Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION?
7/1/2012 | vanity

Posted on 07/01/2012 8:51:53 AM PDT by MrChips

DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION? . . . . I heard somewhere that if Obama wins re-election (God forbid) but the Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, that the bill can be repealed as a reconciliation bill WITHOUT the president's signature. Is that true?


TOPICS: Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: healthcare; repeal; repealobamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

1 posted on 07/01/2012 8:51:59 AM PDT by MrChips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MrChips

I have heard Michele Bachmann and others say that now that it is officially a “tax,” it can be overturned by 50 + 1 in the Senate.


2 posted on 07/01/2012 8:53:38 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

I think it takes a two thirds majority in both House and Senate to override a Veto of a bill....I’m guess the repeal bill would be vetoed and they’d have to have at least 2/3 majority both places to override - killing Obamacare


3 posted on 07/01/2012 8:55:56 AM PDT by Gaffer (NOVEMBER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Not true. Legislation still requires the President’s signature.


4 posted on 07/01/2012 8:57:16 AM PDT by cwaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Obama ain’t winning..


5 posted on 07/01/2012 8:57:42 AM PDT by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
I'm inclined to doubt it.Fifty percent plus one in the House *and* Senate,perhaps....but I'd wager that he could veto,which would then require two thirds in both chambers.
6 posted on 07/01/2012 8:59:18 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Bill Ayers Was *Not* "Just Some Guy In The Neighborhood")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

All the Republicans have to do if they take control is “Deem Any bill they wish to have been passed” just like Nazi Pelosi. Hell they could deem any bill vetoed by obama to be overridden by a simple voice vote, just like Nazi Pelosi. But they won’t.


7 posted on 07/01/2012 8:59:30 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Not by a President Oboma, but yes with a President Romney. Her point was win the Senate (not requiring 60 votes) and he White House and you can repeal by reconciliation. Don’t know if they would have the guts to do it, but the Rats dit it in passing initially. Not too much precedent.


8 posted on 07/01/2012 8:59:38 AM PDT by yeetch! (These are the good old days!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

The President either has to sign it or if he vetoes then it takes 2/3 majority vote to overide the veto.


9 posted on 07/01/2012 9:01:05 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

It won’t matter because if he wins a second term it will mean the Mayans were right and 2012 is the end of the world.


10 posted on 07/01/2012 9:02:12 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Some day our schools will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

I have heard Michele Bachmann and others say that now that it is officially a “tax,” it can be overturned by 50 + 1 in the Senate.

_____________________________

I believe this is correct.


11 posted on 07/01/2012 9:03:20 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

I’m with ya.

Even after just one term it is already the end of the U.S. as we know it.


12 posted on 07/01/2012 9:04:35 AM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

More Information:

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare’s health insurance mandate is in fact a tax levied on those who do not purchase insurance, Senate Republicans will look to repeal the full law through the budget reconciliation process.

Reconciliation was used to push Obamacare through the Senate in 2009. Generally reserved strictly for budget-related measures, it eliminates the possibility of a filibuster, meaning Republicans would only need 51 votes to repeal that portion of the law – or even the full law itself.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/28/senate-gop-will-use-reconciliation-in-attempt-to-repeal-obamacare


13 posted on 07/01/2012 9:06:18 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey

Come on now....where’s that “Fightin” spirit and positive attitude?

;-)


14 posted on 07/01/2012 9:08:56 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

More:

“Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he expects Republicans to use reconciliation in the repeal effort during the 113th Congress. Kyl is not running for reelection.

Mike Franc, Heritage’s Vice President of Government Studies, explained the details of reconciliation’s applicability thusly:

Now that the individual mandate has acquired the official constitutional status of a “tax”, there is no longer any doubt that the Congress, and more specifically the Senate, can repeal it pursuant to the simple majority vote threshold available under the Budget Act’s reconciliation process. Some Senate insiders were concerned that the reconciliation process would leave too much of Obamacare intact, including the individual mandate. But today’s decision, while alarming in so many other ways, dispels with that concern.

The mandate is now a revenue provision. Therefore, it is germane and not subject to a Senate parliamentary point of order to strike it from a repeal bill. The Senate’s filibuster process that would require a supermajority of 60 Senate votes to approve repeal is now irrelevant.”

(same source as my previous post)


15 posted on 07/01/2012 9:11:58 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita
just because Roberts’ muddled torturous ruling termed this act a “tax” doesn't make it a tax

It does not seem to meet the Constitutionally defined enumerated taxes Congress has the power to levy

I don't get the conservative optimism over a silver lining

Our Republic was usurped in 2009 (if not sooner) and the usurpers are bound and determined to impose a health control scheme on the American people by fiat from one branch of government or another, or all 3. and the GOP will go along.

So they will.

16 posted on 07/01/2012 9:17:16 AM PDT by silverleaf (Every human spent about half an hour as a single cell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Reconciliation can’t be used on the Mandate. It CAN be used on a couple of minor provisions, but that’s it. And, as others said, it requires the President’s signature regardless.


17 posted on 07/01/2012 9:18:03 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Could a Republican President issue an Executive Order to ignore the law even of it’s on the books like Obsma did re immigration?


18 posted on 07/01/2012 9:20:54 AM PDT by TigerClaws (He)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
I heard somewhere that if Obama wins re-election (God forbid) but the Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, that the bill can be repealed as a reconciliation bill WITHOUT the president's signature. Is that true?

If Obama wins re-election, he will DECLARE HIS DOG "BO" to be a SENATOR, completely destroying all power of the Senate, and he will simply ignore them from then on.

19 posted on 07/01/2012 9:20:54 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

“now that it is officially a “tax,”...”

I keep seeing this and hearing people say it, but I can’t find anywhere that it is somehow a tax declaratively - including the majority SCOTUS opinion written by Roberts.

Roberts merely said that it can be looked at as a tax (essentially) because it is a penalty under the taxing authority and collected by the IRS, but it is not considered a tax under statute. This means that the court treated it as a tax in order to even hear the case, and to rule the way they did. If it was truly a tax in the traditional sense, then the case would have been denied and someone would have to wait to file until they were “injured” by the law (IOW only after they had to pay the tax, not before).

I think the opinion was written specifically to allow all of the pols to split hairs and have it both ways as is and whenever necessary.

That’s my 2 cents on it.


20 posted on 07/01/2012 9:20:54 AM PDT by jurroppi1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Apparently the president, congress and the supreme court can do what ever the hell they want when ever they without regard to laws, the constitution or regulations.


21 posted on 07/01/2012 9:21:28 AM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Lookit. Your not going to get rid of it. What backs the
American dollar? The full faith and credit of the federal
government. What is that faith and credit? The governments
ability to directly tax its citizens. The dollar is tanking
because this Marxist administration is printing and blowing as much money as possible to make sure we need the new tax
base to keep from going bankrupt.
They could care less about
the citizens health. They (both RINO and Libtard) just want
the power. And Romney is just another stealth Libtard just
like Roberts. Honestly, can you really say you can trust
Romney?


22 posted on 07/01/2012 9:22:39 AM PDT by Slambat (The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

23 posted on 07/01/2012 9:22:47 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goseminoles

Meh. Polls say otherwise and the feckless Romney isn’t going to fire up anybody. If we can’t even influence our own Party to nominate a Conservative, even a SORT OF conservative, there is NO chance we would have any influence over that idiot if the stars aligned and, by miracle, he was elected.


24 posted on 07/01/2012 9:23:33 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

I just watched some ditzy ‘RAT bimbo on FNC say that the dumbass, American taxpayers (TEA Party) all need to go back and read their “pocket Constitutions” because we’re all a bunch of morons who need to just shut up and choke on the court’s decision. She was smirking at us the whole time. Nice.


25 posted on 07/01/2012 9:25:19 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Dude! Where's my Constitution?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cwaz

Bills can become law without the President’s approval. From Article I of the Constitution:

SECTION 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

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. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.


26 posted on 07/01/2012 9:26:53 AM PDT by gortklattu (God knows who is best, everybody else is making guesses - Tony Snow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

All budget bills originate in the House of Representatives. If you can’t repeal the cursed thing, just defund it.


27 posted on 07/01/2012 9:27:34 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1

From Page 4 of the Opinion:

“(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibilitypayment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.
(b)
Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.”

If it walks like a duck...and talks like a duck...


28 posted on 07/01/2012 9:28:04 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

No. No law can be passed with a simple majority vote, without the President’s signature.

It’s disheartening to see posts like this (and there have been many like it since the ruling was announced). If we are going to defend the Constitution against 0bama and his minions, we d**n well better know what it says.


29 posted on 07/01/2012 9:29:21 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Yep, just don’t fund the extra IRS agents that are needed in order to collect the tax.


30 posted on 07/01/2012 9:31:38 AM PDT by TheCipher (Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself- Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: goseminoles

“Obama ain’t winning..”

From your keyboard to God’s eyes!


31 posted on 07/01/2012 9:34:25 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
Roberts has shown that the constitution is worthless. The Senate should, and will if necessary, use reconciliation to repeal the act. The House should then proceed with immediate impeachment of Kagan and Roberts for gross violations and push that through.

If Romney wins in a landslide, which is now very possible, and the Senate goes hard Republican, almost assured, than they have the duty to use every trick the Democrats have used since 2009 to right the ship. It is imperative!

32 posted on 07/01/2012 9:35:54 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
As a sumptuary tax it has some standing in law ~ and there's an incredible history for these things.

The argument would be it was a tax on the luxury of being a medical services freeloader.

The other word for such taxes is "sin tax". New York city's mayor thinks eating sugar is a sin and he wants it taxed. He thought driving your car into manhattan was a sin, and he's against large soda bottles ~ guy is just one sin after another.

That's why you will find many people not understanding where Roberts got these strange ideas.

I myself do not lead a perfect "Christlike" life so I know something about sin. Frankly, taxing sin to finance good works is a sin in itself. It's proponents are the worst of all sinners since they imagine you can earn salvation through works alone.

Romney believes that. Obama doesn't. He simply a control freak.

33 posted on 07/01/2012 9:39:19 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

That’s the correct answer. After a presidents veto 2/3, of the members present, of both House and Senate can over ride the veto.


34 posted on 07/01/2012 9:40:21 AM PDT by MCF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Im being flippant.. every hour that ticks, Obama loses votes. Im not sure anyone trusts him, except the ignorant...


35 posted on 07/01/2012 9:42:55 AM PDT by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Slambat
Of course, the dollar is not tanking. Due to deflation caused by mechanization, automation, computerization, robotics and improved work methods, it's getting stronger.

Bizarre isn't it.

36 posted on 07/01/2012 9:43:38 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goseminoles

And that says it all.


37 posted on 07/01/2012 9:45:52 AM PDT by sanjuanbob (Festina Lente)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

“Michele Bachmann and others say that now that it is officially a “tax,” it can be overturned by 50 + 1 in the Senate.”

That’s only for getting it through the senate.

It’s repealed ONLY IF THE PRESIDENT SIGNS THE BILL.

If the President vetoes you need a 2/3rds to override. We wont have that many.

Bottom line: If Obama wins, we have ObamaTaxCare forever.
If Romney wins, and we get a Republican House and Senate, we get it repealed.


38 posted on 07/01/2012 9:48:00 AM PDT by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

No, Obama would be involved no matter what if he’s still president. You can be assured he’d veto the repeal.


39 posted on 07/01/2012 9:48:44 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Ah, yes... the court decision that says you cant regulate economic inactivity... because it’s not commerce. But you can tax non-activity!
Absolutely rediculous, you can’t tax non-zctivity for the same reason it’s not comerce: it doesn’t exist.

Oh, but wait, it’s really a fine, and you can be dined for non-activity, so it’s all good!

Absolutely ridiculous.

I guess they’ve been reading physics books and decided the mandate like light, which displays characteristics of both waves and particles, also shares characteristics of two disparate things: punitive-fines and taxes.


40 posted on 07/01/2012 9:48:44 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

What you said: “...If Romney wins, and we get a Republican house and Senate, we get it repealed.”

What too many hear: “blah, blah, blah...Mormon...blah, blah, blah...Mormon...blah, blah, blah...Mormon...blah, blah, blah...”

Sad, really.


41 posted on 07/01/2012 9:53:03 AM PDT by Windcatcher (Obama is a COMMUNIST and the MSM is his armband-wearing propaganda machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita
I have heard Michele Bachmann and others say that now that it is officially a “tax,” it can be overturned by 50 + 1 in the Senate.

But Romney has to sign it. Obama won't.
42 posted on 07/01/2012 9:57:33 AM PDT by Signalman ( November, 2012-The End of an Error)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Not, it’s not true. Still requires the Resident’s signature 0r 2/3 majorities to override the veto.


43 posted on 07/01/2012 10:00:12 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher

They’ll have to get over their hangups. We’ve had Quakers, Deists, Catholics, and philandering hypocrites in the White House. But its the socialist in the White House right now who’s the real problem.


44 posted on 07/01/2012 10:02:33 AM PDT by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Since door-to-door canvassing is the best way to get out the vote....let’s start having some neighborhood/church family or mini-community get-togethers to influence some honest discussion and more ways to get others to vote...vans/buses/absentee ballots for the elderly/infirm...etc.

WE can do this REALLY well!


45 posted on 07/01/2012 10:08:20 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Another idiot pushing impeachment for hurt feelings.

You need two-thirds of the Senate for removal. That won't happen.

46 posted on 07/01/2012 10:11:16 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
Justice Rogers called it a tax but that does not change the bill. It was his activist ruling to justify his position of allowing the bill to stand as law. The bill does in no way call it a tax. Nothing has changes except for one fool on the SC, Justice Rogers.

As far as the commerce clause it could have been given the same lack of power as Rogers did and still repeal the entire or at least the penalty part of the bill. Think!!!!!

47 posted on 07/01/2012 10:11:16 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

“Reconciliation can’t be used on the Mandate. It CAN be used on a couple of minor provisions, but that’s it. And, as others said, it requires the President’s signature regardless.”
*******************************************************************
ObamaCare was passed by the Senate IN ITS ENTIRETY using reconciliation. It can be negated IN ITS ENTIRETY in 2013 using reconciliation. And there’s not a reason in the world why the Republicans wouldn’t want to do that—except perhaps for McConnell’s cowardliness and desire to “be nice” to the Democratic minority.

And that’s the reason we all have to elect as many TRUE CONSERVATIVE Republicans to the Senate as possible.


48 posted on 07/01/2012 10:11:44 AM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cwaz
No it does not... his veto can be overridden with a 2/3's vote from each camber...

From the Senate website... "override of a veto - The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.

Would/could it happen? not likely...

49 posted on 07/01/2012 10:13:25 AM PDT by dps.inspect (rage against the Obama machine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; MrChips
Search as you will through the 18 enumerated powers and you will find no power to enact ObamaCare or anything like it.

Robert’s bought the administration’s second fallback argument — that the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax, even though the administration abandoned that argument during the course of litigation, and even though calling it a “tax” would seem to implicate the Anti Injunction Act, which would preclude the Court from even deciding this case until someone was forced to pay the tax, which won’t happen for another couple of years. Yet the Court apparently brushed aside that AIA impediment — talk about lawlessness — in its rush to uphold ObamaCare.

And so there’s your foundation for the decision: the individual mandate is constitutional based on Congress’s power to tax: Congress can “tax” those who don’t buy government approved health insurance. Don’t ask what kind of a “tax” that is! It’s not an income tax. Nor is it a duty, impost, or excise tax, the only kinds of taxes recognized under the Tax Clause of the Constitution, where Roberts purports to rest Congress’s power; and it certainly isn’t “uniform throughout the United States,” as is required for those taxes. It’s sui generis, which is a polite way of saying it’s unconstitutional — if we take the Constitution seriously.

But that’s just the problem, isn’t it? As James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, and virtually everyone else at the Founding made clear, the power to tax, the first of Congress’s 18 enumerated powers, like the power to borrow, Congress’s second enumerated power, was designed to enable Congress to obtain the funds needed to carry out its other enumerated powers or ends. It was not, as Madison made clear in Federalist 41, and often on the floor of Congress, an independent power to tax for any purpose at all. Search as you will through those 18 enumerated powers and you will find no power to enact ObamaCare or anything like it. And please don’t say that the taxing power serves the commerce power which in turn authorizes the individual mandate, because the Court nixed that second leap today. ~ Roger Pilon [Cato]

50 posted on 07/01/2012 10:25:05 AM PDT by Daffynition (Our forefathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson