CNS News, Obama Administration Continues Spending under Unconstitutional HC law. - Polidicks

maybe because I don't always consider the same things as important, or i leave a rating, or someone else beats me to it.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27985712]Like the Obama administration not getting a Stay on the Latest Judge's rulling and continuing with the implementation? No, I caught that.[/QUOTE] please tell me where in the constitution that you hold so dear that it says the president has to observe lower court decisions? pretty sure that's the supreme court's job

[QUOTE=Prismatex;27985721]please tell me where in the constitution that you hold so dear that it says the president has to observe lower court decisions? pretty sure that's the supreme court's job[/QUOTE] This has been said numerous times at this point. Glaber, I think everyone would like to hear your rebuttal.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;27985741]This has been said numerous times at this point. Glaber, I think everyone would like to hear your rebuttal.[/QUOTE] +1

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27985685]I love how glaber misses replying to important things all the time.[/QUOTE] it's his patented "Glab-O-Vision"

[QUOTE=TH89;27985316]I know a guy on another board who does the same thing. He's pushing 40. Mikfoz??[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;27985741]This has been said numerous times at this point. Glaber, I think everyone would like to hear your rebuttal.[/QUOTE] [img]http://static.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img] Seriously. Also, implying that fox news is a legit news source? lol.

I remember when Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and all the conservatives went apeshit :unsmith:

[QUOTE=Glaber;27985712]maybe because I don't always consider the same things as important, or i leave a rating, or someone else beats me to it.[/QUOTE] or because said post shits on your terrible argument

I haven't read all the posts, but is Glaber aware that the law has been declared unconstitutional twice and constitutional twice. So if by "pressing their luck"--Glaber--you mean "Ignoring the possibility that the law might be declared unconstitutional sometime in the future by the supreme court" then fine. But if you're implying that what he's doing is somehow illegal, you're fucking retarded. DADT didn't end when that was declared unconstitutional in California. Also, there's no WAY anything in the bill but the government mandate is unconstitutional so this second guy was obviously just trying to get some attention or was ignoring his judicial responsibility.

Or maybe he genuinely thinks it's unconstitutional. [editline]11th February 2011[/editline] Like, I don't think we should dismiss any opinion we disagree with as insincere, that's all.

[QUOTE=Jewsus;27989734]I haven't read all the posts, but is Glaber aware that the law has been declared unconstitutional twice and constitutional twice.[/QUOTE] In reverse order.the last 2 were declaring the law or the mandate unconstitutional. Oh, and the second judge did say that there wasn't a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability_clause]severability[/url] [url=http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/sevcls.shtml]clause[/url] in the law, and because of that, the whole thing gets declared unconstitutional instead of just the mandate.. [QUOTE=Prismatex;27985721]please tell me where in the constitution that you hold so dear that it says the president has to observe lower court decisions? pretty sure that's the supreme court's job[/QUOTE] The supreme court does have the final say, but they alone are not the entire Judicial branch. [quote=US Constitution, Article 3] Section 1 - Judicial powers The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.[/quote] [url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec1[/url] and since the lower/inferior courts are a part of the judicial branch I should think that the President would have to follow a court order from them until he can get it overturned by a higher court or the supreme court. Enacting a law that was declared unconstitutional could put him in contempt of court.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27991944]The supreme court does have the final say, but...[/QUOTE] Thank you for answering your own question.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;27992369]Thank you for answering your own question.[/QUOTE] The point is it's considered unconstitutional in that jurisdiction until reviewed by an appellate court. Why is this hard to understand?

[QUOTE=TH89;27984070]Strange how it fails to mention that something like 12 other federal judges have ruled that it is constitutional. But Glaber would never post an illegitimate news source that affirms his preconceptions. I'm sure it's just an oversight.[/QUOTE] The problem is, though, that this is [I]not[/I] constitutional; judges are not constrained to one viewpoint and are diverse in opinion on law, and they certainly don't always rule appropriately. Just because something is considered law (and just because someone with authority [I]in[/I] law says it's okay) does [I]not[/I] make it legitimate.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;27992399]The problem is, though, that this is [I]not[/I] constitutional; judges are not constrained to one viewpoint and are diverse in opinion on law, and they certainly don't always rule appropriately. Just because something is considered law (and just because someone with authority [I]in[/I] law says it's okay) does [I]not[/I] make it legitimate.[/QUOTE] you expect us to agree with you just because you insist that it isn't constitutional but you need to actually make a case for that claim. Prove to us, with textual evidence from both the constitution and the bill that it is unconstitutional. You can't just say "It's not constitutional" and expect us to believe you

[QUOTE=DogGunn;27992394]The point is it's considered unconstitutional in that jurisdiction until reviewed by an appellate court. Why is this hard to understand?[/QUOTE] Nothing, I just hate how news sources and Glaber treat it like a world shattering piece of news, when it reality it doesn't mean all that much.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;27992457]you expect us to agree with you just because you insist that it isn't constitutional but you need to actually make a case for that claim. Prove to us, with textual evidence from both the constitution and the bill that it is unconstitutional. You can't just say "It's not constitutional" and expect us to believe you[/QUOTE] If it's been deemed by a Federal Court that the law is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional until the decision is reviewed by a higher court.

[QUOTE=TH89;27985316]If the best psychologists in the world did a study that showed that violent games were bad for kids and teenagers, it wouldn't matter. FP would call BS and get pissed off.[/QUOTE] This is true, but that would never actually happen.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27992562]This is true, but that would never actually happen.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the visual aid.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;27992457]you expect us to agree with you just because you insist that it isn't constitutional but you need to actually make a case for that claim. Prove to us, with textual evidence from both the constitution and the bill that it is unconstitutional. You can't just say "It's not constitutional" and expect us to believe you[/QUOTE] Okay, the argument is that the Mandate is justified by the commerce clause as seen here:[quote=Ppaca]PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY SEC. 1501 o42 U.S.C. 18091.. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings: (1) IN GENERAL.—The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘requirement’’) is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2). (2) EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE.—oReplaced by section 10106(a). The effects described in this paragraph are the following: (A)[B] The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased. In the absence of the requirement, some individuals would make an economic and financial decision to forego health insurance coverage and attempt to self-insure, which increases financial risks to households and medical providers. ...[/B][/quote][url]http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf[/url] (Page 162) but here's what the commerce clause says is: [Quote]Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; [B]To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;[/B][/quote] [url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8[/url] Commerce is of course defined as: [quote=merriam-webster dictionary]Definition of COMMERCE 1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments [B]2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place[/B] 3 : sexual intercourse See commerce defined for English-language learners » Examples of COMMERCE 1. He was the Secretary of Commerce under the last President. 2. <a government agency in charge of regulating interstate commerce>[/quote] [url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commerce[/url] Since forgoing health insurance is the decision to not buy health insurance, it is not commerce and therefor can't be regulated. But then there is also the argument that states can force you to buy auto insurance. True, but that requirement can only be enforced when you're buying a car. When you're buying a car, you are involved in commerce. This is why states can get away with the auto insurance requirement.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;27992399]The problem is, though, that this is [I]not[/I] constitutional; judges are not constrained to one viewpoint and are diverse in opinion on law, and they certainly don't always rule appropriately. Just because something is considered law (and just because someone with authority [I]in[/I] law says it's okay) does [I]not[/I] make it legitimate.[/QUOTE] Yes, and your disagreement with it, and agreement with a few judges of your opinion, also doesn't make you anymore right.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27993498] Since forgoing health insurance is the decision to not buy health insurance, it is not commerce and therefor can't be regulated.[/QUOTE] But that's where the interpretation lies. The judge in florida you keep posting about interpreted that as making it unconstitutional, but judges in Virginia and Michigan that you keep ignoring have deemed the bill constitutional. If you want to make your case that's fine, but stop acting like the ruling from this one judge overrules everyone else's rulings.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;27993918]But that's where the interpretation lies. The judge in florida you keep posting about interpreted that as making it unconstitutional, but judges in Virginia and Michigan that you keep ignoring have deemed the bill constitutional. If you want to make your case that's fine, but stop acting like the ruling from this one judge overrules everyone else's rulings.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you talking about? We all know conservative judges are the only judges that matter

It's a lost cause, just don't respond to the threads.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;27993918]But that's where the interpretation lies. The judge in florida you keep posting about interpreted that as making it unconstitutional, but judges in Virginia and Michigan that you keep ignoring have deemed the bill constitutional. If you want to make your case that's fine, but stop acting like the ruling from this one judge overrules everyone else's rulings.[/QUOTE] So your saying that the order of t he rulings doesn't matter? And I think you referenced a wrong judge. the Virginia judge ruled the mandate unconstitutional, while the Florida on ruled the whole thing unconstitutional due to a lack of a severabitly clause that would allow for just the mandate to be taken out instead of taking down the whole law.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27994358]So your saying that the order of t he rulings doesn't matter? And I think you referenced a wrong judge. the Virginia judge ruled the mandated unconstitutional, while the Florida on ruled the whole thing unconstitutional due to a lack of a severabitly clause that would allow for just the mandate to be taken out instead of taking down the whole law.[/QUOTE] But all the judges who say it's constitutional are wrong, right?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27995042]But all the judges who say it's constitutional are wrong, right?[/QUOTE] According to one jurisdiction, but all these courts are on the same level in the court hierarchy, so, yes that can be the case.

So there's an impasse, then?

The Governent doesn't negotiate enacted laws.