It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
Yep, as per Liberal Leaning Poll givers.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" all cases arising under this constitution. get it?
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
Yep, as per Liberal Leaning Poll givers.
Give it a break...Fox News has Obama over Romney +4...want a dozen other polls? The "liberal media" thing is getting tired.
www.realclearpolitics.com...
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Blaine91555
The Democrats really messed up by not challenging him by running another candidate. How did they let a small portion of the radical part of their Party take them all over like this? I'm guessing it's more apathy than ignorance.
You are aware he is leading the GOP presumptive nominee in every poll and most of the swing states?
Obama Surpasses Romney in Swing States
abcnews.go.com...
USA Today/Gallup poll shows Obama leading Romney in key swing states
www.cbsnews.com...
And speaking of veracity...I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that your pre-existing condition under Obamacare costs $1760 a month? Tell me the state and I will tell you the amount.edit on 3-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by memnoch25
reply to post by tangonine
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" all cases arising under this constitution. get it?
Arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...does not imply ruling an existing law unconstitutional. It wasn't until Marbury Vs. Madison case which gave birth to Judicial Review, the claim by the Court itself that it has that power.
Afterwards, President Jefferson wrote that if that decision wasn't challenged by Congress, "Then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo-de-se (a suicide pact). ... The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please."
It was Judicial Review NOT the Constitution.
Get it?edit on 3-4-2012 by memnoch25 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Blaine91555
That's the amount given to me by the State under Federally funded ACHIA and if you think I'm going to post the documents your crazy. I earn too little to buy private, Obama's is even higher and I earn to much to qualify for anything else. There are lot's of me now.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
Yep, as per Liberal Leaning Poll givers.
Give it a break...Fox News has Obama over Romney +4...want a dozen other polls? The "liberal media" thing is getting tired.
www.realclearpolitics.com...
Yep, again. Scientific huh??
Ahead by 4, but margin of error is +/- 4.
Sure sure then. Sure sure.
www.foxnews.com...
How about some facts then.
No President has ever been re-elected with Unemployment where it is.
No President has ever been re-elected with Gas Prices where it is.
No President has ever been re-elected with such low approval ratings.
SO.......................................You go ahead and march forward with your 900 people polled over the phone and the +/- 4 margin of error.
I will stick with historical facts.
edit on 3-4-2012 by macman because: Additon
ased on Gallup polling, here is what I estimate that the incumbent president’s approval rating was on Election Day in almost every election since 1940. (There is no data for 1944 because Gallup went on wartime hiatus.) There are a few tricks I had to employ to derive these numbers; I’d ask you to take them on faith for a few moments, and then we’ll explain everything later on.
Originally posted by babybunnies
Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Apparently, the dictator in chief (purposely placed in lower case) thinks that the 3rd branch of government is a waste. He already said he'd act if Congress didn't, basically saying the 2nd branch of government is a waste. This guy is dangerous, and November can't get here quick enough.
You're obviously one of those who don't realize that whether or not you disagree with the current Commander-In-Chief, by not stating the position as The President, you're disrespecting the office, not the man.
Just like Sean Hannity, who insists on calling President Obama "The Annointed One", he's being disrespectful to the Office of The President, not the ACTUAL President.
Originally posted by Flint2011
reply to post by macman
With all of those historical facts, one could argue that never in history until 2008 had an African-American ever been elected President. So you see, history is not always accurate with regard to the present. Anything is possible. I tend to look to the future with the present tense in mind. The times are a changing.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by AwakeinNM
Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
Where in the transcripts does the POTUS "Warn" the Supreme Court?
That is creative writing by journalists in order to get article hits and of course food for blogs and OPs.
But accuracy still has a place in our national discourse. He did not "warn" the court.
With respect to health care, I’m actually -- continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That's not just my opinion, by the way; that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.
I think it’s important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.
The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That's part of this law.
Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.
So that’s just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.
And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.
Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.
www.whitehouse.gov...
Originally posted by DrNotforhire
sounds like Obama is throwing a tantrum cuz he didnt get his way
at least the supreme court is standing up for the people!
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I have some preexisting issues. Before Obama Care I could get private coverage for around $12,000 a year. Now it's over $20,000, which I cannot manage. I looked into the Federally funded version and it costs even more; in fact for me it would be $1,760.00 per month. Thank you Obama, now I can't get any. Only 120 people total have benefited.
The entire thing was smoke and mirrors.
My sister is insured through the pre-exisitng program "Obamacare". First time she has had coverage in 6 years....and she has a heart condition, plus cancer survivor..and her monthly bill through Obamacare is $249, only slightly more than mine through BC/BS. So $1,760 smells to me. What state?