User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Kavanaugh & Roberts, Two Obamacare Nuts In The Same Shell

  1. #1
    Points: 3,680, Level: 14
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 370
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Robo's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    305
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    436
    Points
    3,680
    Level
    14
    Thanks Given
    40
    Thanked 295x in 182 Posts
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Kavanaugh & Roberts, Two Obamacare Nuts In The Same Shell

    I'm thinking this morning that any judge that thinks and rules that Obamacare is constitutional couldn't get my vote if I were a U.S. Senator.
    No home run for Trump on the Kavanaugh pick in my opinion. I think he struck out this time. I wouldn't trust this judge any more than John Roberts. Both are BIG government swamp dwellers.


    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)


    There is no authorized power in the Constitution for the feds to be involved in a national healthcare system. That power is reserved to the States or the people. The "general welfare" mentioned in the Constitution is simply only those things enumerated in the Constitution, see the writtings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They reveiled the insanity of a BIG federal government making laws justified by the general welfare clause in effect reduce the rest of the Constitution aside from the general welfare clause to meaningless, toothless dribble.
    Government is force by definition and corruption by nature. The Bigger the government the greater the force and the greater the corruption.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Robo For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (07-10-2018)

  3. #2
    Points: 21,153, Level: 35
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 797
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3821
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    South Carolina now.
    Posts
    10,047
    Points
    21,153
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    15,874
    Thanked 3,812x in 2,960 Posts
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robo View Post
    I'm thinking this morning that any judge that thinks and rules that Obamacare is constitutional couldn't get my vote if I were a U.S. Senator.
    No home run for Trump on the Kavanaugh pick in my opinion. I think he struck out this time. I wouldn't trust this judge any more than John Roberts. Both are BIG government swamp dwellers.


    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)


    There is no authorized power in the Constitution for the feds to be involved in a national healthcare system. That power is reserved to the States or the people. The "general welfare" mentioned in the Constitution is simply only those things enumerated in the Constitution, see the writtings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They reveiled the insanity of a BIG federal government making laws justified by the general welfare clause in effect reduce the rest of the Constitution aside from the general welfare clause to meaningless, toothless dribble.
    If they only applied to those things enumerated in the Constitution why would this have been written?

    The clause has been used and, maybe, overused but it isn't what you say it is. I've never seen a good definition of it yet. It sounds like a catch-all but I don't what it was supposed to mean.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our democracy and our society.

  4. #3
    Points: 93,392, Level: 74
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 1,358
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassSocialVeteran
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    282715
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    45,559
    Points
    93,392
    Level
    74
    Thanks Given
    32,357
    Thanked 14,076x in 10,935 Posts
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    If they only applied to those things enumerated in the Constitution why would this have been written?

    The clause has been used and, maybe, overused but it isn't what you say it is. I've never seen a good definition of it yet. It sounds like a catch-all but I don't what it was supposed to mean.
    Either the general welfare clause means the government can do anything it wants or it is a shortcut phrase for the totality of the non-defense enumerated legislative authority found in Article 1 section 8.

    Which of the two is more likely? No state would have ratified an unlimited federal government.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.

  5. #4
    Points: 3,680, Level: 14
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 370
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Robo's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    305
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    436
    Points
    3,680
    Level
    14
    Thanks Given
    40
    Thanked 295x in 182 Posts
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Look up Jefferson and general welfare and see his opinion. The general welfare clause in the Constitution simply defines the enumerated powers in the Constitution and attaches the power to tax for those things to them.
    Government is force by definition and corruption by nature. The Bigger the government the greater the force and the greater the corruption.

  6. #5
    Points: 21,153, Level: 35
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 797
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3821
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    South Carolina now.
    Posts
    10,047
    Points
    21,153
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    15,874
    Thanked 3,812x in 2,960 Posts
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterVeritis View Post
    Either the general welfare clause means the government can do anything it wants or it is a shortcut phrase for the totality of the non-defense enumerated legislative authority found in Article 1 section 8.

    Which of the two is more likely? No state would have ratified an unlimited federal government.
    No, if it was meant as a shortcut it would be redundant. That makes no sense to me.

    I don't think it means the government could do as it pleased either.That would be nonsense.

    No, I still haven't heard a good explanation. I have never read anything from the Convention that really explains it. The Federalist paper have one view and Hamilton and his clique had another view.

    SCOTUS has been all over the place on it.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our democracy and our society.

  7. #6
    Points: 21,153, Level: 35
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 797
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3821
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    South Carolina now.
    Posts
    10,047
    Points
    21,153
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    15,874
    Thanked 3,812x in 2,960 Posts
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robo View Post
    Look up Jefferson and general welfare and see his opinion. The general welfare clause in the Constitution simply defines the enumerated powers in the Constitution and attaches the power to tax for those things to them.
    Jefferson wasn't at the Convention so his opinion is worth less than Madison and Hamilton. The powers are already enumerated and the power to tax is also. The welfare clause doesn't address either of those.

    Not trying to debate; just would like to know.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our democracy and our society.

  8. #7
    Points: 1,695, Level: 9
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    7 days registered1000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    DLLS's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    555
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    827
    Points
    1,695
    Level
    9
    Thanks Given
    140
    Thanked 545x in 344 Posts
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    No, if it was meant as a shortcut it would be redundant. That makes no sense to me.

    I don't think it means the government could do as it pleased either.That would be nonsense.

    No, I still haven't heard a good explanation. I have never read anything from the Convention that really explains it. The Federalist paper have one view and Hamilton and his clique had another view.

    SCOTUS has been all over the place on it.
    Ever read the Anti-Federalist Papers? The viewpoint of the "other side?"
    I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    Atlas Shrugged (Part 3, Chapter 1, Page 731)

    "The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."
    The Fountainhead (Part 4, Chapter 14, Page 637)

  9. #8
    Points: 93,392, Level: 74
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 1,358
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassSocialVeteran
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    282715
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    45,559
    Points
    93,392
    Level
    74
    Thanks Given
    32,357
    Thanked 14,076x in 10,935 Posts
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    No, if it was meant as a shortcut it would be redundant. That makes no sense to me.
    What does defense mean if it is not a shortcut to mean all of the non-general welfare clauses in Article 1 section 8?
    I don't think it means the government could do as it pleased either. That would be nonsense.
    You may choose only one meaning.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.

  10. #9
    Points: 1,767, Level: 9
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 83
    Overall activity: 42.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Lummy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    496
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,088
    Points
    1,767
    Level
    9
    Thanks Given
    253
    Thanked 486x in 346 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robo View Post
    I'm thinking this morning that any judge that thinks and rules that Obamacare is constitutional couldn't get my vote if I were a U.S. Senator.
    Not quite accurate ...
    In November 2011, Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. After a unanimous panel found that the ACA did not violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause in Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2014), Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. -- Wikipedia.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lummy For This Useful Post:

    barb012 (07-10-2018),MMC (07-10-2018)

  12. #10
    Original Ranter
    Points: 160,900, Level: 95
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 750
    Overall activity: 42.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    40581
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    39,323
    Points
    160,900
    Level
    95
    Thanks Given
    12,302
    Thanked 9,572x in 7,250 Posts
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Joe Manchin: Vote on Brett Kavanaugh hinges on Obamacare.....



    Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s views on Obamacare will affect the lawmaker's decision to confirm him.


    “The Supreme Court will ultimately decide if nearly 800,000 West Virginians with pre-existing conditions will lose their healthcare,” Manchin said, referring to a case winding its way through the courts challenging the legality of Obamacare. “This decision will directly impact almost 40 percent of my state, so I’m very interested in his position on protecting West Virginians with pre-existing conditions.”


    As I have always said, I believe the Senate should hold committee hearings, Senators should meet with him, we should debate his qualifications on the Senate floor, and cast whatever vote we believe he deserves," said Manchin. "I look forward to meeting with Judge Kavanaugh, examining his rulings and making a determination of whether to provide my consent.”....snip~


    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...s-on-obamacare


    Looks like Manchin will vote to confirm Kavanaugh.
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO