OT: Some Constitutional trivia

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]
Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Obama’s Health Care law is basically a Republican plan.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/obamas-moderate-health-care-plan

Republicans who oppose health care reform really ought to self-examine to see why they are so viscerally opposed to anything Obama comes up with, even when he embraces Republican ideas.[/quote]

And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?

You consistently think conservatives are republicans.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Republicans who oppose health care reform really ought to self-examine to see why they are so viscerally opposed to anything Obama comes up with, even when he embraces Republican ideas.[/quote]

Because the conservative base rejected it, that’s why. And because many Americans rose up at those town hall meetings and were obviously very against it.

Republicans were voted out of office during Bush’s tenure because many conservatives and independents were not happy with the spending. Many Republicans at the time were becoming “Democrats-lite”. This was not welcomed.

Even if the health care reform plan contained many republican ideas, consider that many Americans, especially conservatives and independents, never believed the two promises made in the plan:

1. Plan would lower costs
2. Plan would let you keep your current plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-doubts-health-care-law-hold-costs/

Because of the Tea Party, the Republicans are now being held responsible to their primary principles: smaller government, less debt/spending, and lower taxes. If the Republicans go back on these principles, the Tea Party and many independents will start creating a third party that would mean the destruction of the Republican party.

Brian, it might help if you don’t fall so much into the “Republican/Democrat” labeling trap.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Republicans who oppose health care reform really ought to self-examine to see why they are so viscerally opposed to anything Obama comes up with, even when he embraces Republican ideas.[/quote]

Because the conservative base rejected it, that’s why. And because many Americans rose up at those town hall meetings and were obviously very against it.

Republicans were voted out of office during Bush’s tenure because many conservatives and independents were not happy with the spending. Many Republicans at the time were becoming “Democrats-lite”. This was not welcomed.

Even if the health care reform plan contained many republican ideas, consider that many Americans, especially conservatives and independents, never believed the two promises made in the plan:

1. Plan would lower costs
2. Plan would let you keep your current plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-doubts-health-care-law-hold-costs/

Because of the Tea Party, the Republicans are now being held responsible to their primary principles: smaller government, less debt/spending, and lower taxes. If the Republicans go back on these principles, the Tea Party and many independents will start creating a third party that would mean the destruction of the Republican party.

Brian, it might help if you don’t fall so much into the “Republican/Democrat” labeling trap.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Republicans who oppose health care reform really ought to self-examine to see why they are so viscerally opposed to anything Obama comes up with, even when he embraces Republican ideas.[/quote]

Because the conservative base rejected it, that’s why. And because many Americans rose up at those town hall meetings and were obviously very against it.

Republicans were voted out of office during Bush’s tenure because many conservatives and independents were not happy with the spending. Many Republicans at the time were becoming “Democrats-lite”. This was not welcomed.

Even if the health care reform plan contained many republican ideas, consider that many Americans, especially conservatives and independents, never believed the two promises made in the plan:

1. Plan would lower costs
2. Plan would let you keep your current plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-doubts-health-care-law-hold-costs/

Because of the Tea Party, the Republicans are now being held responsible to their primary principles: smaller government, less debt/spending, and lower taxes. If the Republicans go back on these principles, the Tea Party and many independents will start creating a third party that would mean the destruction of the Republican party.

Brian, it might help if you don’t fall so much into the “Republican/Democrat” labeling trap.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Republicans who oppose health care reform really ought to self-examine to see why they are so viscerally opposed to anything Obama comes up with, even when he embraces Republican ideas.[/quote]

Because the conservative base rejected it, that’s why. And because many Americans rose up at those town hall meetings and were obviously very against it.

Republicans were voted out of office during Bush’s tenure because many conservatives and independents were not happy with the spending. Many Republicans at the time were becoming “Democrats-lite”. This was not welcomed.

Even if the health care reform plan contained many republican ideas, consider that many Americans, especially conservatives and independents, never believed the two promises made in the plan:

1. Plan would lower costs
2. Plan would let you keep your current plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-doubts-health-care-law-hold-costs/

Because of the Tea Party, the Republicans are now being held responsible to their primary principles: smaller government, less debt/spending, and lower taxes. If the Republicans go back on these principles, the Tea Party and many independents will start creating a third party that would mean the destruction of the Republican party.

Brian, it might help if you don’t fall so much into the “Republican/Democrat” labeling trap.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Republicans who oppose health care reform really ought to self-examine to see why they are so viscerally opposed to anything Obama comes up with, even when he embraces Republican ideas.[/quote]

Because the conservative base rejected it, that’s why. And because many Americans rose up at those town hall meetings and were obviously very against it.

Republicans were voted out of office during Bush’s tenure because many conservatives and independents were not happy with the spending. Many Republicans at the time were becoming “Democrats-lite”. This was not welcomed.

Even if the health care reform plan contained many republican ideas, consider that many Americans, especially conservatives and independents, never believed the two promises made in the plan:

1. Plan would lower costs
2. Plan would let you keep your current plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-doubts-health-care-law-hold-costs/

Because of the Tea Party, the Republicans are now being held responsible to their primary principles: smaller government, less debt/spending, and lower taxes. If the Republicans go back on these principles, the Tea Party and many independents will start creating a third party that would mean the destruction of the Republican party.

Brian, it might help if you don’t fall so much into the “Republican/Democrat” labeling trap.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[Anonymous]

Cartman,

Can you point out the part of the Constitution that says a district judge has the power to overrule the President and the Congress?

I’ve been studying all night between bong hits and I just can’t seem to find it.

This is in the Constitution, right? Or are you saying that there are rules that are not in the Constitution?

Anyway, just gimme the Article and Section.

And the part where Obama says he’ll ignore any Supreme Court ruling….when exactly did he say that?

Or are you jus’ messing with me dude?

Jus’ makin’ stuff up?

[Anonymous]

Cartman,

Can you point out the part of the Constitution that says a district judge has the power to overrule the President and the Congress?

I’ve been studying all night between bong hits and I just can’t seem to find it.

This is in the Constitution, right? Or are you saying that there are rules that are not in the Constitution?

Anyway, just gimme the Article and Section.

And the part where Obama says he’ll ignore any Supreme Court ruling….when exactly did he say that?

Or are you jus’ messing with me dude?

Jus’ makin’ stuff up?

[Anonymous]

Cartman,

Can you point out the part of the Constitution that says a district judge has the power to overrule the President and the Congress?

I’ve been studying all night between bong hits and I just can’t seem to find it.

This is in the Constitution, right? Or are you saying that there are rules that are not in the Constitution?

Anyway, just gimme the Article and Section.

And the part where Obama says he’ll ignore any Supreme Court ruling….when exactly did he say that?

Or are you jus’ messing with me dude?

Jus’ makin’ stuff up?

[Anonymous]

Cartman,

Can you point out the part of the Constitution that says a district judge has the power to overrule the President and the Congress?

I’ve been studying all night between bong hits and I just can’t seem to find it.

This is in the Constitution, right? Or are you saying that there are rules that are not in the Constitution?

Anyway, just gimme the Article and Section.

And the part where Obama says he’ll ignore any Supreme Court ruling….when exactly did he say that?

Or are you jus’ messing with me dude?

Jus’ makin’ stuff up?

[Author]

Posts