Goldtalk Forum  

Go Back   Goldtalk Forum > News and Politics > Politics
Portal FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-06-2012, 5:51 AM
johnwk johnwk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,561
johnwk has a spectacular aura aboutjohnwk has a spectacular aura aboutjohnwk has a spectacular aura about
Exclamation President Obama, answer the freaken question!

Was our Supreme Court joking when it said . . .


State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress? See, Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824


And how about Justice Barbour, was he joking when confirming the various united State’s retained authority over the subject of health laws when he referenced the above case in New York v. Miln, 1837, and stated: "Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass."


And was our Supreme Court lying almost 100 years later when emphatically declaring, “Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” _ Linder v. United States, 1925


Come now Mr. President, surely you must know our founding fathers were in total harmony when delegating a limited number of powers to Congress which are eloquently articulated 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.


Tell us Mr. President, were you not taught in law school that the above expressed intentions were given legal force and effect when the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to our Constitution were adopted by the various United States?


And were you also asleep in class Mr. President when your law professor cited our Supreme Court which confirmed our federal government’s powers are tethered to a written Constitution that delegates defined and limited powers? The Court stated:


“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.


Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.


If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.


Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”
____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


Seems to me Mr. President you want the Supreme Court giving deference to a legislative act rather than our Constitution, in spite of its members having taken an oath to support “this Constitution”. Were you not taught in law school that a legislative act which impinges upon a fundamental right, which certainly would include the right of an individual to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care needs, are presumptively unconstitutional, and the burden of proof is upon those who propose the law?



But aside from that, Mr. President, I have a fundamental question which you ought to be able to answer. When have the American People debated granting power to Congress to enter their States and tax for, spend on and regulate their health care needs and choices, and then, as required under Article V of our Constitution, given their consent to such power by a three fourths approval of the Legislatures of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof? I dare say Mr. President, the answer is never! As a matter of fact Mr. President, a majority of the States have officially rejected your despotic proposed health insurance plan by filing suite against it in our Courts, and, a majority of the American People, as almost every poll has established, likewise reject the adoption and enforcement of your “Obamacare”. So tell us Mr. President, how does Obamacare gain constitutional legitimacy when consent of the governed has not, and cannot at this time be obtained as outlined under Article V of our Constitution?


JWK



Federal health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-07-2012, 12:22 PM
BRamey BRamey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 4,373
BRamey is a jewel in the roughBRamey is a jewel in the roughBRamey is a jewel in the roughBRamey is a jewel in the rough
Default

I think people would be shocked(well, I wouldn't) to know how little Obama really knows about the law and really anything involved with our Constitution. He has been a career mouthpiece for liberal causes which doesn't require advanced knowledge about those things.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-07-2012, 9:39 PM
Rifleman's Avatar
Rifleman Rifleman is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,989
Rifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to allRifleman is a name known to all
Default

Our President is the equivalent of a giant "sock puppet" with George Soros' hand up his back making him say leftist things about the Constitution.
__________________
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Obama simply wants to be the one wearing the "boot".
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-07-2012, 10:16 PM
jtdc jtdc is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 14,789
jtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to beholdjtdc is a splendid one to behold
Default

Obama Administration Drops Legal Defense of Marriage Act - ABC ...

Quote:
President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 banned federal recognition of same-sex unions.
As the first black president admonishes SCOTUS that it would be against precedent to overturn the mono-partisan Obamacare law duly enacted by elected representatives, he wants the courts to overturn the DOMA law which was passed by a bi-partisan "substantial" majority of representatives. He is just plain corrupt!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-28-2012, 3:51 PM
johnwk johnwk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,561
johnwk has a spectacular aura aboutjohnwk has a spectacular aura aboutjohnwk has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtdc View Post
Obama Administration Drops Legal Defense of Marriage Act - ABC ...



As the first black president admonishes SCOTUS that it would be against precedent to overturn the mono-partisan Obamacare law duly enacted by elected representatives, he wants the courts to overturn the DOMA law which was passed by a bi-partisan "substantial" majority of representatives. He is just plain corrupt!

Corrupt or a tyrant?


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

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:42 PM..


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2007, Goldtalk