America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by 8trackdisco. 16 replies replies.
Fed Judge Rules Obama Unconstitutional..!!
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Dec 17 2014, 10:07 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
or somethin like that... Think
jackconrad Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Dec 18 2014, 9:53 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
It is because it was not passed by a 2/3 majority..
jetblasted Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Dec 18 2014, 11:05 PM EST
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
Holder already said they won't follow the law.
bs_kwaj Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2014, 3:00 AM EST
Joined: 02-13-2006
Posts: 5,214
Big O don't need no stinkin' majority...
TMCTLT Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2014, 5:51 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Since it IS their job to interpret Law NOT make it.....a copy should have been given to the Majostrates FIRST before passing this new LAW.Brick wall
mikey1597 Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2014, 11:43 AM EST
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,162
It's good to be King, yo pissboy!
Krazeehorse Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2014, 12:55 PM EST
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
He'll get all the details worked out during his third term.
teedubbya Offline
#8 Posted: Sat, Dec 20 2014, 9:49 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I don't get #5 unless it's sarcasm. If it's their job to merely interpret not legislate (which it should be) there would be zero reason for them to have it before it is law, unless you want them to legislate.
TMCTLT Offline
#9 Posted: Sat, Dec 20 2014, 10:13 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
[quote=teedubbya]I don't get #5 unless it's sarcasm. If it's their job to merely interpret not legislate (which it should be) there would be zero reason for them to have it before it is law, unless you want them to legislate. [/quote


Why?? What good has it done to have them read it After Becoming Law? Would it not make more sense to have read Every word FIRST then determine it's Constitutionality? Did it make sense to you that they passed a Massive Tax on the entire American public.....Without Reading it FIRST?
Abrignac Offline
#10 Posted: Sat, Dec 20 2014, 10:27 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,306
TMCTLT wrote:
[quote=teedubbya]I don't get #5 unless it's sarcasm. If it's their job to merely interpret not legislate (which it should be) there would be zero reason for them to have it before it is law, unless you want them to legislate. [/quote


Why?? What good has it done to have them read it After Becoming Law? Would it not make more sense to have read Every word FIRST then determine it's Constitutionality? Did it make sense to you that they passed a Massive Tax on the entire American public.....Without Reading it FIRST?


Absolutely not. Though, I get your play on Nancy Pelosi.

Separation of powers. To have a Federal judge issue an opinion or even a ruling prior to a law being passed would amount to an influence on the drafting of such a law. Clearly a violation of the spirit of the separation of powers concept. But, I suspect you already know that.
TMCTLT Offline
#11 Posted: Sat, Dec 20 2014, 12:10 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Abrignac wrote:
Absolutely not. Though, I get your play on Nancy Pelosi.

Separation of powers. To have a Federal judge issue an opinion or even a ruling prior to a law being passed would amount to an influence on the drafting of such a law. Clearly a violation of the spirit of the separation of powers concept. But, I suspect you already know that.




I see, so what does passing a 2,500 page Tax Law before reading it called?? Separation of brain from body?
teedubbya Offline
#12 Posted: Sat, Dec 20 2014, 12:24 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
No way I want the courts involved in the legislative process by weighing in during the process. No effen way. Their job is to weigh in after the fact which they have done.

Two things. First your original post reminds me of victor. It swings both ways. You say their job is not to legislate yet you want them in the legislative process.

Second the op isn't about obamacare. It's about Obama. It says he is unconstitutional.
DrafterX Offline
#13 Posted: Sat, Dec 20 2014, 12:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
That's what I heard. .. Mellow
cacman Offline
#14 Posted: Sat, Dec 20 2014, 12:29 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
teedubbya wrote:
It's about Obama. It says he is unconstitutional.

It says he's a narcissistic twit.
teedubbya Offline
#15 Posted: Sat, Dec 20 2014, 12:30 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Maybe this will help

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
8trackdisco Offline
#16 Posted: Sun, Dec 21 2014, 9:54 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,084
We as a country should just forget about teaching kids civics and how the government works. The next president (regardless of who wins) should rule solely by Executive Order. Skip congress all together four four years and be the dictator that each president eventually becomes right at the outset.

What we have as a separation of the executive, legislative, and judical branches is a joke. Rip it up, and let's get to the dirty.

It's gonna happen sooner or later.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top