Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul V. who wrote (138584)	7/18/2012 11:24:05 PM
From: ahhaha	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Or, was he just interpreted the ACA in relation to the US Constitution and Amendments, Statutes and Rules in a different way which the Republicans did not like. The decision was intended to deflect political persuasion explicitly. How else can one justify using "promote the general welfare"? It's hack third grade as though Roberts has no Constitutional knowledge whatsoever. Roberts made an unconstitutional ruling in order to preserve the independence of the Court. I guess he was trying to emulate the sluggard John Marshall. Well, was it a tax or a penalty? According to the Constitution it can't be either, but Roberts asserted that the individual mandate under the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment was unconstitutional, or rather, that the 14th couldn't be used. He averred, or agreed with the minority that the government cannot force individuals to enter into a binding contracts with it. To rule otherwise would have destroyed the Constitution. Think of it. The government could force you to buy anything it thought good for you including all those things that are bad for you. You do recall, i assume, what caused the Boston Tea Party. What if the issue for interpretation, imposed a pro-life religion policy against my religious belief, or if I had a Islamic belief,etc,, should the court have the right to overruled my right to exercise my religious beliefs? In Roe v Wade the Court already ruled against you. In Raisch it took it further. In Kelo it spread it around. The Constitution is gradually sinking into tyranny, the tyranny of the proletariat. Where do we stop violating our Constitution and Amendments? We start in November. Just think when OBama is re-elected, then he would have the opportunity to appoint many of the older Supreme Court members. You'll be far more concerned about your economic situation in that case. Like, "brother, can you spare a slice of white bread"?