The King Issues a new Edict (Representatives, death, crime, state)

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by rikoshaprl

Gay,gay,gay,gay,gay. That's all some people can think about. BTW there are more families looking to adopt babies than there are babies.

Well damn!!! Get the assembly line movin'!!!

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by rikoshaprl

There are plenty of ways to have sex and not get pregnant. Even the Catholic Church approves of some methods of birth control.

What other than the Rhythm Method and Pulling out? (Both of which are documented as unreliable at best).

[Little-Acorn]

Apparently a little while ago the Obama admin announced that health care providers would have to provide free contraceptives etc. for women who wanted them. This didn't go over well with some, particularly hospitals etc. run by Catholic churches, who have always disapproved of contraception, morning-after pills etc.

So today I heard Obama go on the air and announce that he had changed his mind: now insurance companies, not hospitals (at least Catholic ones) would be required to pay for the contraceptives.

I had to do a double-take.

Could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

---------------------------

I just caught a little bit of the announcement, and maybe I'm missing something here (wouldn't be the first time :-/ )

But suppose that, instead of announcing that insurance companies had to pay for them, what if he had anounced instead that Little-Acorn, that guy with the computer in San Diego, had to pay for them?

Would I have no alternative? I would have to pay for them?

What's the difference between Obama ordering insurance companies to pay, and Obama ordering private individual(s) to pay?

If Congress, in its legislative majesty, had written up, discussed, and passed a bill saying XXX company (or Little-Acorn) had to pay. They vote on it, pass it, and send it to the President, who signs it.

Isn't that called a Bill of Attainder? Which is flatly banned in the Constitution?

----------------------------

As far as I know, Congress can't do that. So how on Earth can one man (the President) do it? Just order some person or group to pay for something?

I can see where a King might have the power to do that, in countries that have Kings.

Do we have one?

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

actually, I am against giving money to faith based as well. I am against anything the goverment is doing if it is outside its enumerated powers.

I am neither democrat nor republican, but have been called both by just about everyone on the board, 1 calling me a con, and another calling me a lib. I am neither, I am just a Libertarian.

That's cool... I was kind of getting that impression that you were a strict constructionalist (Which neither party can really lay claim to).

I actually come off as MUCH more liberal than I am, but that's more a matter of shaking my head over some of the incredibly inflammatory rhetoric that's getting thrown at the sitting President. I actually defended Bush on many points back in the day (Though I still think he was terrible.... He didnt' deserve a lot of the bashing that he received from the left).

Like to think of myself as an "issue" person more than a "party" person. Just so happens that most of my positions lean left at this point in time..

[lifelongMOgal]

shell game, nothing to look at here folks...........

Clue: the pea isn't under any of the shells.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

shell game, nothing to look at here folks...........

Clue: the pea isn't under any of the shells.

I agree.

It wasn't a war on religion, as many have said, that simply fits into a narrative that wingnuts believe.

It does have to do with a huge increase in federal powers, which I am in disagreement with.

For the liberals here, think of what kind of powers this would give a Republican President......

[Rhett_Butler]

Maybe we should try for 5 or 6 threads going simultaneously on the same topic?

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler

Maybe we should try for 5 or 6 threads going simultaneously on the same topic?

Mods should really make a sticky on this. Without the inflamed titles.

[rikoshaprl]

This thread is not really about the Catholic issues, it is about the constitutional issues.

[60sfemi]

Originally Posted by rikoshaprl

Gay,gay,gay,gay,gay. That's all some people can think about. BTW there are more families looking to adopt babies than there are babies.

therin lies the real problem. Families unable to have children want those baby manufacturers to still be available to them so they can have babies. But now contraception and abortion are available so they now need to find a way to make it illegal again.