FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Is this your first Nat Rev article?
A brief overview, those not familiar with the case would do well to read it.
The statute is crystal clear.
Having facts correct and having unimpeachable legal arguments long ago ceased being something the left thinks they 'had better' do. They don't. Period. And in fact, they think they had better not have their facts correct, and had better not have unimpeachable legal arguments. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a platform.
I point this out not to be a smarty pants. I point it out because often we act/are surprised that they could be so badly in control of their facts, arguments and knowledge of the Constitution. The reality is that being out of control is part of the strategy. It's not wise to be surprised when they lie, break laws, create non-sequitor logic chains.
You/we can point out the fallacies and illegalities in their reasoning and action until the cows come home. THEY DON'T CARE. THEY DO IT PURPOSEFULLY. THEY KNOW THEY ARE DOING IT. THEY LOVE WHEN WE GET OUR PANTIES IN A BUNCH OVER IT, OR THINK WE ARE SMART BECAUSE WE POINTED IT OUT. End of caps. Sometimes they belong.
They laugh because, in the end, we get to be right, and they get what they wanted to get. Even when we have lost our country to them, we will still be right ... and they will know it. And ... they will have our country.
It's no longer, and hasn't been for a long time, a war of ideas. They won that by simply not playing. They are thugs, or, they are the mob of ignorants with pitchforks following the thugs. The sooner that's clear, the sooner we will stop telling the burglars 'it's wrong to steal you bad bad person! You can't do that!' while they walk away with our country, happy to be rich, powerful, and wrong.
Welcome to Free Republic.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Welcome to FR
After reading your article it appears that 0’s team are desperately grasping at straws!
Excellent and thorough legal analysis. You’re right, the ACA cannot subsidize federal exchanges. It says so itself.
Thank you for the post!
To me, all the detailed problems and arguments back and forth about the details of the so-called “ACA” is, like much of the activities of the federal government, a study in trying to do the wrong thing the right way.
Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be repealed as such. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution was in no way intended to give the federal government this kind of power, power our Founders never contemplated. Health insurance is none to the federal government’s business. Neither is health care.
All the detailed problems and arguments back and forth about the details of how to make the so-called “ACA” or some hybrid thereof work is, like much of the activities of the federal government, an effort in trying to do the wrong thing the right way - an exercise in futility.
Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be repealed as such. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution was in no way intended to give the federal government this kind of power, power our Founders never contemplated. Health insurance is none to the federal government’s business. Neither is health care.