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.

 

Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case Published April 03, 201

page: 8
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


That's what I have been saying since 2007
he knows exactly what he is doing....it's the old know your enemy.

Study the constitution so you know it's weaknesses.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.


Its right there in your post...and it is not "duly constituted" unless the supreme court rules on it.


You do realize he was paraphrasing the Conservative view point in that quote...right???

Pointing out some hypocrisy...that is what he was doing there.


"duly constituted" means the law was passed within the laws and provisions of the Constitution...it doesn't reference the "constitutionality" of the law.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 



I think it would be Prudent of Outcast to rethink his view on this whole subject before he says another word.

Just my opinion, just like Obama's. Not a perfect example but close enough, considering you (outcast) and I are equals here, I really have no right to say this to you, do I? Just like the 3 legislative branches, they are equals.


You absolutely have the right to say that.

I have the right to ignore you or call you out on it.

I don't view it as a threat or an order.

And yes...it is just your opinon...yes...just like Obama's. Opinions are illegal.

Thanks for proving my point.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
There has been a lot of tension between this administration and SCOTUS for quite some time now. Remember this...


I think Obama is riling up his base. He knows that he's running against Romney, BORING! I think Obama wants to get the real issues out in the forum for debate. That is SCOTUS is acting from a partisan bias that is against "the people's" best interest, like the "Citizens United" ruling that corporations are people.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Ah you are so cute! Yes, I have the right to say it, but do I have the right to expect you to adhere to my request, to not speak anymore?

You are skewing the intent, to just a freedom of speech and no more, when it is more about the content.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


SCOTUS did not rule that corporations are people, they ruled BCRA - in part - was a violation of the First Amendment. In terms of Corporate personhood, this responsibility goes to Congress who defined the corporation three separate times as a person in the UCC and USC. Of course, those are the facts. Who cares about facts these days?



[e
edit on 4-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Thanks for mentioning my thread, Des.
He totally derailed mine also...that is his motive...shut down all threads he doesn't agree with...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee

I think it would be Prudent of Outcast to rethink his view on this whole subject before he says another word.

Just my opinion, just like Obama's. Not a perfect example but close enough, considering you (outcast) and I are equals here, I really have no right to say this to you, do I? Just like the 3 legislative branches, they are equals.
edit on 4-4-2012 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)


The President never said that the SCOTUS should "rethink thier view on the whole subject"

To the contrary he repeatedly said he was confident they would rule it constitutional.

Unless you have seen the ruling already and know the Justices mind....your analogy is irrelevant.

Has anyone here actually read what the President said?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 
how soon people forget or fail to see what needs to be seen or heard, this is one, one of many, I am one to admit it too drank the obama aid, kool aid aid, package deal, band wagon! but after 4 years of... well, lies and deceit, enough is enough, R.P. is my pick , but if it comes down to M.R. of the POUTS we got now, I will pick the one we have now. Better to have the devil you know, than the one you do not know


edit on 4-4-2012 by bekod because: editting



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Jay Carney speaking on the issue right now.

He is a smart a** little turd, but anyway...

waiting for the print of his quotes so I can post because he is way off...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

"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," Obama said on Monday. "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." Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this." Read more: www.foxnews.com...



Here is an example of Obama outright lying to confuse people who think whatever he says is the truth.

He states overturning a congressional law is "unprecedented"...meaning "never" happened...


But in 1995 and 2000, court took a different tack and struck down two laws on the ground that they went beyond Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, Faigman noted. One of the overturned laws required gun-free zones around schools and the other allowed women who were victims of violent crimes such as rape to sue for civil damages.

sfappeal.com...





and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."



The burden is on the congress who passed the law to prove it is constitutional.


"The Sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary explained the parenthetical maxim as follows: ¶ 'Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.... The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. ¶ Black's Law Dictionary 516 (6th ed. 1990).'"[3]

edit on 4-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by windword
 


SCOTUS did not rule that corporations are people, they ruled BCRA - in part - was a violation of the First Amendment. In terms of Corporate personhood, this responsibility goes to Congress who defined the corporation three separate times as a person in the UCC and USC. Of course, those are the facts. Who cares about facts these days?



[e
edit on 4-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


I guess that's my point. I'm no scholar, constitutional or political. I only know what I gleam from pundits and comedians, like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert!


I don't know what BCRA, UCC or USC even are, but how many voters do? They probably think that SCOTUS defined corporations. as people, as I did. It doesn't matter though, because Obama can rile his base to blame SCOTUS for his administration's short fallings.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by links234
 


Sounded like a threat to me. Otherwise what was the purpose of publicly opening your mouth like that?

Exactly.. no purpose..

Except to add tension to the situation .. a threat.


you are absolutely right, how dare a president say that, as if he has some type of legitimate reason. he should just shut his mouth and listen to those people. after all, he doesn't have the skills or the mental acumen of the supreme court as far as it pertains to constitutional law.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
Jay Carney speaking on the issue right now.

He is a smart a** little turd, but anyway...

waiting for the print of his quotes so I can post because he is way off...


you are right...he is a smart a**little turd...thank you for pointing that out. without people like you, i would be completley in the dark. please expound on your above train of thought, lol, it's about time i learned something.
edit on 4-4-2012 by jimmyx because: spell



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Obama will get defeated in the courts, but he will wriggle out of it smelling like a rose. His remarks only prove his acknowledgment of the inevitable. Obamacare was rammed through the system too fast to dot all the i's and cross all the t's to make it constitutionally sound.

He knows it will be struck down, and cannot go into an election with a big shameful defeat stamped across his forehead.
So when Obamacare goes down the proverbial toilet, the offhanded reasoning that the media will pound into peoples brains will be it was only because there were more conservative appointed justices and nobody will look at the rock solid foundation of its dismissal.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I am working on it...
working...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
This story has caught fire in the MSM. I think Mr. President's push ploy, is backfiring on him. I'm not the only one with that thought.....it's being echoed loud and clear on every channel that is a covering current news..

Here's a bit of updated info...


UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: Audio from the 5th Circuit hearing, with Judge Smith's order to DOJ, is available here.

(audio, and video links available at link at bottom)

In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."

The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."

"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"

Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?"

Kaersvang replies yes, and Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress."

In asking for the letter, Smith said: "I want to be sure you're telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care Reform

www.cbsnews.com...


Icing on the cake video....



Des
edit on 4-4-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I thought you were making that point, but I wasn't sure. I had to read your post several times over. Plus, a few in this thread have made the point that if you have to repeat yourself over and over then the failing must be yours. I continually repeat, over and over - although for the first time in this thread - that the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) did not rule that corporations are "persons", but instead ruled that the Bipartisan Finance Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) "chilled" speech. I also continually repeat that Congress defined corporations as a "person" in the United States Code (USC) and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and I am constantly repeating myself on this, because as you point out, there has been a huge MSM (Main Stream Media) push to convince people of something that is just not true.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




I thought you were making that point, but I wasn't sure. I had to read your post several times over.


HAHA! Sorry about that. It's kinda hard to sound intelligent on a subject when you don't know what the heck you're talking about. My bad.


I appreciate your taking the time to explain this stuff to us/me.




top topics



 
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join