paranoid schizophrenia much?obama is just a puppet,you get rid of him he is just gonna be replaced by another to do their bidding.
damojeebs
How has Obama not been indicted or impeached by now?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The ignorance and hatred in this thread is rather amazing, but not unexpected in a place like OT.
Others have explained better than I that President Obama did not violate the constitution. He does very little with at least consulting his legal team, if he doesn't consult the rest of his advisors.
It's true that he went ahead with the described assassination, and with the intervention in Libya, but he would have done none of this if at any point someone said, "That's unconstitutional!".
Do you really think President Obama is the first President to make actions like this? Please. I don't necessarily agree with what was done, but I don't think President Obama should be impeach, not more than I think President Bush and the Congress of the time should be removed for going to war without real evidence of WMDs.
I'm going to be honest and say that I have a positive bias toward Obama since he's a Democrat and not a crazed Republican. However, after considering a few actions which his administration has taken, I've come to wonder why he hasn't been indicted or impeached by now. His administration has violated the Constitution numerous times, in the most heinous manner on each occasion. For example, the Fifth Amendment states the following:
Fifth Amendment: [quote="United States Constitution"]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.King-Kai
Take specific note of the portion that is in bold font (i.e. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). When President Obama's administration sanctioned theassassinationof Anwar Al-Awlaki, it violated this Constitutional clause. Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen, was assinated without due process; he was never indicted or tried for any of the supposed crimes he was assinated for. Hence, he was deprived of life without due process of law, which is an egregious violation of the Constitution. How has the Obama Administration been allowed to do this? Can't the Supreme Court step in? How about the Attorney General? Oh, wait, he was nominated by the President himself. Talk about conflict of interest. :roll:
Cenk Uygur talks about the assasination here.
Another example of Obama's violation of the Constitution was his sanctioning of U.S. Military involvement in Libya. He never got Congressional approval.
So, considering these examples, how has he not been indicted? WTF is happening to the U.S.? Doesn't anyone have any respect for the Constitution?
According to the Attorney General, Eric Holder "due process" doesn't necessarily mean "judicial process", i.e. targets like Awlaki and others aren't killed without process, the Executive branch is supposed to go through a process to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to kill them. That being said if Awalki was on U.S. soil, or in places with a large U.S. troop presence such as Iraq a few years ago, we should've arrested him. But I think it was not feasible to arrest him in Yemen.As for the Libya thing, the War Powers Act allows the President to use military force for a certain period (I think 60 days, it might be 90 days) without Congressional Approval. Also Obama justified U.S. involvement as fulfilling "treaty obligations" because we were supporting NATO (The North Antlantic Treaty Organization). The thing I can't figure out is why people accuse Bush's invasion of Iraq as being "illegal" when he got Congressional Authorization to do so, and yet they defend Obama's involvement in Libya which was not approved by Congress.
You can't impeach Bush for disagreement over his policies, only for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Bush did nothing illegal in regard to Iraq, he was authorized by Congress to use force if need be, and the first Gulf War ended in a cease-fire. Saddam had longer range missiles than the cease-fire allowed and thus he broke the terms of the cease-fire, which means the U.S. and the coalition were legally allowed to resume combat (in truth the combat really never stopped, from the 1991 to 2003 the U.S. and its allies were enforcing a No-fly zone over parts of Iraq).Others have explained better than I that President Obama did not violate the constitution. He does very little with at least consulting his legal team, if he doesn't consult the rest of his advisors.
It's true that he went ahead with the described assassination, and with the intervention in Libya, but he would have done none of this if at any point someone said, "That's unconstitutional!".
Do you really think President Obama is the first President to make actions like this? Please. I don't necessarily agree with what was done, but I don't think President Obama should be impeach, not more than I think President Bush and the Congress of the time should be removed for going to war without real evidence of WMDs.
jimkabrhel
[QUOTE="King-Kai"]
I'm going to be honest and say that I have a positive bias toward Obama since he's a Democrat and not a crazed Republican. However, after considering a few actions which his administration has taken, I've come to wonder why he hasn't been indicted or impeached by now. His administration has violated the Constitution numerous times, in the most heinous manner on each occasion. For example, the Fifth Amendment states the following:
Fifth Amendment: [quote="United States Constitution"]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.whipassmt
Take specific note of the portion that is in bold font (i.e. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). When President Obama's administration sanctioned theassassinationof Anwar Al-Awlaki, it violated this Constitutional clause. Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen, was assinated without due process; he was never indicted or tried for any of the supposed crimes he was assinated for. Hence, he was deprived of life without due process of law, which is an egregious violation of the Constitution. How has the Obama Administration been allowed to do this? Can't the Supreme Court step in? How about the Attorney General? Oh, wait, he was nominated by the President himself. Talk about conflict of interest. :roll:
Cenk Uygur talks about the assasination here.
Another example of Obama's violation of the Constitution was his sanctioning of U.S. Military involvement in Libya. He never got Congressional approval.
So, considering these examples, how has he not been indicted? WTF is happening to the U.S.? Doesn't anyone have any respect for the Constitution?
According to the Attorney General, Eric Holder "due process" doesn't necessarily mean "judicial process", i.e. targets like Awlaki and others aren't killed without process, the Executive branch is supposed to go through a process to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to kill them. That being said if Awalki was on U.S. soil, or in places with a large U.S. troop presence such as Iraq a few years ago, we should've arrested him. But I think it was not feasible to arrest him in Yemen.As for the Libya thing, the War Powers Act allows the President to use military force for a certain period (I think 60 days, it might be 90 days) without Congressional Approval. Also Obama justified U.S. involvement as fulfilling "treaty obligations" because we were supporting NATO (The North Antlantic Treaty Organization). The thing I can't figure out is why people accuse Bush's invasion of Iraq as being "illegal" when he got Congressional Authorization to do so, and yet they defend Obama's involvement in Libya which was not approved by Congress.
I vehemently disagreed with the war in Iraq, but I agree that Bush wen through the right channels. My gripe has always been that it was based on false information, and the people like Dick Cheyney, who are very war-mongering, we pushing and pushing until Bush caved.
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="King-Kai"]
I'm going to be honest and say that I have a positive bias toward Obama since he's a Democrat and not a crazed Republican. However, after considering a few actions which his administration has taken, I've come to wonder why he hasn't been indicted or impeached by now. His administration has violated the Constitution numerous times, in the most heinous manner on each occasion. For example, the Fifth Amendment states the following:
Fifth Amendment: [quote="United States Constitution"]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.jimkabrhel
Take specific note of the portion that is in bold font (i.e. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). When President Obama's administration sanctioned theassassinationof Anwar Al-Awlaki, it violated this Constitutional clause. Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen, was assinated without due process; he was never indicted or tried for any of the supposed crimes he was assinated for. Hence, he was deprived of life without due process of law, which is an egregious violation of the Constitution. How has the Obama Administration been allowed to do this? Can't the Supreme Court step in? How about the Attorney General? Oh, wait, he was nominated by the President himself. Talk about conflict of interest. :roll:
Cenk Uygur talks about the assasination here.
Another example of Obama's violation of the Constitution was his sanctioning of U.S. Military involvement in Libya. He never got Congressional approval.
So, considering these examples, how has he not been indicted? WTF is happening to the U.S.? Doesn't anyone have any respect for the Constitution?
According to the Attorney General, Eric Holder "due process" doesn't necessarily mean "judicial process", i.e. targets like Awlaki and others aren't killed without process, the Executive branch is supposed to go through a process to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to kill them. That being said if Awalki was on U.S. soil, or in places with a large U.S. troop presence such as Iraq a few years ago, we should've arrested him. But I think it was not feasible to arrest him in Yemen.As for the Libya thing, the War Powers Act allows the President to use military force for a certain period (I think 60 days, it might be 90 days) without Congressional Approval. Also Obama justified U.S. involvement as fulfilling "treaty obligations" because we were supporting NATO (The North Antlantic Treaty Organization). The thing I can't figure out is why people accuse Bush's invasion of Iraq as being "illegal" when he got Congressional Authorization to do so, and yet they defend Obama's involvement in Libya which was not approved by Congress.
I vehemently disagreed with the war in Iraq, but I agree that Bush wen through the right channels. My gripe has always been that it was based on false information, and the people like Dick Cheyney, who are very war-mongering, we pushing and pushing until Bush caved.
The problem is that Intel is never one hundred percent right, what we thought we knew back then is not what we think we know now and neither may be what we will know in the future.As for Cheney, I don't think he's a "war-monger". Remember in 1991 he opposed invading Iraq saying "Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that is currently there. ... How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? ... I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."
Of course my point made earlier is that even if you think the Iraq war was bad policy, you can't impeach Bush over policy. Presidents can only be impeached for doing illegal things.
[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]You could've come up with better examples, you know... Especially since Obama walks on the Constitution all the time.spazzx625Ok, what are some better examples then? Okay... Obamacare is a good example. Like forcing us to pay for healthcare or fine us. Then there's the whole trying to force religious institutions to give free contraception to poor women debacle and when that doesn't work forcing their healthcare services to do it. Also forcing Texas to get rid of the ban on giving contraception for free... I believe those are the most recent ones.
And whatever happened to your mod status? I believe I asked once but you never answered. You were one of the better ones.
[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="The-Apostle"]You could've come up with better examples, you know... Especially since Obama walks on the Constitution all the time.The-ApostleOk, what are some better examples then? Okay... Obamacare is a good example. Like forcing us to pay for healthcare or fine us. Then there's the whole trying to force religious institutions to give free contraception to poor women debacle and when that doesn't work forcing their healthcare services to do it. Also forcing Texas to get rid of the ban on giving contraception for free... I believe those are the most recent ones. And whatever happened to your mod status? I believe I asked once but you never answered. Do you have arguments for why each of these is unconstitutional?
[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="The-Apostle"]You could've come up with better examples, you know... Especially since Obama walks on the Constitution all the time.The-ApostleOk, what are some better examples then? Okay... Obamacare is a good example. Like forcing us to pay for healthcare or fine us. Then there's the whole trying to force religious institutions to give free contraception to poor women debacle and when that doesn't work forcing their healthcare services to do it. Also forcing Texas to get rid of the ban on giving contraception for free... I believe those are the most recent ones. And whatever happened to your mod status? I believe I asked once but you never answered.
The constitutionality of Obamacare will be determined this year by the SCOTUS. Many of the contraception rules that are such an issue were already in place in many states and their constitutionality was never in question. The President went about annoucing the rule in the wrong way, but it was already on the books in many areas, and in more strict versions. In many state, there was no opt out at all.
Ok, what are some better examples then? Okay... Obamacare is a good example. Like forcing us to pay for healthcare or fine us. Then there's the whole trying to force religious institutions to give free contraception to poor women debacle and when that doesn't work forcing their healthcare services to do it. Also forcing Texas to get rid of the ban on giving contraception for free... I believe those are the most recent ones.[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="The-Apostle"]You could've come up with better examples, you know... Especially since Obama walks on the Constitution all the time.The-Apostle
And whatever happened to your mod status? I believe I asked once but you never answered. You were one of the better ones.
None of that is unconstitutional though. Also, having health care cover people giving birth costs thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. I don't see why contraception should be eliminated when it is much cheaper, safer, and doesn't apply to everyone. I quit being a mod like a year ago.Okay... Obamacare is a good example. Like forcing us to pay for healthcare or fine us. Then there's the whole trying to force religious institutions to give free contraception to poor women debacle and when that doesn't work forcing their healthcare services to do it. Also forcing Texas to get rid of the ban on giving contraception for free... I believe those are the most recent ones. And whatever happened to your mod status? I believe I asked once but you never answered.[QUOTE="The-Apostle"][QUOTE="spazzx625"] Ok, what are some better examples then?jimkabrhel
The constitutionality of Obamacare will be determined this year by the SCOTUS. Many of the contraception rules that are such an issue were already in place in many states and their constitutionality was never in question. The President went about annoucing the rule in the wrong way, but it was already on the books in many areas, and in more strict versions. In many state, there was no opt out at all.
Actually most of the state laws mandating contraceptive coverage for all insurance plans did allow wider opt out, Obama's mandate is based on California's. For instance Obama's mandate requires that all "FDA approved contraceptives" including abortifacients such as Ella, Plan B and IUDs must be covered, while North Carolina's law specifically states that abortifacients like Plan B and IUDs are not covered. Another example is Connecticut's law, (which Sen. Lieberman says Obama should change the mandate so that it is similar to CT's law) which exempts all religious institutions and allows individuals to opt out of having their health-insurance cover the contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients if they feel these things violate their moral and religious beliefs. Also some of the states that current have these contraceptive mandates are in the process of repealing those mandates (Arizona and New Hampshire so far).[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]Okay... Obamacare is a good example. Like forcing us to pay for healthcare or fine us. Then there's the whole trying to force religious institutions to give free contraception to poor women debacle and when that doesn't work forcing their healthcare services to do it. Also forcing Texas to get rid of the ban on giving contraception for free... I believe those are the most recent ones.[QUOTE="spazzx625"] Ok, what are some better examples then?spazzx625
And whatever happened to your mod status? I believe I asked once but you never answered. You were one of the better ones.
None of that is unconstitutional though. Also, having health care cover people giving birth costs thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. I don't see why contraception should be eliminated when it is much cheaper, safer, and doesn't apply to everyone. I quit being a mod like a year ago. Well the courts will decide on the constitutionality of that soon enough.[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]Okay... Obamacare is a good example. Like forcing us to pay for healthcare or fine us. Then there's the whole trying to force religious institutions to give free contraception to poor women debacle and when that doesn't work forcing their healthcare services to do it. Also forcing Texas to get rid of the ban on giving contraception for free... I believe those are the most recent ones.[QUOTE="spazzx625"] Ok, what are some better examples then?spazzx625
And whatever happened to your mod status? I believe I asked once but you never answered. You were one of the better ones.
None of that is unconstitutional though. Also, having health care cover people giving birth costs thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. I don't see why contraception should be eliminated when it is much cheaper, safer, and doesn't apply to everyone. I quit being a mod like a year ago. How is it legal to fine us for not having health care? Also, I was talking about contraception from a religious standpoint. Many religious institutions believe it's a violation of their religion to be forced to provide contraception.[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="The-Apostle"] Okay... Obamacare is a good example. Like forcing us to pay for healthcare or fine us. Then there's the whole trying to force religious institutions to give free contraception to poor women debacle and when that doesn't work forcing their healthcare services to do it. Also forcing Texas to get rid of the ban on giving contraception for free... I believe those are the most recent ones.None of that is unconstitutional though. Also, having health care cover people giving birth costs thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. I don't see why contraception should be eliminated when it is much cheaper, safer, and doesn't apply to everyone. I quit being a mod like a year ago. How is it legal to fine us for not having health care? Also, I was talking about contraception from a religious standpoint. Many religious institutions believe it's a violation of their religion to be forced to provide contraception.Which is stupid on every level.And whatever happened to your mod status? I believe I asked once but you never answered. You were one of the better ones.
The-Apostle
Rule of thumb; clearly stupid views should be ignored.
[QUOTE="King-Kai"][QUOTE="spazzx625"] As I already pointed out...No, it's not.spazzx625
He ordered the assasination of a U.S. Citizen who was never proven to be an actual member of the faction the U.S. is currently at war with. His adminitration claims to have secret evidence which justifies the assasiantion, but have not revealed it. We're supposed to just believe them? That's absurd; they could be lying.
If the information could potentially be dangerous to the safety of the US...Then they don't need to show any evidence. I really don't see what dots are you trying connect here. Yes, they could be lying...Or they could be telling the truth. You have no clue on how the the justice system in pretty much every democratic country works, do you? Do the concepts of burden of proof and reasonable doubt ring a bell?How is it legal to fine us for not having health care?The-Apostle
Congress has the vested authority, under the constitutional Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce. It also has the Necessary and proper clause to enact acts that are N&P to carry out an enumerated power, like the CC.
The individual mandate is obviously necessary for the healthcare program to succeed.
ok?
[QUOTE="The-Apostle"] How is it legal to fine us for not having health care?pie-junior
Congress has the vested authority, under the constitutional Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce. It also has the Necessary and proper clause to enact acts that are N&P to carry out an enumerated power, like the CC.
The individual mandate is obviously necessary for the healthcare program to succeed.
ok?
You're right. However, it is the individual mandate (forcing us to either pay for healthcare or pay a fine) that is not legal. And because that is what is highly necessary for Obamacare to work, that's what makes Obamacare unconstitutional.[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="The-Apostle"] How is it legal to fine us for not having health care?The-Apostle
Congress has the vested authority, under the constitutional Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce. It also has the Necessary and proper clause to enact acts that are N&P to carry out an enumerated power, like the CC.
The individual mandate is obviously necessary for the healthcare program to succeed.
ok?
You're right. However, it is the individual mandate (forcing us to either pay for healthcare or pay a fine) that is not legal. And because that is what is highly necessary for Obamacare to work, that's what makes Obamacare unconstitutional. Admittedly I'm no constitutional scholar, but I fail to see how the healthcare bill as a whole would be deemed unconstitutional if the individual mandate was. Certainly, the bill would have significant problems without the individual mandate, but not constitutional ones.How is it legal to fine us for not having health care? Also, I was talking about contraception from a religious standpoint. Many religious institutions believe it's a violation of their religion to be forced to provide contraception.Which is stupid on every level.[QUOTE="The-Apostle"][QUOTE="spazzx625"] None of that is unconstitutional though. Also, having health care cover people giving birth costs thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. I don't see why contraception should be eliminated when it is much cheaper, safer, and doesn't apply to everyone. I quit being a mod like a year ago.TopTierHustler
Rule of thumb; clearly stupid views should be ignored.
It is not the government's role to determine what religious beliefs are "stupid" or not, or to force people/institutions to violate their religious beliefs. The First Amendment prohibits the government from impinging upon the free exercise of religion.Which is stupid on every level.[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]
[QUOTE="The-Apostle"] How is it legal to fine us for not having health care? Also, I was talking about contraception from a religious standpoint. Many religious institutions believe it's a violation of their religion to be forced to provide contraception.whipassmt
Rule of thumb; clearly stupid views should be ignored.
It is not the government's role to determine what religious beliefs are "stupid" or not, or to force people/institutions to violate their religious beliefs. The First Amendment prohibits the government from impinging upon the free exercise of religion.Sure it is, part of the governments job is to improve the well being of it's citizens. Discouraging STD transmission and Births out of wedlock are both positives. You'd have to be stupid to think other wise.For examples of the stupidity of the consequences of the churches stupidity just look at the millions in Africa that have been infected as a result of their no contraceptive policy.
Trust those dying Africans, Contraceptives are a positive thing.
Which is stupid on every level.[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]
[QUOTE="The-Apostle"] How is it legal to fine us for not having health care? Also, I was talking about contraception from a religious standpoint. Many religious institutions believe it's a violation of their religion to be forced to provide contraception.whipassmt
Rule of thumb; clearly stupid views should be ignored.
It is not the government's role to determine what religious beliefs are "stupid" or not, or to force people/institutions to violate their religious beliefs. The First Amendment prohibits the government from impinging upon the free exercise of religion.Of course there are limitations on religious expression. Whether or not it was part of my religious beliefs, I couldn't engage in ritual sacrifice - that is a clear violation of my (hypothetical) religious beliefs, but it's clearly not allowed.
The First Amendment isn't a blanket protection of all religious freedoms, nor should it be.
[QUOTE="The-Apostle"] How is it legal to fine us for not having health care?pie-junior
Congress has the vested authority, under the constitutional Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce. It also has the Necessary and proper clause to enact acts that are N&P to carry out an enumerated power, like the CC.
The individual mandate is obviously necessary for the healthcare program to succeed.
ok?
Since when is forcing people to buy something regulating commerce? Regulating commerce has traditionally meant regulating things that people choose to purchase, not forcing them to purchase. As Senator Obama said in 2008 while criticizing the individual mandate as proposed by Senator Clinton :"[Hillary Clinton] mandates that everybody buy health care. She'd have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don't have such a mandate … Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="The-Apostle"] How is it legal to fine us for not having health care?The-Apostle
Congress has the vested authority, under the constitutional Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce. It also has the Necessary and proper clause to enact acts that are N&P to carry out an enumerated power, like the CC.
The individual mandate is obviously necessary for the healthcare program to succeed.
ok?
You're right. However, it is the individual mandate (forcing us to either pay for healthcare or pay a fine) that is not legal. And because that is what is highly necessary for Obamacare to work, that's what makes Obamacare unconstitutional.The mandate is constitutional because it's N&P, not the other way around. SCOTUS can't strike down congressional acts because "they don't work".
Why don't we go at it in a different way- you tell me what grounds you have to strike down the AHCA. you are the claimant, and we are talking constitutional law; there's a prima facie assumprtion of constitutionality that needs to be countered.
[QUOTE="The-Apostle"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]You're right. However, it is the individual mandate (forcing us to either pay for healthcare or pay a fine) that is not legal. And because that is what is highly necessary for Obamacare to work, that's what makes Obamacare unconstitutional. Admittedly I'm no constitutional scholar, but I fail to see how the healthcare bill as a whole would be deemed unconstitutional if the individual mandate was. Certainly, the bill would have significant problems without the individual mandate, but not constitutional ones. If the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional, then the Court would have to rule on its "Severability". If the mandate is not integral to the whole law, just the mandate will be struck down, if it is found to be integral, the whole law will be struck down.Congress has the vested authority, under the constitutional Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce. It also has the Necessary and proper clause to enact acts that are N&P to carry out an enumerated power, like the CC.
The individual mandate is obviously necessary for the healthcare program to succeed.
ok?
chessmaster1989
However if the mandate is so crucial to the law's running, if the mandate is struck down and the law as a whole is allowed, Congress will probably then repeal the entire law (they have allready repealed some part of it and Obama did sign that repeal into law last year).
It is not the government's role to determine what religious beliefs are "stupid" or not, or to force people/institutions to violate their religious beliefs. The First Amendment prohibits the government from impinging upon the free exercise of religion.Sure it is, part of the governments job is to improve the well being of it's citizens. Discouraging STD transmission and Births out of wedlock are both positives. You'd have to be stupid to think other wise.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]Which is stupid on every level.
Rule of thumb; clearly stupid views should be ignored.
TopTierHustler
For examples of the stupidity of the consequences of the churches stupidity just look at the millions in Africa that have been infected as a result of their no contraceptive policy.
Trust those dying Africans, Contraceptives are a positive thing.
Contraceptives do not prevent STDs they even say so in their commercials ("the pill does not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases"). Also access to contraception is pretty widespread even without this mandate, as most insurance plans do cover it, the only ones that do not are mostlythe ones purchased by religious institutions.It is not the government's role to determine what religious beliefs are "stupid" or not, or to force people/institutions to violate their religious beliefs. The First Amendment prohibits the government from impinging upon the free exercise of religion.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]Which is stupid on every level.
Rule of thumb; clearly stupid views should be ignored.
chessmaster1989
Of course there are limitations on religious expression. Whether or not it was part of my religious beliefs, I couldn't engage in ritual sacrifice - that is a clear violation of my (hypothetical) religious beliefs, but it's clearly not allowed.
The First Amendment isn't a blanket protection of all religious freedoms, nor should it be.
There are reasonable limitations on any right. However the government cannot lightly limit those rights (freedom of speech, of religion etc.) it needs real important reasons (a "compelling interest"). In the case of human sacrifice of course the government can limit that because that is killing people. The government does not have a sufficient compelling interest to force religious institutions to pay for contraceptives (by the way the nation's Catholic bishops have already indicated that if Obama's mandate stays in place they will not comply with it), when contraceptives are not essential health-care and when they are readily available.Sure it is, part of the governments job is to improve the well being of it's citizens. Discouraging STD transmission and Births out of wedlock are both positives. You'd have to be stupid to think other wise.[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] It is not the government's role to determine what religious beliefs are "stupid" or not, or to force people/institutions to violate their religious beliefs. The First Amendment prohibits the government from impinging upon the free exercise of religion.
whipassmt
For examples of the stupidity of the consequences of the churches stupidity just look at the millions in Africa that have been infected as a result of their no contraceptive policy.
Trust those dying Africans, Contraceptives are a positive thing.
Contraceptives do not prevent STDs they even say so in their commercials ("the pill does not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases"). Also access to contraception is pretty widespread even without this mandate, as most insurance plans do cover it, the only ones that do not are mostlythe ones purchased by religious institutions.Uhh, several forms of contraception (e.g. condoms) most certainly do help prevent STDs. Wtf are you talking about?
Contraceptives do not prevent STDs they even say so in their commercials ("the pill does not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases"). Also access to contraception is pretty widespread even without this mandate, as most insurance plans do cover it, the only ones that do not are mostlythe ones purchased by religious institutions.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]Sure it is, part of the governments job is to improve the well being of it's citizens. Discouraging STD transmission and Births out of wedlock are both positives. You'd have to be stupid to think other wise.
For examples of the stupidity of the consequences of the churches stupidity just look at the millions in Africa that have been infected as a result of their no contraceptive policy.
Trust those dying Africans, Contraceptives are a positive thing.
chessmaster1989
Uhh, several forms of contraception (e.g. condoms) most certainly do help prevent STDs. Wtf are you talking about?
And that form of contraception is not covered by this mandate, which only covers "women's preventive services". Also sterilizations and abortifacients do not prevent disease.[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] It is not the government's role to determine what religious beliefs are "stupid" or not, or to force people/institutions to violate their religious beliefs. The First Amendment prohibits the government from impinging upon the free exercise of religion.
whipassmt
Of course there are limitations on religious expression. Whether or not it was part of my religious beliefs, I couldn't engage in ritual sacrifice - that is a clear violation of my (hypothetical) religious beliefs, but it's clearly not allowed.
The First Amendment isn't a blanket protection of all religious freedoms, nor should it be.
There are reasonable limitations on any right. However the government cannot lightly limit those rights (freedom of speech, of religion etc.) it needs real important reasons (a "compelling interest"). In the case of human sacrifice of course the government can limit that because that is killing people. The government does not have a sufficient compelling interest to force religious institutions to pay for contraceptives (by the way the nation's Catholic bishops have already indicated that if Obama's mandate stays in place they will not comply with it), when contraceptives are not essential health-care and when they are readily available.In your opinion yes, I personally would disagree.
If Obama's mandate stays in place and the bishops do not comply, they'll probably face legal consequences.
Regulating commerce has traditionally meant regulating things that people choose to purchase, not forcing them to purchase.
whipassmt
Buying insurance isn't really a choice between purchasing or not purchasing- it's a choice between self-insurance or "regular" insurance. Most people who don't insure themselves have large amounts of their health care payments pushed on hospitals and insurance companies, not to mention other detriments to the social welfare by untreated sick people.
The uninsured cause the american economy billions of dollars of damage; that's why it falls under the CC- and that's the outcome that would,most likely, be reached by SCOTUS. All of this is in the congressional findings regarding this act.
[QUOTE="The-Apostle"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]You're right. However, it is the individual mandate (forcing us to either pay for healthcare or pay a fine) that is not legal. And because that is what is highly necessary for Obamacare to work, that's what makes Obamacare unconstitutional. Admittedly I'm no constitutional scholar, but I fail to see how the healthcare bill as a whole would be deemed unconstitutional if the individual mandate was. Certainly, the bill would have significant problems without the individual mandate, but not constitutional ones.Congress has the vested authority, under the constitutional Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce. It also has the Necessary and proper clause to enact acts that are N&P to carry out an enumerated power, like the CC.
The individual mandate is obviously necessary for the healthcare program to succeed.
ok?
chessmaster1989
IIRC, it lacks a severance clause -- meaning as a matter of legal technicality, if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the entire bill is.
That's actually not true. At least according to James Madison in The Federalists papers...You have to be a citizen to enjoy those rights.
TopTierHustler
There are reasonable limitations on any right. However the government cannot lightly limit those rights (freedom of speech, of religion etc.) it needs real important reasons (a "compelling interest"). In the case of human sacrifice of course the government can limit that because that is killing people. The government does not have a sufficient compelling interest to force religious institutions to pay for contraceptives (by the way the nation's Catholic bishops have already indicated that if Obama's mandate stays in place they will not comply with it), when contraceptives are not essential health-care and when they are readily available.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Of course there are limitations on religious expression. Whether or not it was part of my religious beliefs, I couldn't engage in ritual sacrifice - that is a clear violation of my (hypothetical) religious beliefs, but it's clearly not allowed.
The First Amendment isn't a blanket protection of all religious freedoms, nor should it be.
chessmaster1989
In your opinion yes, I personally would disagree.
If Obama's mandate stays in place and the bishops do not comply, they'll probably face legal consequences.
Obama's not gonna go around throwing bishops in jail for disobeying his mandate. He's not gonna shut down Catholic schools and hospitals. Technically if religious organizations don't comply they will be fined, but if Catholic schools and hospitals start going bankrupt because of these fines than Obama will have created a political and economic nightmare that would severely decrease people's access to basic health-care in the United States and pretty much force him or his successor to back down.Really though, this mandate will not stand as there are enough democrats that oppose it. In the Senate 3 Democrats have voted to undo the mandate, Lieberman also wants more religious exemptions and opposes the current mandate (he wants it to be based on CT's mandate law which exempts religious institutions and allows individuals to opt out), Biden was critical of the mandate as well.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] There are reasonable limitations on any right. However the government cannot lightly limit those rights (freedom of speech, of religion etc.) it needs real important reasons (a "compelling interest"). In the case of human sacrifice of course the government can limit that because that is killing people. The government does not have a sufficient compelling interest to force religious institutions to pay for contraceptives (by the way the nation's Catholic bishops have already indicated that if Obama's mandate stays in place they will not comply with it), when contraceptives are not essential health-care and when they are readily available.
whipassmt
In your opinion yes, I personally would disagree.
If Obama's mandate stays in place and the bishops do not comply, they'll probably face legal consequences.
Obama's not gonna go around throwing bishops in jail for disobeying his mandate. He's not gonna shut down Catholic schools and hospitals. Technically if religious organizations don't comply they will be fined, but if Catholic schools and hospitals start going bankrupt because of these fines than Obama will have created a political and economic nightmare that would severely decrease people's access to basic health-care in the United States and pretty much force him or his successor to back down.Really though, this mandate will not stand as there are enough democrats that oppose it. In the Senate 3 Democrats have voted to undo the mandate, Lieberman also wants more religious exemptions and opposes the current mandate (he wants it to be based on CT's mandate law which exempts religious institutions and allows individuals to opt out), Biden was critical of the mandate as well.
Kind of depressing if they can break the law with impugnity because of political reasons, don't you think?
Anyway, if it gets overturned, that's that.
Obama's not gonna go around throwing bishops in jail for disobeying his mandate. He's not gonna shut down Catholic schools and hospitals. Technically if religious organizations don't comply they will be fined, but if Catholic schools and hospitals start going bankrupt because of these fines than Obama will have created a political and economic nightmare that would severely decrease people's access to basic health-care in the United States and pretty much force him or his successor to back down.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
In your opinion yes, I personally would disagree.
If Obama's mandate stays in place and the bishops do not comply, they'll probably face legal consequences.
chessmaster1989
Really though, this mandate will not stand as there are enough democrats that oppose it. In the Senate 3 Democrats have voted to undo the mandate, Lieberman also wants more religious exemptions and opposes the current mandate (he wants it to be based on CT's mandate law which exempts religious institutions and allows individuals to opt out), Biden was critical of the mandate as well.
Kind of depressing if they can break the law with impugnity because of political reasons, don't you think?
Anyway, if it gets overturned, that's that.
No. Because it's an unjust law and it shoudln't be followed. Mala lex, nulla lex.[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Obama's not gonna go around throwing bishops in jail for disobeying his mandate. He's not gonna shut down Catholic schools and hospitals. Technically if religious organizations don't comply they will be fined, but if Catholic schools and hospitals start going bankrupt because of these fines than Obama will have created a political and economic nightmare that would severely decrease people's access to basic health-care in the United States and pretty much force him or his successor to back down.
Really though, this mandate will not stand as there are enough democrats that oppose it. In the Senate 3 Democrats have voted to undo the mandate, Lieberman also wants more religious exemptions and opposes the current mandate (he wants it to be based on CT's mandate law which exempts religious institutions and allows individuals to opt out), Biden was critical of the mandate as well.
whipassmt
Kind of depressing if they can break the law with impugnity because of political reasons, don't you think?
Anyway, if it gets overturned, that's that.
No. Because it's an unjust law and it shoudln't be followed. Mala lex, nulla lex. *shrugs* agree to disagreeAdmittedly I'm no constitutional scholar, but I fail to see how the healthcare bill as a whole would be deemed unconstitutional if the individual mandate was. Certainly, the bill would have significant problems without the individual mandate, but not constitutional ones.[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="The-Apostle"] You're right. However, it is the individual mandate (forcing us to either pay for healthcare or pay a fine) that is not legal. And because that is what is highly necessary for Obamacare to work, that's what makes Obamacare unconstitutional.coolbeans90
IIRC, it lacks a severance clause -- meaning as a matter of legal technicality, if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the entire bill is.
Interesting, didn't know that.Sure it is, part of the governments job is to improve the well being of it's citizens. Discouraging STD transmission and Births out of wedlock are both positives. You'd have to be stupid to think other wise.[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] It is not the government's role to determine what religious beliefs are "stupid" or not, or to force people/institutions to violate their religious beliefs. The First Amendment prohibits the government from impinging upon the free exercise of religion.
whipassmt
For examples of the stupidity of the consequences of the churches stupidity just look at the millions in Africa that have been infected as a result of their no contraceptive policy.
Trust those dying Africans, Contraceptives are a positive thing.
Contraceptives do not prevent STDs they even say so in their commercials ("the pill does not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases"). Also access to contraception is pretty widespread even without this mandate, as most insurance plans do cover it, the only ones that do not are mostlythe ones purchased by religious institutions.LMAO, what do you think a condom is? Never used one I assume?Now as much as the church likes to pretend they control people lives and that people's sex lives, they don't, people are going to have sex, and the only way STD and unwanted pregnancies are going to be stopped are contraceptives. If unavailiable, guess what is going to happen.
Contraceptives do not prevent STDs they even say so in their commercials ("the pill does not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases"). Also access to contraception is pretty widespread even without this mandate, as most insurance plans do cover it, the only ones that do not are mostlythe ones purchased by religious institutions.LMAO, what do you think a condom is? Never used one I assume? They are not covered by this mandate, which applies only to "preventive health care" for women, not for men. And no I haven't.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]Sure it is, part of the governments job is to improve the well being of it's citizens. Discouraging STD transmission and Births out of wedlock are both positives. You'd have to be stupid to think other wise.
For examples of the stupidity of the consequences of the churches stupidity just look at the millions in Africa that have been infected as a result of their no contraceptive policy.
Trust those dying Africans, Contraceptives are a positive thing.
TopTierHustler
LMAO, what do you think a condom is? Never used one I assume? They are not covered by this mandate, which applies only to "preventive health care" for women, not for men. And no I haven't.They are going to lower rates of cancer and unwanted pregnancies, that by itself justifies use. Like I said earlier, it is the job of the government to try and improve citizens lives, and this policy clearly would.[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Contraceptives do not prevent STDs they even say so in their commercials ("the pill does not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases"). Also access to contraception is pretty widespread even without this mandate, as most insurance plans do cover it, the only ones that do not are mostlythe ones purchased by religious institutions.
whipassmt
Unwanted pregnancies early in life lower the quality of life for the ramainder of ones life, and raise crime rates and abortion rates.
I would be upset to as a Right winger.
Much older yet still looks younger than Palin.
They are not covered by this mandate, which applies only to "preventive health care" for women, not for men. And no I haven't.They are going to lower rates of cancer and unwanted pregnancies, that by itself justifies use. Like I said earlier, it is the job of the government to try and improve citizens lives, and this policy clearly would.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]LMAO, what do you think a condom is? Never used one I assume?
TopTierHustler
Unwanted pregnancies early in life lower the quality of life for the ramainder of ones life, and raise crime rates and abortion rates.
say what about birth-control preventing cancer?Also the overall effect of Obama's mandate would be to harm American's health-care as many religious institutions have said they will not comply and thus fining religious hospitals into bankruptcy would greatly harm access to health-care.She looks roughly the same age as Pailin. However, that arm...my God, that f*kin' hand.
King-Kai
Shut up I liked that eyes in her picture there are more photos if the arm bothers you... Do you know how old Madonna is, she looks like she is 30.
Liberal women look better usually that is a fact. Hollywood women are mostly liberal and they are gorgeous. We get to pick from buffet and you get women that act manly and are boring (Palin).
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment