Swing Votes
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 23 Mar 2010 23:20 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:48:39 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Mar 22, 10:28�pm, Alexander <Alexan...(a)thegreat.org> wrote: > >> Obama got the Catholics on board by promising to kill the paid for >> Abortions that are in the bill....By executive order. Legislation by >> executive order is going to be the order of the day for this >> administration! How long do you think Abortions will remain unpaid for >> by the taxpayers? In many sectors it will become the method of birth >> control. > >Executive orders are, of course, changeable at the whim of the >Executive. Government by fiat. > >Anyway, the whole thing's illegal. > >I count four or five ways it's unconstitutional, from mandates, to >requiring you to report yourself on your tax form (self- >incrimination), to preferences for "recognized religious >sects" (establishment clause), to putting your personal info on the >internet (6th amendment right to be secure in your papers and >effects)... > >14 states' Attorneys General have filed suit, mostly on the mandate I >think. Florida makes a 10th amendment argument, AIUI. Who's going to make the fourteenth amendment argument against the Florida and Nebraska deals?
From: dagmargoodboat on 23 Mar 2010 23:35 On Mar 23, 10:20 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:48:39 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On Mar 22, 10:28 pm, Alexander <Alexan...(a)thegreat.org> wrote: > > >> Obama got the Catholics on board by promising to kill the paid for > >> Abortions that are in the bill....By executive order. Legislation by > >> executive order is going to be the order of the day for this > >> administration! How long do you think Abortions will remain unpaid for > >> by the taxpayers? In many sectors it will become the method of birth > >> control. > > >Executive orders are, of course, changeable at the whim of the > >Executive. Government by fiat. > > >Anyway, the whole thing's illegal. > > >I count four or five ways it's unconstitutional, from mandates, to > >requiring you to report yourself on your tax form (self- > >incrimination), to preferences for "recognized religious > >sects" (establishment clause), to putting your personal info on the > >internet (6th amendment right to be secure in your papers and > >effects)... > > >14 states' Attorneys General have filed suit, mostly on the mandate I > >think. Florida makes a 10th amendment argument, AIUI. > > Who's going to make the fourteenth amendment argument against the Florida and > Nebraska deals? We have to see if that issue survives reconciliation first. Our would- be mandaters (man daters?) tried to preempt that by giving all states the Cornhusker kickback. That, however, is in the reconciliation package, which Republicans might kill. We'll see. I don't think that fixes anything--they'll just redraft and re-vote-- unless it crosses the Easter break. Meanwhile, the Senate bill is the fiat of the land. -- James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 23 Mar 2010 23:37 On Mar 23, 10:14 pm, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:48:39 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > >On Mar 22, 10:28 pm, Alexander <Alexan...(a)thegreat.org> wrote: > > >> Obama got the Catholics on board by promising to kill the paid for > >> Abortions that are in the bill....By executive order. > > Except ... it's a sham. And he knows it. The President can > not create, nor line item veto, laws. And that's what it pretends to > do - it pretends to say 'This new law that was just passed, it doesn't > count, we're going to use the earlier law ( Hyde amendment ). > > Constitutionaly, this is a non-starter, and everyone knows it. > Including Obama and Stupak. > > >14 states' Attorneys General have filed suit, mostly on the mandate I > >think. Florida makes a 10th amendment argument, AIUI. > > The suits are going to go on for years and years. > > In the meantime, the economic damage is done, and the left > feels invigorated to do more. > > The Republicans threatened a 'nuclear response' if the Dems > did this, reconciliation and all - well, now it's show time. Let's > see what they got. > > My guess is - nothing. They're outnumbered--there's only so much they can do--but they can make a point (which the media will ignore). The House Republicans gave a series of excellent speeches against. No coverage, natch. James Arthur
From: Don Ocean on 24 Mar 2010 00:59 dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Mar 22, 10:28 pm, Alexander <Alexan...(a)thegreat.org> wrote: > >> Obama got the Catholics on board by promising to kill the paid for >> Abortions that are in the bill....By executive order. Legislation by >> executive order is going to be the order of the day for this >> administration! How long do you think Abortions will remain unpaid for >> by the taxpayers? In many sectors it will become the method of birth >> control. > > Executive orders are, of course, changeable at the whim of the > Executive. Government by fiat. > > Anyway, the whole thing's illegal. > > I count four or five ways it's unconstitutional, from mandates, to > requiring you to report yourself on your tax form (self- > incrimination), to preferences for "recognized religious > sects" (establishment clause), to putting your personal info on the > internet (6th amendment right to be secure in your papers and > effects)... > > 14 states' Attorneys General have filed suit, mostly on the mandate I > think. Florida makes a 10th amendment argument, AIUI. > > -- > Cheers, > James Arthur South Dakota has filed a lawsuit also.
From: Winston on 24 Mar 2010 12:13
On 3/22/2010 2:03 PM, Ignoramus7894 wrote: > I did not know that swings could vote. > > i Sure they do. Both ways. --Winston |