Too bad, so sad

ResearchMonkey

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
They certainly had better. It's going to get ugly, question is how ugly.

44459470874c00d57061o.jpg
 
ResearchMonkey

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
It's funny. I keep hearing the demoncrats say "When we passed Medicare people said it was a step towards socialism" -- in fact, today proves that they were right.

Initially it was a for those who were disabled and the very old, mostly those who paid into the SS system for most of their life.

Welcome to your very unpopular socialized medicine.


1269226772417.jpg
 
Cerise

Cerise

Well-Known Member
McCollum to file lawsuit against health care bill


ORLANDO, FL -- Moments after Congress voted to approve President Obama's health care legislation, Florida's Attorney General announced he will file a lawsuit to declare the bill unconstitutional.

"The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," McCollum said in a statement distributed late Sunday night.

"If the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."
Click to expand...


Ain't over 'til it's over.
 
jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62939

Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation to File Immediate Constitutional Challenge If House Dems Try to Pass Health-Care Without Actually Voting on It
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin, who served as chief of staff in the Reagan Justice Department, said he plans to file an immediate lawsuit if House Democratic leaders try to use an unconstitutional manuever to pass the Senate health care bill without actually having to vote on it.

“I cannot predict if we would win or lose--this is not as simple as some would have you believe--but I want to put the marker down right now and make it clear to members of the House of Representatives who think the quickest way to pass this is to adopt a rule that assumes that they voted on an underlying bill when they didn’t--that is going to be challenged if they do it,” Levin said on his nationally syndicated radio show Tuesday evening.

(A draft version of Landmark Legal's likely complaint is available on the organization's Web site.)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Monday that she might attempt to use a procedure -- dubbed “deem and pass” – to pass the measure without actually having lawmakers vote on it.

Essentially, instead of House members casting their votes on the Senate version of the health-care bill, the House would vote on a package of “fixes” made to those parts of the Senate bill to which House members object.

Under the House’s “self-executing rule” provision, if the lawmakers pass a rule that says passing the “fixes” is the same as passing the actual bill -- then the House would magically "deem" the health-care bill to be “passed.” The "rule" itself would be sponsored by the chairman of the House Rules Committtee, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

Levin, who is also a prominent nationally syndicated talk-radio host in addition to heading the Landmark Legal Foundation, reiterated that “no one can predict the outcome,” and he said he was not going to tip his hand by revealing too much of the legal strategy behind the lawsuit.

“What I’m trying to do, though, is make it very clear to those Democrats who are on the fence, and who think that this somehow is going to protect them, that it won’t because we’re going to expose you,” Levin said.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”

House action could come by the end of the week.
Click to expand...
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
Lawsuits are on the table.
Support your local, if you think this is unconstitutional.
Jay Sekulow, Va. Da, and (not sure who in this state yet, probably N. Deal),
will be receiving donations from here.

This is supreme court material...almost, probably tues.
Click to expand...
.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
2minkey said:
that comment addressed the "deem and pass" specifically, which has already been mooted, dude.
Click to expand...

well just apply it to the main under lying senate bill, and you'll get the message then....maybe.

Of coarse, talk is cheap. Just stay tuned.
The Real show is just about to start.
 
Cerise

Cerise

Well-Known Member
The issue isn't demonpass, which was a non-issue yesterday, the issue is the gov forcing the people to buy healthcare, and punishing them if they don't.




But can Congress require every American to buy health insurance?

In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.
Click to expand...
 
2minkey

2minkey

bootlicker
the issue WAS demonpass in the stuff that peel posted where that levin dude thought he was gonna be a hero.

i guess the issue now is that the winner/loser threshold is $88k for a family of four(!) so effectively this is going to be a tax on the middle class. gee, i wonder what the threshold is for one?

hey, don't worry, you'll probably get a subsidy, at my expense. you will benefit from obamacare.

kinda funny, idn't it?
 
MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Congress has the power to pass legislation that falls within any of its powers enumerated in the Constitution. There are two obvious sources of congressional power. The first, described in the General Welfare Clause, is the 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." The second, laid out in the Commerce Clause, is the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states."

<snip>Although opponents will challenge the individual mandate in court, constitutional challenges are unlikely to succeed. The Supreme Court will probably not even consider the issue unless a federal court of appeals strikes the tax down. In that unlikely event, the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold the tax, at least if it follows existing law. To strike down the individual mandate, it would have to reject decades of precedents. It is very unlikely that there are five votes on the current Court for staging such a constitutional revolution.

More
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top