Posted on 07/09/2014 9:56:59 AM PDT by wagglebee
Y I WS surprised she used the word bicameral. All laws passed are bicameral, in that, all laws passed must pass both House and Senate. Exactly what is she trying to say??
Do low information types even know what bicameral means???
Transparent and pathetic attempt to play to the base in an election year. These losers know it isn’t going anywhere.
I think she is trying to fool the LIV with using ‘bicameral’ instead of ‘bipartisan’ to make them think it is supported by two parties.................
*********************************
No they are not. Those who promote these drugs are unable to do so without lying, and they know it.
Bicameral merely means it passed both branches of congress. Thus, all "legislation" is bicameral. This is just a Senate bill at this point and it will go no farther.
Of course. It has two humps!
We had take Obamacare...the Liberals can just put on their big girl panties and deal with the HBLB decision.
I don’t see how they think they can legislate away their Constitutional right to freedom of religion . . . the Court has already ruled on that.
ever notice how the Republicans lose in court and throw their hands up and call it settled law? Democrats never give up.
That’s exactly why the Democrats keep winning. They never give up.
Kind of like when the Republicans in the House kept passing bills against Obamacare? Like that?
They both do it. I think its pathetic.
Are they going to try to repeal the First Amendment?
Are they going to demand that God live by their rules?
Neither you, nor I, really know if there will be a “line” or “a mob” all at once. That is HIS business. We can only speculate.
How about preempting this effort with the repeal of Obamacare.
The House should file a bill that declares the whole AFCA unconstitutional (as it is, the Federal Government has no right under the Constitution to compel a business to provide any health care policy) - just as a counter. Won’t happen though...
Given that (a) no employer ever was required by government to provide birth control before Obamacare, and (b) birth control is dirt cheap and there is no question of any lack of “access” to it whatsoever to individuals using it, this whole thing has patently nothing to do with any bogus “war on women”, and has everything to do with the liberals’ pathalogical hatred of Christians and traditional Christian beliefs and want to eradicate any freedoms Christians have.
Can someone else please remind our friends on the left what it means to “reverse” or “overturn” a decision of the Supreme Court!
You can not do this with a bill, law, or even an amendment. Only a future SCOTUS ruling can do that. When the two other branches make administrative or legislative changes to get their desired result, then that does not constitute a “reversal” of the decision, but rather a required accommodation in deference to the interpretation of existing law provided by the ruling.
In fact, administrative actions (such as those already provided for religious NOT-for-profit corporations), were explicitly suggested by some writing for the majority. And naturally, the act of changing a law upon which a ruling is based is an obvious remedy, and therefore does not need to be mentioned in an opinion.
It truly dismays me that quotes by left-leaning politicians and media that refer to “overturning” or “reversing” this decision have gone unchallenged.
Certainly, from their point of view, I can understand why the left and their media allies don’t want to frame this with a more accurate headline like:
“Having Failed at an Illegal Mandate, Democrats Defer to Hobby Lobby Ruling to Find a Legal Alternative”
However, I am surprised that, so far, I seem to be the only one challenging them for referring to their efforts as somehow seeking to “reverse” the SCOTUS decision.
You can amend the Constitution per Article V.
Specifically, I think you would need to use the powers to amend to Constitution, per Article V, to make changes to the judicial powers provided for in, I think, Article III, so that those legal interpretations of either existing law or the Constitution itself could somehow be “reversed” by an act of Congress.
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.