Constitutional Challenges to the new bill

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by TheDude, Mar 22, 2010.

  1. TheDude

    TheDude I'm calmer than you.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    717
    Looks like 25 or more states will file lawsuits within hours of Obama signing this bill, and their basis is:

    1. You can not mandate that citizens buy a private product. Equating this with purchasing car insurance has been shredded and is the argument of a 6 year old, so save your own dignity and leave that one alone.

    2. You can not give special considerations to some states(sweetheart deals), while making all states financially responsible for it. This is not the same thing as appropriations that get allocated through legislation. It will be challenged and the fed will lose.

    3. Obama's pending "executive order" is not worth the paper it will be written on. Besides being reversible with the stroke of his own pen, Presidents cannot override statutory law by themselves. Executive power does not do this. This is a total sham. Stupack is either the most ignorant congressman in history, or he believes we are all ignorant. Since it was announced Friday that his district got some additional funding for airports, I will let you decide which.



    I have heard lots of people throw around soundbytes like "supremacy", and "commerce clause", and the fact remains that the fed can rule on "interstate" commerce. See any of that here?

    And "supremacy" of federal statues only applies when there is a constitutional basis for the law in the first place. States cannot mandate that we buy products, and neither can the fed. There is no precedent for it. None. You will hear a great deal of this in the next weeks from people who assume you cannot read, and cannot think for yourself. Don't take my word for it, go and find the information yourself. And then remember the arrogance of the people who think that we will give up these rights freely, and vote them all out of office.


    Just out of curiosity. Is this the "change" in politics that Obama meant to bring to Washington? Is this the hope of uniting the separate factions of the country? And don't point your finger at republicans as obstructionists. They could not obstruct this bill, it was dems that did that. And republicans offered plenty of options for reform. While imperfect, they certainly did not attach the baggage of the current legislation. I thought we were pretty divided under Clinton, and even more so under Bush, but I have a feeling that it has only gotten worse. Certainly not the brand that Obama sold to the middle. Does he care, or was it all bs?
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. PURPLE TIGER

    PURPLE TIGER HOPE is not a strategy!

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,186
    Likes Received:
    395
    I believe this is exactly what he had in mind when he said "change". His view of America is not the same as most of us. Many apologists, moderates, historians, etc. got caugt up in his appearance and smooth talking and voted him in. They thought those in opposition were just upset their party didn't win.

    People are starting to realize the huge mistake we made letting the Democrats control the entire government. We need serious damage control until we can remove them from office.

    Cap and Trade will be the next thing they'll try to cram down our throat. :nope:

    I'm still waiting for all those jobs the Democrats promised.

    Voting Republicans out didn't mean voting the agenda of the Democrats in. People convinced themselves the Democrats claims of bipartisanship and a moderate agenda wouldn't change to a liberal ideology if they were voted in. Once again the Democrats lied and immediately moved left. We see the results. :dis:
     
  3. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,314
    Likes Received:
    560

Share This Page