Why do Republican Leaders cave in to an inner city hustler named Obama?


#1

Isn’t it sickening to every freedom loving patriot that whenever there is a direct confrontation between pinko progressivism and constitutional conservatism, almost all of our Republican “leaders” put their tail between their legs and join the forces of progressive tyranny?

Look how they have buckled under Obamacare. Why are our Republican Governors not back in court and demanding Roberts to identify the specific tax in our Constitution [impost, duty, excise, or a direct tax] which may be used to punish a citizen of Florida, or any State, for not having health insurance? Why are they not demanding Roberts, our latest progressive tyrant on our Supreme Court, to identify that power in the Constitution under which Congress may enter a state and interfere with a person’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care needs?

And why are our Republican Governors not demanding Roberts to tell the American People when they have actually debated granting Congress the intrusive powers of Obamacare, and then authorized the granting of such powers under our Constitution’s amendment process which requires consent of the governed and requires ratification by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof?

No Mr. Speaker of the House Boehner! Obamacare is not the “law of the land” as you have ASSERTED. Our Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and only those laws made in “Pursuance thereof” are “the law of the land“. Are you really suggesting Obamacare has been made in pursuance of our Constitution, and particularly its Tenth Amendment?

It is absolutely amazing how the people in Egypt have in the last few days risen up in a massive protest to a leader assuming powers not granted, while here in America the people allow themselves to be enslaved by a federal government which ignores our Constitution and constantly assumes powers not granted. How sad that the American People are willing to surrender their constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government to progressive tyrants without a shot being fired.

JWK

***Obamacare by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court’s majority vote ***


#2

Yes. Obamacare is now constitutional under the law. Your opinion about what the law should be doesn’t matter unless you are trying to get it repealed. Romney was going to get it repealed and if the majority of Americans wanted it repealed than Romney would have won.

The difference between us and Egypt is that we are civilized and we have civilized ways of repealing laws. To suggest an uprising over the legal implementation of a law is silly.


#3

My “opinion about what the law should be”? I believe there is a universal consensus in America that all laws must be made in pursuance of our Constitution. Is that not what our Constitution declares in crystal clear language?

As to an uprising which you mentioned and have not defined, do you consider our founding fathers to have been silly in taking a stand against tyranny?

JWK

Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party’s leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.


#4
  1. Yes and the Supreme Court Ruled that Obamacare is constitutional weather you or I like it or not. People don’t like to pay taxes but there is no uprising against them. Even though they are raised every year.

  2. Again Tyranny is an opinion and the founders had a very specific charter that they formed, as a reason to rise up against England. It wasn’t just ONE thing. However, there exists no charter today in the United States. Just a bunch of people complaining about random laws instead of actually trying to do something about it. Point is take your revolution stuff outa here because there isn’t going to be one. OWS was the closest thing to a revolution that we have had, and they were on the wrong side of the fence


#5

Wrong. The Supreme Court issued a number of opinions, and the Roberts’ opinion never identified what specific tax [impost, duty, excise, or a direct tax] is resorted to and allows Congress to punish a citizen of Florida, or any State, for not having health insurance. Additionally, the Roberts’ opinion never identified that power in the Constitution under which Congress may enter a state and interfere with a person’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care needs. The Roberts’ opinion did however confirm that Congress’ power to regulate commerce does not allow the enforcement of Obamacares’ individual mandate. And without these questions being answered by the Court, the opinion is not grounded within the four walls of our Constitution.

Your mention of “revolution” is your own exaggeration. As to a charter, what exists my friend is a written Constitution with defined and limited powers having been granted to Congress, and the assumption and exercising of powers not granted by our federal government is an act of tyranny. And just for the record, a summary of Congress’ constitutionally granted powers are found in Federalist No 45:

***“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.***

JWK

*America we have a problem! We have a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government which is now replaced with a 12 member committee vested with power to make law; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the taking of private property for purposes other than “public use”; the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas, to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives! *


#6
  1. The Supreme Court ruled that obamacare is constitutional. That means that it is law! Businesses and politicians will fight it for years, but unless a republican president/congress works very hard to repeal all of it, then it isn’t going anywhere. I’m sorry but that is the reality. John Boehner a seasoned republican politician is right. You an internet poster is wrong.

  2. You clearly advocated for a revolution/uprising here.

It is absolutely amazing how the people in Egypt have in the last few days risen up in a massive protest to a leader assuming powers not granted, while here in America the people allow themselves to be enslaved by a federal government which ignores our Constitution and constantly assumes powers not granted. How sad that the American People are willing to surrender their constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government to progressive tyrants without a shot being fired.

Otherwise I have no idea why you would write that. Furthermore, I have no idea why you are seemingly shouting various republican/libertarian talking points as if we don’t know what’s going on as well. The reason we are on this forum is to discuss politics. Yes. Obamacare and all the other stuff you mentioned is bad. But short of a revolution/uprising you aren’t really offering any solutions to the problem that you apparently are REALLY passionate about.

  1. Funny how you don’t seem to know that the charter I was talking about is the Declaration of Independence. In it, there are a list of demands and complaints against King George III. He did not comply with our demands and so we united and went to war against England. No, such official list of demands and complaints against our gov’t exists today. This means that the people generally like living in the USA.

#7

The Federalist Papers are not in the constitution. They were separate and only had some influence in its creation.


#8

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:7, topic:37256”]
The Federalist Papers are not in the constitution. They were separate and only had some influence in its creation.
[/quote]What part of the Constitution makes Obamacare Constitutional, and what in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide?


#9

article III Sections I and II:

I:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

II:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Guess you guys didn’t read these parts huh?


#10

Nothing about judicial review. There was no judicial review until the 4th SCOTUS Chief Justice, John Marshall, invented it for himself.


#11

And just where in there did it give Roberts the power to make changes in the law so it could be Constitutional even though he made it Unconstitutional by allowing a tax to start on a bill from the Senate?


#12

you asked what gives the supreme court the power to decide laws in the constitution. It’s in the constitution weather you like it or not.


#13

Am I correct in believing you do not support time honored rules which govern the procedures under which the court determines what is and what is not constitutional? The most important of these rules being summarized as follows:

***The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.***— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

And with reference to your comment concerning the Federalists Papers, I suggest you see:

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

Par. 88–Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

JWK

***Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. ***


#14

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:12, topic:37256”]
you asked what gives the supreme court the power to decide laws in the constitution. It’s in the constitution weather you like it or not.
[/quote]No answer. Fine.


#15

If it was unconstitutional it would be unconstitutional right now and would not be being implemented as we speak. The sad reality is it’s not the case. I wasn’t there and I cannot read John Roberts’ brain but going back and forth with this again is really pointless because as I said, right now Obamacare is being implemented.


#16

I gave you your answer, you just didn’t understand it or didn’t read it.


#17

I am honoring it, by admitting that the Supreme Court is correct and always correct when they come to a decision that is it! That is the final say! We can elect people who will fight against it later, but as of right now it is constitutional. Furthermore there have been no evidence to come forward to suggest that Robert’s decision was political in anyway. If there was, there would have been an investigation. But it didn’t even get that far and society has moved on. Even Mitt Romney and other republican leaders like some parts of ObamaCare (though we all don’t have to agree with them).

The only ones who are politicizing this are the far right wingers who apparently still can’t believe that this country is now a center-left country.


#18

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:16, topic:37256”]
I gave you your answer, you just didn’t understand it or didn’t read it.
[/quote]You copy and pasted the Constitution. The Constitution sys nothing about judicial review.


#19

How dare you remind the poster that our Chief Justice arbitrarily decided Obamacare is a tax, and went on to ignore that part of our Constitution which declares that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives“ a provision thus violated.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Stuff Party, which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the incomes which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.


#20

You’ll have that when posters ignore the obvious. It is, was and always be Unconstitutional whether he wants to admit it or not.