Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some Colorado legal experts doubt that a lawsuit against the newly passed health care overhaul bill by several states will stand much of a chance in the courts.
But the courts have long sided with the federal government in cases involving the Constitution's commerce clause.
"Let me put it this way, this is going to be a hard argument for the attorneys general to make," says Professor Robert Nagel, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Yep.. clearly bipartisan.. Joined by how many Democrats?
This all sounds like deflection to me. It's entirely conceivable that the united front against the bill from republicans is also an example of partisan grandstanding. Health Care Reform has been attempted before and it failed before. There has to be some reason, though, why it's so often so inaccurately represented to the public by republicans. Political motivations for trying to rile the public up against the bill would easily explain that. It's ironic, as well, that representatives are less likely to take seriously objections which are completely unrelated to what's being proposed. But if people keep taking seriously the misrepresentations they'll feel ignored by their representatives and get resentful. This could only benefit the people who are doing all of the misrepresenting. So it's certainly possible that even the dissent and opposition is little more than partisan grandstanding. Of course I'm sure there's more to it than that, but I doubt that the opposition for the reform bills don't have their partisan motivations.
This should be fun it obamacare passes - hopefully there will be an injunction on the legislation and tied up in the courts for a while.
I don't think I've ever witnessed the public and individual states so opposed to legislation proposed by the WH and Congress. This is truly unprecedented.
CNSNews.com - Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation to File Immediate Constitutional Challenge If House Dems Try to Pass Health-Care Without Actually Voting on It (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62939 - broken link)
I think it would be just grand if the states and individuals said "up yours" to the federal government and refused to comply with their unconstitutional laws.
I have read the entire thread and what stands out is that conservatives want the government out of their private business and the liberals want government intrusion. Who would have thunk it.
What is most amazing is that everyone thinks their opinions and the sources they quote are the correct interpretations while the opposite opinions are wrong. What only matters is if it gets to the Supreme Court and what they rule.
I would really like to see the Supreme Court rule in favor of the 38 states, not because I care about the future of the bill one way or another. What I really want to see is the complete melt down by the Democrats and what may happen in the aftermath. It could very likely have disastrous results that would be very entertaining to watch. Would there be rioting in DC? Would we see the biggest battle between government branches ever? Would we see liberals demanding the Supreme Court Justices be asked/forced to resign? The possibilities are endless as would be the entertainment value. This would be incredible. We could see the politcal climate change forever in DC.
The law will stand, except possibly for the Individual Mandate. It would be great to see that struck down after the Insurance companies have poured tens of millions into this fight, to see the only part they want struck down. Poetic justice
I have read the entire thread and what stands out is that conservatives want the government out of their private business and the liberals want government intrusion. Who would have thunk it.
What is most amazing is that everyone thinks their opinions and the sources they quote are the correct interpretations while the opposite opinions are wrong. What only matters is if it gets to the Supreme Court and what they rule.
I would really like to see the Supreme Court rule in favor of the 38 states, not because I care about the future of the bill one way or another. What I really want to see is the complete melt down by the Democrats and what may happen in the aftermath. It could very likely have disastrous results that would be very entertaining to watch. Would there be rioting in DC? Would we see the biggest battle between government branches ever? Would we see liberals demanding the Supreme Court Justices be asked/forced to resign? The possibilities are endless as would be the entertainment value. This would be incredible. We could see the politcal climate change forever in DC.
Meltdowns? Like the ones being experienced by the GOP right now?
I never proclaimed that one does NOT need to list laws being violated when filing a lawsuit. I said they ALSO file case law and previous court decisions IN THAT lawsuit.. Lets review my quote shall we?
IMO, If the plaintiff can't substantiate the allegation (such as a violation of the constitution) further arguements generally wouldn't be heard and the defense would likely request dismissal if the judge hasn't already dismissed the case.There isn't any need to establish case relativity as the case would then be dismissed--closed--done. The plaintiff can refile upon other grounds if he still has the hunger--and the assets. All of the above is contingent on the court hearing the case at all.
BTW who said the constitution is just a GD piece of paper?
Odd that it should be YOU standing on the constitution.
IMO, If the plaintiff can't substantiate the allegation (such as a violation of the constitution) further arguements generally wouldn't be heard and the defense would likely request dismissal if the judge hasn't already dismissed the case.There isn't any need to establish case relativity as the case would then be dismissed--closed--done. The plaintiff can refile upon other grounds if he still has the hunger--and the assets. All of the above is contingent on the court hearing the case at all.
I said that.. thanks for playing..
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluskyz
BTW who said the constitution is just a GD piece of paper?
Another liberal who LIED about what Bush claimed to have said. HE DIDNT SAY IT.. Get over yourself and stop repeating the same GD LIES!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluskyz
Odd that it should be YOU standing on the constitution.
Why is that? Because you believe the lies TOLD TO YOU? That sounds like YOUR PROBLEM.. not mine!!!
By the time these suits reach Court Obama will have completed his second term
You got that right. First term as POTUS. Second term in jail. That's how they roll in Illinois.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
