Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

It was Obama's own lawyers who argued in front of the Supreme Court that the mandate was a tax and not a penalty. Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He must have known about this. And yet, he violated his Presidential oath to protect and defend the Constitution when he signed Obamacare.
1 posted on 04/01/2013 11:08:41 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: grundle

Ah jeez. This is just like the “birthers” crap. Just like Obama was elected - this bill has passed. All these questions and lawsuits and wanting to know the truth is so stupid.

What does it matter now anyway!?


2 posted on 04/01/2013 11:15:46 PM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle

The AHCA actually started life in the House as some completely different bill, from what I understand. Once it got to the Senate, it was hollowed out completely and reconstituted in its current form. Thus, this suit will be found to have no merit, since technically the bill met the requirements for a revenue bill.


4 posted on 04/01/2013 11:22:49 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle

good outfit. good point. wish boehner would apply it to defund obamacare.


6 posted on 04/01/2013 11:27:43 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle
Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He must have known about this.

There's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. One might as well argue: The sky is blue. Pigs must fly.

I know ... I know. PRO FORMA he must have known.

Heh. Looking at the Wikipedia article on PRO FORMA, I come full circle and find this:

In the United States federal government, either house of the Congress (the House of Representatives or the Senate) can hold a pro forma session at which no formal business is expected to be conducted.[5] This is usually to fulfill the obligation under the Constitution "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other."[6] Pro forma sessions can also be used to prevent the President pocket-vetoing bills, or calling the Congress into special session.[7] They have also been used to prevent presidents from making recess appointments. However, in 2012, President Barack Obama made four appointments during a pro forma session,[8] calling the practice of blocking recess appointments into question.[9][dead link]

So you see, Constitution Shmonstitution. Obama knows this very well.

7 posted on 04/01/2013 11:33:28 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle
What's that you say?

Constitution?

Constitution?

We doon need no Constitution!

Jus gives us yo money!

12 posted on 04/02/2013 1:18:29 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle

I believe the whole thing was geared to be declared unconstitutional, then tossed out a month or two prior to the 2012 election, thus giving him momentum strictly upon the terrible act of the Supreme Court. But the court denied him this political angle, and now...he’s stuck with something that won’t fully function.


17 posted on 04/02/2013 2:31:22 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle

While the origination clause is effective, the Senate has in the past initiated fiscal bills (even budgets). However, the final action is approval by the House in conference where the conferees agree on the language and the House votes or revotes, legally approving the bill as if it orginated the bill.

That said, I believe there was some illegal maneuvering by Pelosi on the supposed conference return. Remember the “Deemed Passed” ruling? The House never actually voted on it if I recall correctly. Personally, I think the bill is illegal on that fact alone. But we shall see just how big a set of balls the US Courts have in adjudicating this.


18 posted on 04/02/2013 3:08:12 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle

Obama doesn’t know much except what’s told to him. He’s a puppet.

The persons pulling the strings revealed via surrogates muttering in the press that the FDR playbook on Social Security would be followed. FDR did the same, claimed Social Security was an old age pension annuity while having his lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that it was a tax.

Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.


26 posted on 04/02/2013 4:10:23 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle
Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He must have known about this.

C'MON!

Obama doesn't know sh*t about Constitutional Law, and never did.

If you think he "taught" anything at Chicago, you don't know anything about how the commies groom their prospects.

27 posted on 04/02/2013 4:32:09 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle
Obamacare started life as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" in the House.

This was covered here on FR when congress passed this mess.

The lawsuit has no merit and will be laughed out of court.

28 posted on 04/02/2013 6:03:42 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle
And yet, he violated his Presidential oath to protect and defend the Constitution when he signed Obamacare took the oath.
31 posted on 04/02/2013 6:50:30 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The monsters are due on Maple Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grundle

Those of you who are old enough to have lived 8 years under Clinton and 4 years of Obama should realize that there are no clear-cut laws or legal definitions. Everything is subject to liberal interpretation and bias, which seems to always rule the day, regardless of how illegitimate or unconstitutional it seems to clear thinkers who believe in the Rule of Law.

We’re toast. If Libs/Progressives want it, they will change enough rules or break enough laws to get it. In a very real sense, Hillary was right: It doesn’t matter. Because the powers-that-be won’t allow it to matter. No matter how strenuously we object or attempt to point out glaring inconsistency and lawlessness.

It sucks and it doesn’t make me compromise my principles, but it’s the unfortunate reality. America as it was is over.


33 posted on 04/02/2013 6:53:56 AM PDT by DJ Frisat ((optional, printed after my name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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