Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution:"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. Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House Kevin Kervick Manchester Independent Examiner The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may now be invalid because the Supreme Court ruled that it relies on a tax for implementation. According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase - not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives. Consequently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law is unconstitutional on a different criteria than the ones considered by the Supreme Court in this latest landmark decision. By calling the individual mandate unconstitutional but allowing the law as a federal program to be funded by new taxes, Justice Roberts essentially nullified the law. PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT June 29, 2012 http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-now-invalid-because-tax-bills-must-originate-house Is this true?
Surely Chief Justice Roberts has read and understands that part of the Constitution - or has he? I think Supreme Court justices should come up for popular vote every 4 or 8 years. It's the only way to remove an incompetent justice. I'm surprised the Founding Fathers didn't foresee a justice becoming senile or simply usurping the law as the liberal justices and now Roberts has done.
We are at the stage of decline, where the thinking is "the Constitution is nice and all, but we can do better". That is what is most infuriating, the arrogance that our leadership in govt is somehow more advanced or qualified than the founders to change the framework itself, especially when their record indicates otherwise. These people only abide by the laws that suit their agenda, and find or create new loopholes for any roadblocks, like they aren't there for a reason. As a nation of laws, how are we supposed to respect that kind of hypocrisy? Why couldn't the ruling in this case be this simple: Their is NO power of Congress that indicates they have the authority to demand an individual purchase a product or suffer consequences. Whether it is called a tax, penalty or any number of other things.. it is Unconstitutional.
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...t-use-us-constitution-as-model/#ixzz1zbGJu4Ql
(Rolling forward to the USA, year 2040...) Hello, I'm BSAM, Jr. with GMN (that's Google Media Network...they'll own all the media by then...) here on Capitol Hill today interviewing a few Senators. Ah, here comes another one. I wonder if I will get about the same response as the other 15 have given. Excuse me sir, are you familiar with the Constitution? Senator: Well, (scratching head) I remember my granddad mentioning something about it. Uh, I don't know much about it. Uh, I don't see how it's relevant anyways. Hey look, I gotta go. I have to meet my secretary for dinner in a few minutes. (Yep...same response.) BSAM, Jr.: I can remember my dad telling me about how President Obama ran in 2008 on change. That guy really delivered! BSAM, Jr. reporting for GMN.
Just fucking WOW! A SC Justice.. we are falling apart. She can learn all she wants from foreigners, her damn job is defending the US CONSTITUTION. This is ridiculous, especially the quote that she looks to foreign state policy when grappling with big decisions, and it holds weight. Are you fucking kidding me!? Our Constitution is open ended and can be amended, it isn't her job or problem on the SC to worry about that, just protect what exists. what an arrogant bitch.
Imo, history will be written that Obama's term was peak Democrat. Dems at the pinnacle, yea sure nothing goes straight down but Obama and his raffles and tweets and countless petty bs to look and act cool "beer summit" "we won" the secret haloween party. Most of his team left him except for timmay, others don't want to work for him. You guys can look around and see the signs yourself. Obama didn't stick up for the unions, his foreign policy, his peace prize. What a sham. look at this health care issue, nothing solved, just like nothing solved with the financial crisis.
That's what I thought when I first read that. Dershowitz has the justices voting the party lines on every issue.
I definitely agree with you that Bo is a sham and that the dem parties just complete lack of effectiveness when in total control will have to be evident to everyone looking back.. but he has done lasting damage. There are now more people sucking off the govt titty than maybe ever before. This number is likely going to increase if he gets reelected. At some point, these people are going to outnumber us, they might already. between govt subsidies, entitlement programs, and govt jobs, we might already be outnumbered. While things like the 2 Cali elections to cut unsustainable spending are a great sign of rationality kicking in, most people are never gonna vote for someone who is pledging to take something away from them. Also, look at Article VI of the Constitution, proclaiming that all branches of govt, including fucking Judges, are bound by this Constitution. Where does Ginsberg get off stating publicly that she weights her decisions based on foreign powers. Seriously how has the SC moved so far from these basic premises? She should be kicked off the court.