Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[Night Strike]

You are not allowed to limit free speech simply because you don't like anyone other than candidates speaking about political issues.

The idea that money = free speech is disgusting in the extreme.

Then allow all political ads in newspapers, on the radio, and on tv to be free of charge.

[BigBallinStalin]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

He should at least be tried in court; however, judging from the general responses in here, many Americans really don't care, or they'll say "yeah at least he's not as authoritarian as Kim Jong Il!"

It's peculiar. When the executive sets an acceptable trend of flaunting the constitution, and when more and more Americans overlook that, then those Americans deserve nearly all the outcomes from such authoritarian policies.

That's pretty much what Obama said when he got elected...that he would just continue to do what Bush was doing and continue to flaunt the constitution, because all the smart Americans would defend him and say "Well, Bush did it, so that makes it okay", and of course it will be okay for the next president, based on "Obama did it" and then the next prez and the next......

Brilliant!

Well, Neoteny was implying pages ago that if there's this precedent for doing so, then it's okay.

Isn't that a delightful way of explaining to the Libyan parents that their children were bombed by Yours Truly because the executive branch, you know, does this kind of thing, so it's acceptable, lololol?

Eventually, the apologists on either political party side will have to accept the unintended conseuquences of their incorrect attitude toward the executive branch.

[Woodruff]

I see, because Obama, himself appointed how many justices? (hint.. it was not a majority, nor even the most nominated by a presidency in the past 3 decades).

Except what's downright scary for our country is that the two he nominated will probably vote to uphold Obamacare (although 1 should have been recused from the topic). To have a currently unknown number of justices vote in favor of the government telling citizens which private purchases they must make is frightening and turns the government-citizen relationship completely upside down (and nothing that was intended by the Founders). We can't allow Obama to have a 2nd term to put more justices like that on the Supreme Court.

Yeah, downright scary that everyone in this country should have healthcare.. an absolutely TERRIBLE result.

And.. Bush influenced the current Supreme Court far more than Obama. So, why aren't you blasting him on this?
[oh yeah.. gotta be against Obama... I get it!]

Because this legislation has nothing to do with health care. It is about forcing individuals to buy health care insurance simply because the government decided that individuals must make a private purchase.

That is an egregiously limited view of the law, Night Strike. Here's the law, in a nutshell (relatively speaking):

What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.

So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:
1. It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices).
2. It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
3. It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. (Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181)
4. It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. (Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205)
5. It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
6. It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
7. It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. (Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B)
8. It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. (Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711)
9. Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
10. No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
11. Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
12. People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
13. Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. (Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712)
14. Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
15. Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
16. New ways to stop fraud are created.
17. Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
18. Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
19. Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
20. A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/).
21. A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
22. A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
23. A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
24. Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

Starting 8/1/2012:
1. Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

Starting 1/1/2013:
1. If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Yes, some of you will take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.

Starting 1/1/2014:
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
1. No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
2. If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
3. Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. (Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711)
4. Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
5. Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
6. Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
7. Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
8. Cut some Medicare spending
9. Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
10. Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
11. Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
12. A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
13. A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
14. A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
15. The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

Starting in 1/1/2015:
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.

Starting in 1/1/2017:
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

Starting in 2018:
1. All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
2. A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

Starting in 2020:
1. The elimination of the "Medicare gap".

Aaaaand that's it right there. The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury. Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.

[Woodruff]

You are not allowed to limit free speech simply because you don't like anyone other than candidates speaking about political issues.

The idea that money = free speech is disgusting in the extreme.

Then allow all political ads in newspapers, on the radio, and on tv to be free of charge.

A better fix is to make political contests be publicly funded only.

[Night Strike]

You are not allowed to limit free speech simply because you don't like anyone other than candidates speaking about political issues.

The idea that money = free speech is disgusting in the extreme.

Then allow all political ads in newspapers, on the radio, and on tv to be free of charge.

A better fix is to make political contests be publicly funded only.

Or not. I don't want (more of) my tax dollars to fund Obama's talking points. If people think Obama's talking points are valid, they can donate to him. If they don't, then he (or any other candidate) either can't spend money on the campaign or will have to self-fund the campaign. Public money only limits the number of people who can run and greatly benefits incumbents (especially Democrats) who already have the free talking time of the media.

[Woodruff]

You are not allowed to limit free speech simply because you don't like anyone other than candidates speaking about political issues.

The idea that money = free speech is disgusting in the extreme.

Then allow all political ads in newspapers, on the radio, and on tv to be free of charge.

A better fix is to make political contests be publicly funded only.

Or not. I don't want (more of) my tax dollars to fund Obama's talking points. If people think Obama's talking points are valid, they can donate to him. If they don't, then he (or any other candidate) either can't spend money on the campaign or will have to self-fund the campaign. Public money only limits the number of people who can run and greatly benefits incumbents (especially Democrats) who already have the free talking time of the media.

I'm sorry you favor the ability to buy candidates. I'm surprised by that, to be honest, given your rigid adherence to what the founding fathers wanted.

[Phatscotty]

On the surface I like the idea of making political contests solely publicly funded. I would be interested in seeing a debate on this issue and getting more information as to how it would actually work.

Strike, this might be a dumb question, but how would this limit the number of people who can run? I think I know the answer but I would just be guessing.

[Woodruff]

On the surface I like the idea of making political contests solely publicly funded. I would be interested in seeing a debate on this issue and getting more information as to how it would actually work.

No question that the details would have to be worked out, and I have heard some arguments against it that I felt were valid at the time (that I can't recall offhand) that would need to be considered in those details. I just think it's the only way to get out of the ownership of politicians.

I always have this vision of some politician taking all the money from the corporations during their initial run at Congress, soaking up the money, and then thumbing his nose at them while he's in office and doing what he thinks he should. Sadly, he'd likely be a one-term politician because of it, these days.

[Phatscotty]

I I think there are good things to be said and done on both sides of the issue, but I might agree that right now the scale is tipped too far away from public financing and too much in favor of "money as free speech".

Overall this is a tough one for me, but I think we can do better than we we have right now.

[Neoteny]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

He should at least be tried in court; however, judging from the general responses in here, many Americans really don't care, or they'll say "yeah at least he's not as authoritarian as Kim Jong Il!"

It's peculiar. When the executive sets an acceptable trend of flaunting the constitution, and when more and more Americans overlook that, then those Americans deserve nearly all the outcomes from such authoritarian policies.

That's pretty much what Obama said when he got elected...that he would just continue to do what Bush was doing and continue to flaunt the constitution, because all the smart Americans would defend him and say "Well, Bush did it, so that makes it okay", and of course it will be okay for the next president, based on "Obama did it" and then the next prez and the next......

Brilliant!

Well, Neoteny was implying pages ago that if there's this precedent for doing so, then it's okay.

Isn't that a delightful way of explaining to the Libyan parents that their children were bombed by Yours Truly because the executive branch, you know, does this kind of thing, so it's acceptable, lololol?

Eventually, the apologists on either political party side will have to accept the unintended conseuquences of their incorrect attitude toward the executive branch.

Hey now, by "precedent" I was talking about legal challenges to this sort of executive policy. I didn't intend to imply that it was good, or ok, or that I agree with its use. Just that it is not currently illegal.

Ass.

[GreecePwns]

On the surface I like the idea of making political contests solely publicly funded. I would be interested in seeing a debate on this issue and getting more information as to how it would actually work.

Strike, this might be a dumb question, but how would this limit the number of people who can run? I think I know the answer but I would just be guessing.

Using the example of other countries, a huge pool of money is collected and given to each party/candidate in proportion to their vote (I think in Canada a party gets $2 per vote in the previous election? I'm not sure on that).

I prefer the money be partially evenly distributed to all parties and candidates, and partially given out in proportion of votes.

[Night Strike]

On the surface I like the idea of making political contests solely publicly funded. I would be interested in seeing a debate on this issue and getting more information as to how it would actually work.

Strike, this might be a dumb question, but how would this limit the number of people who can run? I think I know the answer but I would just be guessing.

Using the example of other countries, a huge pool of money is collected and given to each party/candidate in proportion to their vote (I think in Canada a party gets $2 per vote in the previous election? I'm not sure on that).

I prefer the money be partially evenly distributed to all parties and candidates, and partially given out in proportion of votes.

So incumbents are the big beneficiaries.

[Woodruff]

On the surface I like the idea of making political contests solely publicly funded. I would be interested in seeing a debate on this issue and getting more information as to how it would actually work.

Strike, this might be a dumb question, but how would this limit the number of people who can run? I think I know the answer but I would just be guessing.

Using the example of other countries, a huge pool of money is collected and given to each party/candidate in proportion to their vote (I think in Canada a party gets $2 per vote in the previous election? I'm not sure on that).

I prefer the money be partially evenly distributed to all parties and candidates, and partially given out in proportion of votes.

I like your idea, as well, though I would prefer it be even if that could be done.

So incumbents are the big beneficiaries.

We already have that.

[Night Strike]

So incumbents are the big beneficiaries.

We already have that.

Policies like McCain-Feingold benefits incumbents. Proposed policies like some forms of public funding clearly benefit incumbents. So why trade one system for another system when they have the exact same outcome? Why not make the system more accessible to everybody and more accountable for incumbents?

PACs help change that dynamic. They allow individuals to have the ability to call out incumbents on policies that are bad for the country and helps bring light to what is going on in Washington. All individuals should have the ability to challenge what the politicians are doing, not just those who will be running against them in the next campaign.

[Phatscotty]

Official message from the Tea Party

Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee told The Daily Caller he thinks President Barack Obama’s decision to assert executive privilege over Operation Fast and Furious documents should be a signal to Americans they need to elect someone else in November.

“I am disappointed with President Obama’s decision to claim executive privilege over Department of Justice documents relating to the Fast and Furious operation,” Lee told TheDC. “President Obama has a history of flouting Congress and ignoring the Constitution’s directives, from his unauthorized use of military force in Libya to his unconstitutional ‘recess’ appointments. His administration’s refusal to cooperate with a legitimate congressional investigation is the latest example of President Obama’s abuse of power.”

“As someone who promised the ‘most open and transparent’ administration in history, President Obama’s refusal to respond to legitimate congressional requests, and possible attempt to cover up mistakes made by administration officials, is particularly troubling,” Lee continued. “Voters should show their dissatisfaction with these abuses at the ballot box, ensuring that we elect a new President who will exercise power responsibly.”

[GreecePwns]

So incumbents are the big beneficiaries.

We already have that.

Policies like McCain-Feingold benefits incumbents. Proposed policies like some forms of public funding clearly benefit incumbents. So why trade one system for another system when they have the exact same outcome? Why not make the system more accessible to everybody and more accountable for incumbents?

PACs help change that dynamic. They allow individuals to have the ability to call out incumbents on policies that are bad for the country and helps bring light to what is going on in Washington. All individuals should have the ability to challenge what the politicians are doing, not just those who will be running against them in the next campaign.

Individuals call out incumbents with their votes. This is especially true if every candidate were on an even playing field financially. There would be more choice, and therefore more perspectives to choose from at the voting booth. If you have a problem with my proposal, then what is your problem with giving each candidate even money? If individuals like a candidate's policy, they can vote for them instead of giving them an unfair advantage.

This system is much more accessible to everybody than the PAC system for obvious reasons.

[Woodruff]

So incumbents are the big beneficiaries.

We already have that.

Policies like McCain-Feingold benefits incumbents. Proposed policies like some forms of public funding clearly benefit incumbents. So why trade one system for another system when they have the exact same outcome?

The exact same outcome? You believe that public funding of candidates would have the exact same outcome as what we have now?

Just because there are general similarities (incumbents have an advantage) in no way even implies that the outcomes are remotely the same, and I'm disappointed you would see them that way, being a scientist and all.

Why not make the system more accessible to everybody and more accountable for incumbents?

I'm very much in favor of that.

PACs help change that dynamic. They allow individuals to have the ability to call out incumbents on policies that are bad for the country and helps bring light to what is going on in Washington. All individuals should have the ability to challenge what the politicians are doing, not just those who will be running against them in the next campaign.

They do no such thing. It's a nice thing to be able to say, but in the real world they do not do this. It's like talking about how communism is a great system in an idealistic sense, which it is...but in the real world, it's just not going to work.

[Woodruff]

Official message from the Tea Party

Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee told The Daily Caller he thinks President Barack Obama’s decision to assert executive privilege over Operation Fast and Furious documents should be a signal to Americans they need to elect someone else in November.

“I am disappointed with President Obama’s decision to claim executive privilege over Department of Justice documents relating to the Fast and Furious operation,” Lee told TheDC. “President Obama has a history of flouting Congress and ignoring the Constitution’s directives, from his unauthorized use of military force in Libya to his unconstitutional ‘recess’ appointments. His administration’s refusal to cooperate with a legitimate congressional investigation is the latest example of President Obama’s abuse of power.”

“As someone who promised the ‘most open and transparent’ administration in history, President Obama’s refusal to respond to legitimate congressional requests, and possible attempt to cover up mistakes made by administration officials, is particularly troubling,” Lee continued. “Voters should show their dissatisfaction with these abuses at the ballot box, ensuring that we elect a new President who will exercise power responsibly.”

Has Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee been an Obama supporter in the past? If not, why do I care what he has to say about him now, as if it's some earth-shattering revelation? Is it surprising that a Republican would be calling Obama out on this? Fine someone meaningful, and we can talk.

[BigBallinStalin]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

He should at least be tried in court; however, judging from the general responses in here, many Americans really don't care, or they'll say "yeah at least he's not as authoritarian as Kim Jong Il!"

It's peculiar. When the executive sets an acceptable trend of flaunting the constitution, and when more and more Americans overlook that, then those Americans deserve nearly all the outcomes from such authoritarian policies.

That's pretty much what Obama said when he got elected...that he would just continue to do what Bush was doing and continue to flaunt the constitution, because all the smart Americans would defend him and say "Well, Bush did it, so that makes it okay", and of course it will be okay for the next president, based on "Obama did it" and then the next prez and the next......

Brilliant!

Well, Neoteny was implying pages ago that if there's this precedent for doing so, then it's okay.

Isn't that a delightful way of explaining to the Libyan parents that their children were bombed by Yours Truly because the executive branch, you know, does this kind of thing, so it's acceptable, lololol?

Eventually, the apologists on either political party side will have to accept the unintended conseuquences of their incorrect attitude toward the executive branch.

Hey now, by "precedent" I was talking about legal challenges to this sort of executive policy. I didn't intend to imply that it was good, or ok, or that I agree with its use. Just that it is not currently illegal.

Ass.

So your stance is that the legality of Obama's decision is currently undecided? If that was your stance, then why did you type so many paragraphs? Something's not adding up.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, because Obama, himself appointed how many justices? (hint.. it was not a majority, nor even the most nominated by a presidency in the past 3 decades).

Except what's downright scary for our country is that the two he nominated will probably vote to uphold Obamacare (although 1 should have been recused from the topic). To have a currently unknown number of justices vote in favor of the government telling citizens which private purchases they must make is frightening and turns the government-citizen relationship completely upside down (and nothing that was intended by the Founders). We can't allow Obama to have a 2nd term to put more justices like that on the Supreme Court.

Yeah, downright scary that everyone in this country should have healthcare.. an absolutely TERRIBLE result.

And.. Bush influenced the current Supreme Court far more than Obama. So, why aren't you blasting him on this?
[oh yeah.. gotta be against Obama... I get it!]

Because this legislation has nothing to do with health care. It is about forcing individuals to buy health care insurance simply because the government decided that individuals must make a private purchase.

Do you actually ever read what you write?
It was supposed to be a COMPROMISE because the Repubs and Tea Partiers were foaming at the mouth at the idea of a truly universal, necessarily government run system. Ergo, bring in some of the free market, but require purchase so the cost doesn't become so untenable that it won't work.

Your "arguments" are about like saying "I have the ball, so its my rules or no game" ... and then when the other folks win, you come up with "but of course those are not the 'real rules', so the game just doesn't count"

I actually agree, to a point, on the constitutionality. However, there are times when practicality outstrips legalism. If this law is struck down, it will be fundamentally disasterous for our country, beginning a new Depression... and this one won't be fixed by a World War. And, you your self have very much argued both sides of this fence.

The government does not have that authority. And it's not the government's job to provide health care (or insurance) to people. That's the person's responsibility. People are responsible for taking care of themselves. It's not the government's job to take care of them.

Provide for the common wealfare.. doesn't get more basic than healthcare.
As to the legality, that is up to the Supreme Court.

And yes, Bush did influence the court, which is why hopefully Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the mandate (and hopefully the entire law).

Oh, I see, and if that is not the case, the Obama unduly influenced the court?

Neither are corporations or unions to take MY money and use it without even telling me where the money is going.

This is not about individuals, it is about large corporations... and I mean LARGE corporations, not small business that are corporations!

Yes, we know you HATE corporations (and other entities that make money).[/quote]
Are you actually stupid enough, blind enough to truly believe that? I don't worship them like you do, I don't ocnsider corporations the saviours of our universe. I DO think they can do great harm because they have no other real goal than making money...and money is not the root of all good, sorry, but it just is not. And, the EVIDENCE supports my position, not yours.

A few people getting wealthy is not the mark of a successful society or a program that benefits the world. A society that can perpetuate for centuries, as opposed to decades or years is the mark of true success. Too bad so many folks with decent economic backgrounds are so blind to the real world around them that they refuse to use their skills to benefit society instead of taking us all down a dark hole.

But, I guess none of that matters, since the end times are coming.. eh? In fact, seems that all that destruction is really just doing "God's will"... just like some of the arguments pre Depression, pre WWII.

But corporations DO have to disclose where they are spending their money if they are a publicly traded company.

Not in this case, no, they do not. Folks are fighting for that right, but it does not currently exist.

If they're not public, you have absolutely no right to tell them where they spend their money.

Ah, but this is not about controlling where they spend their money, this is about honest consequences for decisions. They have a right to spend money, but I have the right to know if buying a product is going to support a factory that chains kids to machines AND to know if the company is supporting causes I am fighting against. That, too, is part of being in a Democracy. Corporations are specifically designed to shield investors and owners, employees from many of the harms of their decisions. That might be OK to a point economically, but NOT when it comes to influencing politics.

And even if they are public, if you do not own voting shares in the company, you don't have that right either.

EXACTLY why corporations are NOT INDIVIDUALS and do NOT, therefore have the right to free speech.

All the rest of us are allowed to group together and speak on political issues if we so choose. And you do not get the power to pick and choose which groups get to speak and which ones don't. That was the purpose of the Citizens United ruling.

Nope, the purpose was to allow big investors to donate huge sums without anyone being able to know about it. Free speech involves responsibility. Citizen's United took out that part.

The right of individuals to donate has always existed. However, it has been mitigated in recent times because there was the recognition that one big donor can far outstrip the power of 1000's of small donors and skew the scales, particularly becuase those with wealth and power fundamentally have very different wants and needs than the majority of the population. The vote was always the "equalizer". This ruling allows a few PACs to so skew even the information available in our election that the whole idea of voting is becoming moot. There is no such thing as a free vote when there is no such thing as verified truth and access to information. INternet bias' -- targeted at what people think they want, as opposed to what folks NEED to hear is changing our entire world.

[Night Strike]

I actually agree, to a point, on the constitutionality. However, there are times when practicality outstrips legalism.

This right here is ALL you need to know about Player's political beliefs. The Constitution be DAMNED if the government decides something is beneficial. If something is practical or beneficial, the government has complete authority to do it even if the Constitution gives them absolutely no authority to do so. The Constitution just gets in the way of player's beliefs, so she'll toss it aside to get those beliefs enacted.

Player, if this mandate is upheld, I'm going to make sure that every single person is forced to buy a gun because guns are the most practical way for people to protect themselves. I'm going to make sure that if a company is failing, that every person is mandated to go purchase a product from that company to keep it going. If liberals can mandate healthcare, then where does this power stop? The government would have absolute power over our lives and we would have no ability to oppose them.

If this law is struck down, it will be fundamentally disasterous for our country, beginning a new Depression... and this one won't be fixed by a World War. And, you your self have very much argued both sides of this fence.

Striking down this law will lead to economic recovery. Businesses don't want to hire people because their labor costs will drastically increase as soon as the law becomes fully effective. Once this albatross of governmental mandates is removed from the system, businesses will have the certainty of knowing that they can afford to hire new workers.

The government does not have that authority. And it's not the government's job to provide health care (or insurance) to people. That's the person's responsibility. People are responsible for taking care of themselves. It's not the government's job to take care of them.

Provide for the common wealfare.. doesn't get more basic than healthcare.
As to the legality, that is up to the Supreme Court.

A health care mandate does not fall under the common welfare. And even if it did, health care itself is the specific welfare of a person, not the general welfare of the country. Providing for the common welfare means to provide a system that secures the rights of the people, not enacting a system that takes away their right to choose. It is not the government's job to take care of every single person in the US. It IS their job to provide the system that protects their rights from infringement by others, aka the common welfare.

The Constitution was written in a way that every person could understand the role of the government and hold them accountable. There is no requirement in the Constitution that Supreme Court justices must have a law degree with 20 years of experience prior to being nominated for the position. Every single person in this country is expected to know the Constitution and how it reigns in the power of the federal government in order for our government to be held accountable when they infringe on our rights. it is the populace that doesn't understand the Constitution that allows unconstitutional laws like Obamacare to be forced on the American people. Of course, enough people did wake up after its passage to cause the largest swing in the House in the last century. And if the law is unconstitutionally upheld, then 2010 will pale in comparison to the wave of conservative politicians that will be elected in 2012 specifically to repeal the law. 70% of the population knows that the mandate is unconstitutional, and for Obama's re-election sake, he better hope it is struck down. Otherwise, those 70% will lead the voting on November 6th and we will see a massive rejection of Obama and Democrats.

[Woodruff]

I actually agree, to a point, on the constitutionality. However, there are times when practicality outstrips legalism.

This right here is ALL you need to know about Player's political beliefs. The Constitution be DAMNED if the government decides something is beneficial. If something is practical or beneficial, the government has complete authority to do it even if the Constitution gives them absolutely no authority to do so. The Constitution just gets in the way of player's beliefs, so she'll toss it aside to get those beliefs enacted.

What is your position on the drug testing of welfare recipients?

[Woodruff]

Night Strike, did you ever look at the tl, dr I posted about "Obamacare" here? Could you point out the things that you specifically believe would be bad about it?

Thanks!

[Night Strike]

I actually agree, to a point, on the constitutionality. However, there are times when practicality outstrips legalism.

This right here is ALL you need to know about Player's political beliefs. The Constitution be DAMNED if the government decides something is beneficial. If something is practical or beneficial, the government has complete authority to do it even if the Constitution gives them absolutely no authority to do so. The Constitution just gets in the way of player's beliefs, so she'll toss it aside to get those beliefs enacted.

What is your position on the drug testing of welfare recipients?

Considering no person has a right to receive money from the government (unless they do work for the government) and considering that most of the taxpayers who have to provide that free money had to be drug tested to get their jobs, then it makes complete sense to drug test welfare recipients. They do not have a right to that money, so we can put stipulations on the receipt of those funds if society deems it necessary. However, I would clarify that testing positive could not lead to criminal charges.

Night Strike, did you ever look at the tl, dr I posted about "Obamacare" here? Could you point out the things that you specifically believe would be bad about it?

Thanks!

It's not the government's job to mandate what products or services a private company must provide to its customers. If a company wishes to provide a product, then they can do so. The government should only be involved when a company receives compensation but does not provide the product, such as when insurance companies drop people instead of paying out claims. However, mandating which things must be covered, making companies pay for adults simply because they won't pay for themselves, and mandating how much money a company pays its employees is way beyond the role of the government. Yet all those are done under Obamacare.

[Woodruff]

I actually agree, to a point, on the constitutionality. However, there are times when practicality outstrips legalism.

This right here is ALL you need to know about Player's political beliefs. The Constitution be DAMNED if the government decides something is beneficial. If something is practical or beneficial, the government has complete authority to do it even if the Constitution gives them absolutely no authority to do so. The Constitution just gets in the way of player's beliefs, so she'll toss it aside to get those beliefs enacted.

What is your position on the drug testing of welfare recipients?

Considering no person has a right to receive money from the government (unless they do work for the government) and considering that most of the taxpayers who have to provide that free money had to be drug tested to get their jobs, then it makes complete sense to drug test welfare recipients. They do not have a right to that money, so we can put stipulations on the receipt of those funds if society deems it necessary. However, I would clarify that testing positive could not lead to criminal charges.

You do realize that drug testing of welfare recipients has been determined, on a number of occasions, to be unConstitutional, right? How do you juxtapose that with your alleged strict adherence to the Constitution?

Night Strike, did you ever look at the tl, dr I posted about "Obamacare" here? Could you point out the things that you specifically believe would be bad about it?
Thanks!

It's not the government's job to mandate what products or services a private company must provide to its customers. If a company wishes to provide a product, then they can do so. The government should only be involved when a company receives compensation but does not provide the product, such as when insurance companies drop people instead of paying out claims. However, mandating which things must be covered, making companies pay for adults simply because they won't pay for themselves, and mandating how much money a company pays its employees is way beyond the role of the government. Yet all those are done under Obamacare.

It would've been a lot shorter for you to have just typed "I didn't read what you posted because I like to pretend I already know what Obamacare is.". Why didn't you just do that?

Better yet, why didn't you just read it and gain some knowledge?