Posted on 04/04/2012 10:51:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Yes they do.
They believe like a acolyte in a monastery..............
Nowhere in the Constitution did it grant Congress the power to mandate anybody buy anything. And Jefferson once said something to the effect “If the government were to direct us
to plant wheat we should soon want for bread.” and elsewhere Jefferson said “to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” IMO if the supreme Court FAILS to nullify ObamaCare they will have failed to honor their Oath of Office and ought be impeached.Obama’s health care reform is UNconstitutional root and stock.
"At the close of the Gilded Age, the U.S. infant mortality rate was around 10 percenta number you find today in impoverished Central African nations. "
Which was the lowest infant mortality rate in U.S. history. It's completely unfair to compare a rate then to current rates, and what does that have to do with the court anyway. Besides you want a fair comparison, include abortion in the infant mortality rates. Is the court trying to raise the infant mortality rate? No. A red herring.
"Women could not vote, and their lives were controlled by men."
Again, That wasn't due to the court in the Gilded age, that was due to the founding fathers and all of western history that preceded them. Is the court trying to take away women's right to vote. No. A red herring.
"Blacks lived apart from whites and comprised an economic, social, and political underclass."
Again, what does that have to do with this court or the court in the Gilded Age. Nothing. A red herring.
"Corporations exerted an unchecked and deleterious influence on the lives of workers."
This is the only thing that the current court has actually touched on. And since the article doesn't expound on how times might be similar or what the court did or didn't do, it's a worthless article.
HA_HA, Mark Levin recommended some of those things in 2005 before the GWB appointees to the SCOTUS. The roles have flipped completely.
Men In Black:
How the Supreme Court is Destroying America
Author: Mark R. Levin
Publisher: Regnery
Date of Publication: February 2005
Levin's 2005 Men in Black (brief Sample and summary)
How about impeaching members of congress and the president for not upholding the constitution they’ve sworn to protect?
The constitution trumps federal statute. To make the mandate constitutional, you’d need an ammendment.
Nothing wrong w/the court pointing that out.
Impeachment proceedings for the 4 social liberal justices that are totally unfamiliar with the Constitution. They have no business being on the bench. Does anyone ever listen to Newt? He is right. Too bad we are going to get a Romney that is not much better than King Obama on many things.
Obama and friends will go around the court’s decision, if not ignore it outright.
Someti8ng tells me our country is about to be torn to pieces one way or the other or both.
A big chunk of the electorate would love that to happen, say in about September of this year.
No barfing chunks alert?
“Do these people REALLY believe this excrement theyre spewing?”
Why yes, they do.
And they will NEVER let go of their beliefs, even if reason and reality is staring them right in the eyes.
Here’s a question for you:
Do you REALLY believe that reconciliation with the left is possible?
How about we impeach them if they DON’T overturn it
Auto insurance laws are state laws, so the syllogism in terms of a federal fails first on that score at the outset.
It also fails because the requirement to buy insurance doesn't arise until you actually have a car, despite the risk that uninsured people can (and do) drive anyway.
So, if there was a federal requirement that all people buy car insurance, regardless of whether they owned a car or even had a license, that might make a nice anology. But that's not the case, is it?
States can.
Like my retarded state.
The author of this piece is an intellectual lightweight.
Yes let’s impeach the liberals on the court who look to today’s international laws and other countries laws to determine what is constitutional in America.
Yeah it is. That's the sum total of your problem with this court at this time. If they were considered likely to uphold that crummy law, this author would be singing their praises to the rooftops.
This author is lying through his teeth, and what's more, he knows it, and he knows (or should know) that WE know it.
So, that being the case, what's his point?
Notice they didn’t have this view after the Kelo decision. Funny how things work out that way.
Eat yer f****g peas and shut up, plebian.
Henry Bowman...
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.