The GOP's little rule change they hoped you wouldn't notice

[Pooty22]

[video=youtube;0Jd-iaYLO1A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A[/video]


Wonder why no one is talking about this?

 

[Stickfight]

I read the Constitution and didn't find any mention of these procedural tricks Republicans are using to prevent ratified law from being enforced. I wish we could have politicians that respected the Constitution.

 

[steveh_131]

I wish we could have politicians that wouldn't pass unconstitutional legislation in the first place.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wonder why no one is talking about this?

Ummm, because the majority can set the procedural rules for the House.

The majority changed the rules, and so what?

 

[Mgderf]

O.P. Don't try to tell us that the left has never tried anything like this.
It sucks when ANYONE circumvents the constitution, right, left, or independent.

 

[Streak]

O.P. Don't try to tell us that the left has never tried anything like this.
It sucks when ANYONE circumvents the constitution, right, left, or independent.

Can you cite an example, sir?

 

[Stickfight]

I wish we could have politicians that wouldn't pass unconstitutional legislation in the first place.

SCOTUS found Obamacare constitutional didn't they?

 

[GunsNstuff]

SCOTUS found Obamacare constitutional didn't they?

After they re-wrote the law and called a penalty a tax & ignored that it didn't originate in the house.

Can you think of anything else that is unconstitutional that SCOTUS found constitutional, then reversed itself?

 

[rockhopper46038]

Can you cite an example, sir?

Let me google that for you

 

[GunsNstuff]

Can you cite an example, sir?

Reconciliation process to pass Obamacare.

 

[Stickfight]

After they re-wrote the law and called a penalty a tax & ignored that it didn't originate in the house.

Can you think of anything else that is unconstitutional that SCOTUS found constitutional, then reversed itself?

So what I know, from reading the Constitution, is that the judicial branch decides these things. Saw no mention of any INGO tribunal, or partisans on TV, or anything like that. Some people like to follow the Constitution when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't, but I'm not among them.

 

[Bummer]

So what I know, from reading the Constitution, is that the judicial branch decides these things. Saw no mention of any INGO tribunal, or partisans on TV, or anything like that. Some people like to follow the Constitution when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't, but I'm not among them.

Since you clearly have your copy of the Constitution handy, can you be so good as to tell me where the Federal Government is authorized to order any US Citizen to buy insurance? Then perhaps you could tell me where it says the Federal Government is authorized to use a tax to punish We The People for not complying. If these things exist they should be found in Article 1, Section 8, which spells out those things the Congress is authorized to do.

Thanks ever so much.

 

[GunsNstuff]

So what I know, from reading the Constitution, is that the judicial branch decides these things. Saw no mention of any INGO tribunal, or partisans on TV, or anything like that. Some people like to follow the Constitution when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't, but I'm not among them.

...and if the SCOTUS decides that killing rich people is Constitutional, or Slavery is pretty cool and totally Constitutional, does that make either of them Constitutional? No, it does not. SCOTUS does decide these things, but that does not mean everything they decide is correct or Constitutional.

The SCOTUS also decided that every time you exhale you're polluting the Earth and the Federal Government can regulate your breath. Constitutional? No, not at all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

After they re-wrote the law and called a penalty a tax & ignored that it didn't originate in the house.

Can you think of anything else that is unconstitutional that SCOTUS found constitutional, then reversed itself?

Same courts? No. But future courts have certainly acknowledge errors of former courts.

 

[steveh_131]

So what I know, from reading the Constitution, is that the judicial branch decides these things. Saw no mention of any INGO tribunal, or partisans on TV, or anything like that. Some people like to follow the Constitution when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't, but I'm not among them.

Heh. Another one of these "it's constitutional because the supreme court says so". What a stupid argument.

The constitution, as it was written and intended, did not authorize the federal government to do 90% of the crap that it does. That is why I call it 'unconstitutional'.

If you define it differently, as in 'whatever the partisan judicial branch says', then fair enough. But let's not pretend that we are arguing on the same plane at all.

 

[GunsNstuff]

Same courts? No. But future courts have certainly acknowledge errors of former courts.

That's right, they acknowledged Errors made by former courts.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Heh. Another one of these "it's constitutional because the supreme court says so". What a stupid argument.

The constitution, as it was written and intended, did not authorize the federal government to do 90% of the crap that it does. That is why I call it 'unconstitutional'.

If you define it differently, as in 'whatever the partisan judicial branch says', then fair enough. But let's not pretend that we are arguing on the same plane at all.

I'm not sure I agree. If the Constitution was that black and white, there'd be no reason for the existence of the Supreme Court. The genius of the Constitution was that it's interepretation could grow with changing times. Nothing in the Constitution will ever be only "this way,"and "not another." That may trouble some, but at least the way our history has unfound since the very begining, that's simply the way it is.

 

[Streak]

Since you clearly have your copy of the Constitution handy, can you be so good as to tell me where the Federal Government is authorized to order any US Citizen to buy insurance? Then perhaps you could tell me where it says the Federal Government is authorized to use a tax to punish We The People for not complying. If these things exist they should be found in Article 1, Section 8, which spells out those things the Congress is authorized to do.

Thanks ever so much.

He may not, but the SCOTUS did and they supported the Individual Mandate. So You The Person has no right, at this point, to complain. The legal process is done and the Individual Mandate is Constitutional. Sorry.

 

[Stickfight]

Since you clearly have your copy of the Constitution handy, can you be so good as to tell me where the Federal Government is authorized to order any US Citizen to buy insurance? Then perhaps you could tell me where it says the Federal Government is authorized to use a tax to punish We The People for not complying. If these things exist they should be found in Article 1, Section 8, which spells out those things the Congress is authorized to do.


Thanks ever so much.

As soon as you show me where it says INGO partisans decide what is or is not Constitutional.


A whole wide variety of stuff has been found Constitutional over the years that isn't explicitly mentioned, as per the process described in the Cobstitution. Again, a lot of people only like the Constitution when it produces they outcome they want and I understand you guys, being self serving is hard to give up. But I prefer to follow it all the time.

 

[Streak]

Heh. Another one of these "it's constitutional because the supreme court says so". What a stupid argument.

The constitution, as it was written and intended, did not authorize the federal government to do 90% of the crap that it does. That is why I call it 'unconstitutional'.

If you define it differently, as in 'whatever the partisan judicial branch says', then fair enough. But let's not pretend that we are arguing on the same plane at all.

So you don't care about the authority the Constitution gave the Judicial branch? I guess the Constitution is only valid if it results in things YOU believe in?