska Darin]

I'm guessing the argument would be along these lines:

 

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There's that nasty ol' Constitution gettin' in the way of the gubmint savin' us.

[Magox]

Defend the Constitution? What do you mean?

You just say whatever comes to mind without really knowing what you are saying don't you?

[Alaska Darin]

You just say whatever comes to mind without really knowing what you are saying don't you?

He is a "Progressive". It's all about emoting.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

I'm guessing the argument would be along these lines:

 

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So?

[Alaska Darin]

So?

Another excellent retort in a long line of them.

[Magox]

So?

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

What part of uniform don't you understand?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

What part of uniform don't you understand?

In reference to the bill? Explain

[GG]

So?

 

Do your own homework, Sue.

[Magox]

In reference to the bill? Explain

*sigh* Why do I even bother with you?

 

Are the rest of the states receiving the same Medicaid reimbursements as Nebraska under the Senate versions Health Reform Bill?

 

And if not, would that be considered "uniformed"?

[drnykterstein]

Buy health insurance or go to jail.

 

Use roads or don't.

 

Almost the same thing.

 

The fu** is wrong with you???? You retard, you pay for the roads even if you don't use them. Try not paying the portions of your taxes that cover road maintenance. I dare you.

 

 

... in universal HC you pay for insurance even if you don't use it.

[IDBillzFan]

*sigh* Why do I even bother with you?

 

Are the rest of the states receiving the same Medicaid reimbursements as Nebraska under the Senate versions Health Reform Bill?

 

And if not, would that be considered "uniformed"?

I think the use of the word "uniform" is throwing him off. When he hears "uniform," he probably thinks that all duties, imposts and excises have to be dressed in the same attire.

 

It's a golden arches thing.

[3rdnlng]

Defend the Constitution? What do you mean?

 

He means that it is the primary (or it could be argued the only) reason for the existance of the Supreme Court. Clear enough now?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

He means that it is the primary (or it could be argued the only) reason for the existance of the Supreme Court. Clear enough now?

Yes, its clear that from a constitutional point that the AGs have no case. The point about taxes doesn't apply in this case to reimbursements. If you use emotion, your argument fits, but that's the only way

[Magox]

Yes, its clear that from a constitutional point that the AGs have no case. The point about taxes doesn't apply in this case to reimbursements. If you use emotion, your argument fits, but that's the only way

[3rdnlng]

Yes, its clear that from a constitutional point that the AGs have no case. The point about taxes doesn't apply in this case to reimbursements. If you use emotion, your argument fits, but that's the only way

 

 

You said "Defend the Constitution?" "What do you mean?" I somehow got the strange notion that you didn't understand the relationship between defending the Constitution and the Supreme Court. I answered that it was the Supreme Court's job to defend the Constitution. So your answer is about taxes and reimbursements and you accuse me of using emotions to back up my argument? That was your answer? You're just another liberal armed with an endless supply of bs and backed up with a boatload of evasive tactics in order to avoid ever having to be pinned down and actually discuss a situation coherently. Which one are you, Dumb or Dumber?

[keepthefaith]

Yes, its clear that from a constitutional point that the AGs have no case. The point about taxes doesn't apply in this case to reimbursements. If you use emotion, your argument fits, but that's the only way

 

Let's take emotion out of it. From a common sense and integrity standpoint, the tactics of paying off states for their votes is hideous. Yes, this is not nearly the first time or the last. It is, however, arrogant and very ugly. When you boil it way down, it is the fault of the voters who put these jackasses in power. It's bad enough that horrible solutions to real issues are crafted by Presidents and Congress. It's even worse that votes are bought and sold in both general elections and within Congress and yes, it is one party that uses the "buying votes" tactic with other people's money repeatedly. This entire effort to reform health care is shameful and anyone that supports its' passage is as ugly as the solution and the process by which it is being legislated. There should be 50 Governor's objecting to the Federal Goverment creating another huge unfunded mandate across the board if that is what the final bill will do.