obamacare

[DC Tom]

Fair point. But if there's one thing Obama & Co. will know/be ready for it's the healthcare plan. So I wouldn't go waltzing around making claims I can't back up in that arena if I were Romney. That's one area where the Obama camp will actively seek to clarify, explain, and debunk any and all claims. The real truth though is if gets by the SC then what is Romney going to do? Nobody expects the Dems to lose the Senate. It's the law. Contrary to what would-be Emperor Gingrich claims, no Repub President can just "sign an executive order day 1 repealing Obama care."

 

Except that you're talking about an administration that didn't even have the foresight to see that there might be a First Amendment challenge when the Catholic Church objects to providing birth control gratis.

 

Whether you consider the complaint valid or not...not foreseeing it is pretty god damned stupid. And that's the group, that couldn't even see a blatantly obvious Constitutional complaint coming, you think will be prepared to defend their plan?

 

From an email I got yesterday:

 

We are down to the final few hours before this first FEC deadline of 2012. Falling short would signal to Karl Rove and the Republican SuperPACs that we don't have the resources to defend President Obama and Democratic candidates. We simply can't show that kind of weakness. They would destroy us.

 

Missing this goal would put the Republicans one step closer to total control of Washington -- and the end of Medicare and women's rights as we know them.

 

We both care deeply about progressive issues. That's why I'm asking tonight if you would please help us with $5 before the clock reaches midnight. These final contributions could be the ones that make the difference between winning and a GOP takeover.

 

Thank you again for your dedicated support,

 

Patty Murray

 

Remember ten years ago, when the Republicans had total control of Washington, and Medicare mysteriously disappeared and women weren't allowed to leave the house?

 

Yeah, neither do I. Sad thing is that otherwise smart people fall for that drivel.

[dayman]

Except that you're talking about an administration that didn't even have the foresight to see that there might be a First Amendment challenge when the Catholic Church objects to providing birth control gratis.

 

Whether you consider the complaint valid or not...not foreseeing it is pretty god damned stupid. And that's the group, that couldn't even see a blatantly obvious Constitutional complaint coming, you think will be prepared to defend their plan?

 

I feel bad for you if you honestly believe that. Also, you do realize Obama doesn't sit down at night and write the Bill himself right?

[DC Tom]

I feel bad for you if you honestly believe that.

 

Believe what? That the administration didn't foresee that religious institutions would object on constitutional grounds to secular laws forcing them to act counter to doctrine? That they should have foreseen it? That the fact that they didn't foresee it belies a lack of knowledge of their own flagship legislation?

 

 

Also, you do realize Obama doesn't sit down at night and write the Bill himself right?

 

Yes. You do understand that arguing that the administration's going to claim ownership of and factually defend something they didn't even write isn't helping your case, right?

[Alaska Darin]

I feel bad for you if you honestly believe that. Also, you do realize Obama doesn't sit down at night and write the Bill himself right?

Says the guy who coined: "Like it or not there's a legal presumption they know what they're talking about."

[DC Tom]

Says the guy who coined: "Like it or not there's a legal presumption they know what they're talking about."

 

Really? I missed that the first time.

[dayman]

Believe what? That the administration didn't foresee that religious institutions would object on constitutional grounds to secular laws forcing them to act counter to doctrine? That they should have foreseen it? That the fact that they didn't foresee it belies a lack of knowledge of their own flagship legislation?

 

Believe that they didn't foresee it. The administration and drafting member of congress surely foresaw these problems, had counsel, and decided to go forward with it anyway because they obviously felt that politically/legally they could withstand said challenges.

 

 

Says the guy who coined: "Like it or not there's a legal presumption they know what they're talking about."

 

Haha, I didn't coin that. That is true. You can remain ignorant to blatantly simple and true aspects of law though. Feel free. A simple google search will do you good.

Edited April 2, 2012 by dayman

[DC Tom]

Believe that they didn't foresee it. The administration and drafting member of congress surely foresaw these problems, had counsel, and decided to go forward with it anyway because they obviously felt that politically/legally they could withstand said challenges.

 

That must be why they had to scramble for a half-assed "compromise".

 

 

Haha, I didn't coin that. That is true. You can remain ignorant to blatantly simple and true aspects of law though. Feel free. A simple google search will do you good.

 

So Gingrich may be right, and a Republican president might be able to rescind the ACA with an executive order. Since there is a legal presumption he knows what he's talking about.

[dayman]

So Gingrich may be right, and a Republican president might be able to rescind the ACA with an executive order. Since there is a legal presumption he knows what he's talking about.

 

Haha, no. Not the same, and not what I was talking about. Gingrich is wrong (even though he knows he's wrong b/c he knows how it works he's just running his mouth to mislead the people), as those procedures (repealing law) are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. As for commerce clause jurisprudence, it's another story.

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2012 by dayman

[Alaska Darin]

Haha, I didn't coin that. That is true.

Which explains why the "system" is incredibly !@#$ed up.

You can remain ignorant to blatantly simple and true aspects of law though.

The fact that politicians continually show great disregard to the Constitution flies in the face of the statement, so it may be uttered with impunity but presumption obviously doesn't equal practice nor truth, regardless of how many times you and the rest of the lemmings regurgitate it. That the legal system doesn't punish them for it is one of the largest problems facing our society.

 

The "Checks and Balances" that are supposed to be in place have been blown all to hell.

Feel free. A simple google search will do you good.

Yeah, you're just so much !@#$ing smarter than I am.

[dayman]

Which explains why the "system" is incredibly !@#$ed up.

 

The fact that politicians continually show great disregard to the Constitution flies in the face of the statement, so it may be uttered with impunity but presumption obviously doesn't equal practice nor truth, regardless of how many times you and the rest of the lemmings regurgitate it. That the legal system doesn't punish them for it is one of the largest problems facing our society.

 

The "Checks and Balances" that are supposed to be in place have been blown all to hell.

 

Yeah, you're just so much !@#$ing smarter than I am.

 

LOL calm down man. You are on the internet first and foremost, and also can you imagine if I had the attitude you do? If people so much as say an "Obama neutral" comment on this board they're roasted yet you don't see me crying every time someone disagrees with me (often in snarky ways). Take a breath, it's ok, I don't mean to attack you personally or anything take it all w/ a grain of salt.

 

Anyway, the presumption that legislation is constitutional is actually a form of judicial restraint and is important to the "checks and balances" that you think is so blown to hell. Basically your problem (as I see it) is our society isn't functioning according to the way you thing the constitution says it should. That's fine. You are probably wrong, but that's fine anyway. Either way the truth is most people running around waiving a constitution in people's faces at Tea Party rallies could use a nice crash course in constitutional law. Especially since many hot button issues prompt the far right to go off about federalism, First Amendment, and separation of powers principles....you would think they would take time to educate themselves on what those things really mean over the course of American history.

Edited April 2, 2012 by dayman

[Alaska Darin]

LOL calm down man. You are on the internet first and foremost, and also can you imagine if I had the attitude you do? If people so much as say an "Obama neutral" comment on this board they're roasted yet you don't see me crying every time someone disagrees with me (often in snarky ways). Take a breath, it's ok, I don't mean to attack you personally or anything take it all w/ a grain of salt.

Right, because your google remark wasn't sent right down your nose. Typical passive/aggressive lawyer !@#$. And I could give a flying **** about your opinion and whether or not you are or aren't attacking me personally. You may be new here but you're not the first one to try this and I doubt you'll be the last.

Anyway, the presumption that legislation is constitutional is actually a form of judicial restraint and is important to the "checks and balances" that you think is so blown to hell.

Sure it is. Keep telling yourself that.

Basically your problem (as I see it) is our society isn't functioning according to the way you thing the constitution says it should. That's fine. You are probably wrong, but that's fine anyway. Either way the truth is most people running around waiving a constitution in people's faces at Tea Party rallies could use a nice crash course in constitutional law.

What you mean is "they need a crash course in the zigs and zags that lawyers and lawyers in $23 robes have put in place over the years while they've slowly been eroding away the 'freedoms' that are now just buzz words".

Especially since many hot button issues prompt the far right to go off about federalism, First Amendment, and separation of powers principles....you would think they would take time to educate themselves on what those things really mean over the course of American history.

You mean go to law school so they can become a drone who accepts everything that has come down the pike, as if it came from the hand of God itself? Well, unless we can somehow get some new "precedent".

 

Yeah, I so wish there were more people like the 4 liberals on the SC who don't think the Founding Fathers meant the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. Maybe if everyone had a lifetime appointment to their job.

[dayman]

Can't argue w/ ignorance.

[B-Man]

Believe that they didn't foresee it. The administration and drafting member of congress surely foresaw these problems, had counsel, and decided to go forward with it anyway because they obviously felt that politically/legally they could withstand said challenges.

 

 

 

 

Not only did they foresee it, but Mr Obama lied to the Churches representative about the mandate.

 

When the Archbishop Met the President

By JAMES TARANTO

 

The president of the U.S. Conference of Bishops is careful to show due respect for the president of the United States. "I was deeply honored that he would call me and discuss these things with me," says the newly elevated Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York. But when Archbishop Dolan tells me his account of their discussions of the ObamaCare birth-control mandate, Barack Obama sounds imperious and deceitful to me.

 

Mr. Obama knew that the mandate would pose difficulties for the Catholic Church, so he invited Archbishop Dolan to the Oval Office last November, shortly before the bishops' General Assembly in Baltimore. At the end of their 45-minute discussion, the archbishop summed up what he understood as the president's message:

 

"I said, 'I've heard you say, first of all, that you have immense regard for the work of the Catholic Church in the United States in health care, education and charity. . . . I have heard you say that you are not going to let the administration do anything to impede that work and . . . that you take the protection of the rights of conscience with the utmost seriousness. . . . Does that accurately sum up our conversation?' [Mr. Obama] said, 'You bet it does.'"

 

The archbishop asked for permission to relay the message to the other bishops. "You don't have my permission, you've got my request," the president replied.

 

"So you can imagine the chagrin," Archbishop Dolan continues, "when he called me at the end of January to say that the mandates remain in place and that there would be no substantive change, and that the only thing that he could offer me was that we would have until August. . . . I said, 'Mr. President, I appreciate the call. Are you saying now that we have until August to introduce to you continual concerns that might trigger a substantive mitigation in these mandates?' He said, 'No, the mandates remain. We're more or less giving you this time to find out how you're going to be able to comply.' I said, 'Well, sir, we don't need the [extra time]. I can tell you now we're unable to comply.'"

 

The administration went ahead and announced the mandate. A public backlash ensued, and the archbishop got another call from the president on Feb. 10. "He said, 'You will be happy to hear religious institutions do not have to pay for this, that the burden will be on insurers.'" Archbishop Dolan asked if the president was seeking his input and was told the modified policy was a fait accompli. The call came at 9:30 a.m. The president announced the purported accommodation at 12:15 p.m.

 

{snip}

 

Within hours, "it dawned on us that there's not much here, and that's when we put out the more substantive [statement] by the end of the day, saying, 'Whoa, now we've had time to hear what was said at the announcement and to read the substance of it, and this just doesn't do it.'"

 

{snip}

 

"We've grown hoarse saying this is not about contraception, this is about religious freedom," he says. What rankles him the most is the government's narrow definition of a religious institution. Your local Catholic parish, for instance, is exempt from the birth-control mandate. Not exempt are institutions such as hospitals, grade schools, universities and soup kitchens that employ or serve significant numbers of people from other faiths and whose main purpose is something other than proselytization.

 

"We find it completely unswallowable, both as Catholics and mostly as Americans, that a bureau of the American government would take it upon itself to define 'ministry,'" Archbishop Dolan says. "We would find that to bewe've used the words 'radical,' 'unprecedented' and 'dramatically intrusive.'"

 

It also amounts to penalizing the church for not discriminating in its good works:

"We don't ask people for their baptismal certificate, nor do we ask people for their U.S. passport, before we can serve them, OK? . . .

 

We don't serve people because they're Catholic,............. we serve them because we are,

and it's a moral imperative for us to do so."

 

Wall Street Journal

Edited April 2, 2012 by B-Man

[Magox]

 

 

The fact that politicians continually show great disregard to the Constitution flies in the face of the statement, so it may be uttered with impunity but presumption obviously doesn't equal practice nor truth, regardless of how many times you and the rest of the lemmings regurgitate it. That the legal system doesn't punish them for it is one of the largest problems facing our society.

 

 

You actually believe he has the capacity to understand what you just wrote? Good one.

 

Can't argue w/ ignorance.

Rightooo, yet you still receive responses. Must be some sort of moth to lit wick sort of syndrome.

[dayman]

Not only did they foresee it, but Mr Obama lied to the Churches representative about the mandate.

 

 

 

Wall Street Journal

 

Well now to me that article clearly shows they could see there are potential problems why else would Obama meet with him? As for the lying part I don't agree but I can see how you can make the argument.

 

I mean, I'm sorry that they can't define "hospitals, grade schools, universities and soup kitchens" however they like, but I don't think Obama ever told them they would be able to. Even if he did, I'm really not concerned about the governments encroachment on religion. Just don't care personally so it's hard for me to really dive into the issue the way someone who think they are being forced to commit mortal sin can. Not that it isn't important, just not one of "my issues" so to speak. The line has to be drawn somewhere...sorry they don't like where it was drawn.

Edited April 2, 2012 by dayman

[IDBillzFan]

Yeah, I so wish there were more people like the 4 liberals on the SC who don't think the Founding Fathers meant the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. Maybe if everyone had a lifetime appointment to their job.

 

Oh, please. Like the Founding Fathers had any idea what was really best for 300 million people. Look, the Constitution was fine for getting us here, but it lives and it breathes and the world would be a better place if we could more easily have it modified by people who know betters: the scholars!

[ieatcrayonz]

Well now to me that article clearly shows they could see there are potential problems why else would Obama meet with him? As for the lying part I don't agree but I can see how you can make the argument.

 

 

Obama agreed to meet with them because he thinks of himself so highly. He thought that once they were in the power of his presence they would abandon their God and do whatever Obama said they should do.

Edited April 2, 2012 by ieatcrayonz

[Joe Miner]

Well now to me that article clearly shows they could see there are potential problems why else would Obama meet with him? As for the lying part I don't agree but I can see how you can make the argument.

 

I mean, I'm sorry that they can't define "hospitals, grade schools, universities and soup kitchens" however they like, but I don't think Obama ever told them they would be able to. Even if he did, I'm really not concerned about the governments encroachment on religion. Just don't care personally so it's hard for me to really dive into the issue the way someone who think they are being forced to commit mortal sin can. Not that it isn't important, just not one of "my issues" so to speak.

 

Ahh, the old "It's not my rights they're trampling, so I don't care" argument.

 

Douche

[dayman]

Ahh, the old "It's not my rights they're trampling, so I don't care" argument.

 

Douche

 

Well I added another sentence in there to clarify, in saying that the line had to be drawn somewhere and that is where it was drawn. Since I am not religious I have little sympathy for their line-drawing problem as everybody has line-drawing problems regarding issues that concern them (me included) and yet we all deal with it.

[meazza]

My link

 

Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court "will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law" passed by Congress.