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

Skip to comments.

It's "Settled Law"
Exclusive to FR ^ | Monday, October 7, 2013 | cc

Posted on 10/07/2013 7:23:06 AM PDT by canuck_conservative

Democrats say we must accept ObamaCare, because it was legally passed by the Legislative branchand signed into law by the country's leader. Well, so was Russia's law against homosexual propaganda. So, does the Obama Administration also think all Americans should accept that law as settled too? Will we see Obama tell all protesters, in the run-up to the Olympics, that they must accept that "settled law" too, and should stop their childish protests against it?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: democrats; obamacare; russia; shutdown
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
Just wondering. Same with the Defense Of Marriage Act, that was the law of the land too.

Oboingo & the Democrats seem to think it's OK for everyone to protest and demand roll-back of some laws, but not ObamaCare or DOMA.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

1 posted on 10/07/2013 7:23:06 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Legislation to build a LONG border fence along the Mexican border was settled law at one point as well. Somehow it got de-funded...


2 posted on 10/07/2013 7:24:19 AM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Then there's the one that's becoming the commonplace obvious retort. That would be that slavery was the settled law of the land. Took a not-so-civil war to end it.

Obama and his dem stormtroopers aren't real good at logic, are they?

3 posted on 10/07/2013 7:26:08 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Jim Crow...


4 posted on 10/07/2013 7:27:06 AM PDT by Cailleach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N
Congress voted to defund the Vietnam War, while we were helping the South Vietnamese.
5 posted on 10/07/2013 7:27:26 AM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

The DOM act was “settled law” too!


6 posted on 10/07/2013 7:27:51 AM PDT by Phillyred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

Slavery was “settled law” as well.


7 posted on 10/07/2013 7:29:26 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

A law that originated in the Senate and was not voted on by the House after ‘conference’ but ‘deemed passed’ by the House Majority leader is not a law in my book.

Secondly, a law that originated in the Senate as I said that was ruled a TAX by the SC is retroactively a tax bill in my book. As such, originated by the Senate was a violation of the Constitutional dictate that ALL tax/financial bills originate in the HOUSE.

It is not a law; it is treason.


8 posted on 10/07/2013 7:29:29 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

So was ‘Prohibition’. But is was repealed!


9 posted on 10/07/2013 7:30:11 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

And what about existing immigration laws that the Obama administration refuses to enforce in Arizona and California, then attempts to prosecute local law enforcement agencies for their attempts at enforcement? Isn’t that also settled law?


10 posted on 10/07/2013 7:31:41 AM PDT by Real Cynic No More (Border Fence Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

When did we allow women to vote?


11 posted on 10/07/2013 7:31:47 AM PDT by red-dawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

ObamaCare is “the law of the land”. . .”settled law”. . .like that is supposed to stop debate and end all discussion to repeal or amend.

Jim Crow segregation laws were also “the law of the land” too, but that didn’t mean efforts to repeal or amend them were to be halted because the Supreme Court held them constitutional.


12 posted on 10/07/2013 7:33:17 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Slavery and prohibition were “settled law.”


13 posted on 10/07/2013 7:33:49 AM PDT by Solson (The Voters stole the election! And the establishment wants it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

So was Dred Scott.


14 posted on 10/07/2013 7:34:25 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

so was slavery...and prohibition....


15 posted on 10/07/2013 7:34:51 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

The 2nd Amendment is settled law, but the Left keeps trying to subvert it anyway.


16 posted on 10/07/2013 7:35:15 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

If it’s settled law, why has Soetoro been changing it piece by piece? Sounds very unsettled to me.


17 posted on 10/07/2013 7:35:15 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

There is no such thing as “settled law.”

The people have it within their power to alter or repeal any statute through their elected representatives.

And the House of Representatives can choose to withhold or eliminate funds from any agency or department it chooses. And neither the senate nor the president can do anything (within the law) about it.


18 posted on 10/07/2013 7:35:35 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Here’s settled law. If you come illegally into our country the government must deport you.


19 posted on 10/07/2013 7:35:40 AM PDT by steve8714 (Are we fighting for peace in Syria? Don't we already know what that is like?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Neah. They took the money - and spent it other stuff. Claimed there was no law that said it HAD to be spent on the border fence.


20 posted on 10/07/2013 7:37:13 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Whenever I hear the phrase “It’s the law of the land” I think about the many laws preventing illegal entry into the land. None of them are being enforced.


21 posted on 10/07/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by ProudFossil (" I never did give anyone hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." Harry Truman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative; All

- we have immigration rules which are the laws of the land, but obama refuses to enforce them....

- we have border rules which are the laws of the land, but obama refuses to enforce them...

- DOMA was the law of the land the first 4.5 years obama was in office, but he brazenly refused to enforce it...


22 posted on 10/07/2013 7:37:44 AM PDT by God luvs America (63.5 million pay no income tax and vote for DemoKrats...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Compliance with Obamacare violates Doctor Patient Confidentiality.

Obamacare is in violation of the Doctors Hippocratic Oath as follows:

” - - - All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. - - - “

Another line of legal reasoning involves comparing Obamacare to all the do’s and don’ts the Federal Government has put into Law about our “privacy rights” such as HIPPA, questions that future employers can and cannot ask at one’s job interview, etc.

A criminal at arrest time has the “right to remain silent” which is not an option for any of us - - - , as our Doctors have been forced by the damn Federal Government to betray us over our very loud protests.

Class Action Law Suit anyone?

Might be something for Senators Cruz and Lee to file on our behalf ?!


23 posted on 10/07/2013 7:40:00 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Marxist Obama'care' Insurance violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
The Un-Constitutionality of ObamaCare.
24 posted on 10/07/2013 7:45:22 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Queer and pedophile laws do not have standing in civil society, except of course, to out them and punish them.

Ask about the 15 million criminal invaders and the laws that are recognized but remain unenforced. What we have is selective enforcement of laws against US citizens.


25 posted on 10/07/2013 7:46:22 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Oh, the hypocrisy

It's not hypocrisy: 1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

The Left is perfectly clear about its objectives and its means to reach them.

If it's good for the Revolution, it's good and anything is permitted. If it's good for America, it's bad and everything is forbidden.

Alinsky is not exactly a secret.

26 posted on 10/07/2013 7:48:05 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: canuck_conservative

Every time I hear this, I counter with a question about the Patriot Act. That was settled law too. Difference is, we are putting out money where our mouth is. All they did was talk.


27 posted on 10/07/2013 7:48:06 AM PDT by CityCenter (The solution to all problems is spiritual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

DOMA, immigration laws, Senate Advice and Consent, War Powers were all ‘settled law’.

I don’t remember hose ‘settled laws’ affecting Administration policy?

This is like ‘settled science’. Once we say its ‘settled’, you are no longer allowed to disagree.

Absurd that people fall for this.


28 posted on 10/07/2013 7:49:38 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
not voted on by the House after ‘conference’ but ‘deemed passed’ by the House Majority leader is not a law in my book

There are a number of reasons why the law is invalid, but the "deemed passed" move is not one of them.

That illegal maneuver was discussed but was not used, the PPACA bill passed the House 218-215 as written.

29 posted on 10/07/2013 7:49:55 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
It is not the Law of the Land, it is the Law of One Man.

It is no longer the law John Roberts modified. It the a law that was passed in the dark, unread, using bribes and parliamentary tricks, signed by the President, morphed from a mandated purchase of a service to a tax by SCOTUS, selectively enforced piecemeal by the President, modified by the President, with sections delayed by Presidential Tweets - all with no Congressional oversight.

30 posted on 10/07/2013 7:50:04 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Thanks to alloysteel for this excellent History reminder lesson:

"After all, Prohibition was the law of the land (under the 18th Amendment), and the politics of its widespread loss of respect for the law resulted in its repeal (21st Amendment).

The 21st Amendment did not totally end Prohibition. The individual states could then vote in local option for either being “wet” or “dry”. But the power was stripped from the Federal government to enforce prohibition anywhere.

How was that for repeal and replace?

31 posted on 10/07/2013 7:51:39 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Boycott Reno & Las Vegas until those in control there, remove Reid from the senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

The law preventing women from voting was once settled law too.


32 posted on 10/07/2013 7:52:34 AM PDT by Iron Munro (When a killer screams 'Allahu Akbar' you don't need to be mystified about a motive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

“Settled Law”??

It is not the law and a SCOTUS case filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation [I believe] is headed their way with the following paraphrased arguments;

In September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced H.R. 3590, titled the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 modifying the first-time homebuyers’ credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and John Boehner was the minority leader when this bill passed on October 8, 2009 by a 416-0 vote. This bill went to the Senate where Majority Leader Harry Reid gutted H.R. 3590, deleted all the contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with what became the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” of November 19, 2009.

Article I, Section 7, which states that “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.” The key idea is that the Supreme Court recently upheld the individual mandate as a tax; so it is a bill for raising revenue. That means that the Affordable Care Act must have begun in the House of Representatives. And it did not.” Therefore the Senate is in violation of the Constitution by funding something the house cut.

Article I, Section 7, which states that “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;

I’m fairly certain “raising the debt ceiling” has the same definition of revenue, that is; the total amount of money received by the government for goods or services provided during a certain time frame. Obama citing the “full faith and credit” as an excuse to fund the damn thing would be illegal just as him changing elements of the statute itself ... The GOP NEEDS TO GET TOUGH with this Bolshevik O-Hole and fast.


33 posted on 10/07/2013 7:53:16 AM PDT by alphadog (2nd Bn. 3rd Marines, Vietnam, class of 68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

End Women’s Suffrage too! That was ‘settled law before it was changed.

They have suffered enough!


34 posted on 10/07/2013 7:53:50 AM PDT by Mr. K (Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

I believe that there is an active and promising lawsuit that is presently running through the courts.

It challenges Obamacare on the originality clause in the Constitution.

SCOTUS Justice John Roberts, in his warped decision, noted that Obamacare could be considered legit if the penalty for non-participation were considered a tax.

However, Roberts never ruled that the tax was a legit tax. The lawsuit challenges Obamacare as an illegitimate tax because it was a revenue raising bill that originated in the Senate, not in the House, as the Constitution requires.

Obamacare is NOT settled law.


35 posted on 10/07/2013 7:57:44 AM PDT by kidd (No blood for ego)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative; laplata; Jane Long; American Constitutionalist; rightwingintelligentsia; ...

Since Obamacare was re-written by the SCOTUS, it is not the same law that both Houses of Congress voted on.

Therefore, until the changes have acheived “The Advice and Consent of Congress,” the revised law is invalid, by standards set forth in the US Constitution and the rules of both Houses of Congress.

In effect, Traitor John Roberts voided the same Law that he tried to save.


36 posted on 10/07/2013 7:58:38 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Marxist Obama'care' Insurance violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

The Democrats are trying to get over this initial period so that the cost and disruption of going back becomes unthinkable and the Republicans will concentrate on ways to “fix” it rather than throw it out. Many Rinos are already talking this way.

The Obamacare debacle is only beginning. It represents a massive tax increase which takes an enormous amount of money out of the general economy. This alone will propel us into deeper recession. If the Democrats get what they want, it just might be their undoing. The more the average joe finds out about it, the angrier he will get. It’s a huge step back in terms of cost to the consumer and patient care.


37 posted on 10/07/2013 7:59:48 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Oh the hypocrisy indeed. Also another very good one ..... CITIZENS UNITED = SETTLED LAW, right?

0bama stinks. Liar. Amateur. America is not a dictatorship.

38 posted on 10/07/2013 8:01:51 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N
Legislation to build a LONG border fence along the Mexican border was settled law at one point as well. Somehow it got de-funded...

I believe that border security components of "settled laws" have been defunded more than once.

39 posted on 10/07/2013 8:02:28 AM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Settled Law? Sure. OK.

But, there is always a but:

Funding of the enforcement or even the implementation of a law is up to the Congress and is put forward by the House of Representatives. That’s the real law.

There are numerous examples of laws that were never funded. We just want to add Obamcare to that list.


40 posted on 10/07/2013 8:03:26 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
The, the House has the power; ( injection of thought ) ( that Roberts " DEEMED A TAX " ) to do what with it ( injection of thought ) ( a tax ) would want it to do with a " TAX " ...... since it was " DEEMED A TAX " ..... right on, right on...


HURRY HURRY READ ALL ABOUT IT FOLKS !



OBAMACARE IS A " DEEMED TAX SET FORTH BY A SUPREME COURT DECISION as A " DEEMED TAX " THEREFORE SET FORTH BY THE US CONSTITUTION THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO WITH WHAT THEY SHALL DO WITH A " DEEMED TAX " ... DE-FUND OBAMACARE SINCE IT'S " DEEMED TAX "
41 posted on 10/07/2013 8:06:49 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Just like when the Democrats wanted to keep the “settled law” for slavery in the 1860’s or the “settled” Jim Crow laws in the 1960’s.

If it's harmful to Americans, the Democrats want to stick with destructive laws!

42 posted on 10/07/2013 8:13:07 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

I have listened to a great deal of the recent proceeding in the House. The Dems have the litany:

Passed by House and Senate
Signed by the President
Upheld by SCOTUS
Ratified in 2012 election
Ergo, settled law.

Over and over and over they deliver that. I have YET to hear a Republican engage the settled law assertion on the floor.

My Congressman ( Roe - TN-1) will get a call this morning


43 posted on 10/07/2013 8:17:49 AM PDT by don-o (Hit the FReepathon hard and fast! Nail this one for the Jimmer. Do it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: don-o

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3075792/posts?page=27


44 posted on 10/07/2013 8:24:10 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: don-o
When you do talk to your congressman please read the link I sent to you and read post's 25 and 30 and pass it along to them..... get that message out....
They need a reality check against the lies that the Democrats and MSM are telling them that what they are doing could hurt them in 2014....

Non-sense !!! Have your congress man tell them to only look back at 2010 midterm elections in how it was a rout, and shellacking for the Democrats and perhaps the same for the Democrats in 2014...

Tell your congressman that we are winning the battle, and to not give up and not to give in....
45 posted on 10/07/2013 8:26:59 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: don-o
Read to your congressman and have them the posts I showed you to read, copy it down and read it to them word for word and pass it around...
We are winning if we don't give up.
46 posted on 10/07/2013 8:28:58 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Thank you. I am capable of communicating to my Congressman, in my own words, which I just did.


47 posted on 10/07/2013 8:30:39 AM PDT by don-o (Hit the FReepathon hard and fast! Nail this one for the Jimmer. Do it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

This is precisely the same argument democrats used in 1850 to justify slavery.

Some things never change.

*sigh*


48 posted on 10/07/2013 8:31:30 AM PDT by null and void (I'm betting on an Obama Trifecta: A Nobel Peace Prize, an Impeachment, AND a War Crimes Trial...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Good job.....


49 posted on 10/07/2013 8:31:55 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
If someone can verify my failing memory... Wasn't slavery also the law of the land?

Yet passing a law to force Americans to purchase something or a service sounds strangely like a law that has SLAVERY to the state as a by product.

And sorry if I am wrong, but how is that defined anywhere in the Constitution.

and BTW the Supreme question begs to be asked but who the hell do they think they are approving such a abomination.

I do not live my live asking to "buy their leave".

50 posted on 10/07/2013 8:35:02 AM PDT by SERE_DOC ( “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” TJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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