Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah
I understand that, however, the only congress that can be relied upon is the democrat congress to take freedom and give itself power.
The republican congress can be relied upon to do one thing and one thing only, and that thing is nothing.
How do you type with your foot in your mouth? Perhaps, uh, you meant to go on some unrelated rant about "TOM Paine?"
LOL.
By the way. While you're on your hobby horse, read a little more Thomas Paine while you're at it beyond what you heard in grade school about Common Sense.
"Age of Reason" on the rejection of the Bible and organized religion.
Did you know he was the first to propose a 100% death tax to be distributed to young people as a way to eliminate poverty?
Yeah, I don't think you know the difference between a Sam and a Tom, and it doesn't appear you know Tom from a hole in the ground.
Sincerely, SAM
(Not Adams, not the girl on Bewitched, etc.)
That is correct, that vote was 4-1-4. But Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy could have joined that opinion without conceding the tax argument.
So why didn't they take the opportunity and join and make it 5-4 commerce clause precedent?
So by my count, the vote is 7-2 against the commerce clause, which incidentally was the same vote count in favor of equal protection in Bush v. Gore.
Becuase they wanted nothing to do with Chief Judas Roberts’ traitorous ruling.
Right! And under that logic, the Japs and Germans won World II.
I hope that some time a simple summary for the uneducated will be posted. Maybe then I’ll understand all the ins and outs.
If I’m not mistaken, Samuel Paine was in business with George Jefferson and Calvin Lincoln. They traded and repaired carriage parts and saddles when not busy drafting articles and penning essays.
Maybe the didn’t want to give Captain Kangaroo cover. What good would narrowing the commerce clause do if you can simply make up ANOTHER phony rationale for stealing Americans’ freedoms? Bob
Better yet, why didn’t he join them and vote correctly that it was unconstitutional?
I don't know. I don't even know where to turn for authoritative commentary on this subject.
They were digusted at that point, maybe.
The commerce clause was way out of line, already. No Constitutionalist could in any way buy into an argument that the federal government can make you purchase something...
The whole thing is off the scale.
Agreed. I think too many conservatives frogs have been blind to the temperature of the republic's water.
This event was the first bubble at 212°F. It's not like it wasn't 211°F a week before the ruling.
When the republic puts Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama in charge of all three branches....and the citizens only decide to fire ONE of them in 2010, and 1 out of 5 still emphatically approve of the utter destruction....what's the Supreme Court really capable of fixing?
Tell the people to man up, vote out the anti-Americans and insist the lege do their jobs. Or if the people insist, fat, drunk and stupid is how "the people" will wander to their death.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
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.