Whovian
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,153
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- dimensionally transcendental
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
He said the Florida judge's ruling is the law of the land, as it pertains to Alaska, barring implementation of the federal law here. He said the state will pursue options of its own instead.
He said the state will pursue options of its own instead.
Alaska needs to bring the case to the State Supreme Court, if they want to be excluded. Just "saying it" doesn't help.Alaska now refusing Obamacar
The President's proposed cuts and the Congressional Republican proposed cuts are for the exact same amount: about a trillion dollars.Congressional Republicans threatening to shut down the government if cuts to the 2012 budget isn't enacted.
As of today, the Florida ruling is the ruling for the United States. Until a higher court over turns the Florida ruling, another court case, the way I understand it, is not needed. If you have different facts, please post the links.Alaska needs to bring the case to the State Supreme Court, if they want to be excluded. Just "saying it" doesn't help.
The SCOTUS does not have to rule, they can punt, in which case the lower courts ruling stands.Either Congress repeals it and the President signs, or the U.S. Supreme Court repeals it or every State repeals it in State Supreme Court. The same issue is happening with DOMA, because it violates the 14th Amendment and takes away State power to define legal, civil marriage.
The Presidents cuts are over a 10 year period, of which the debt would increase by 13 Trillion dollars (per his 2012 budget). Save 1 Trillion to increase national debt to 13 Trillion doesn't seem very good. The Congressional Republicans have not proposed a budget yet, and will in March 2011 for the 2012 Budget.The President's proposed cuts and the Congressional Republican proposed cuts are for the exact same amount: about a trillion dollars.
So, I think Republican's are just playing games with the voters.
If they want to be excluded, then I think they need to have a concrete plan that is as good as or better than the federal one.
If they want to be excluded, then I think they need to have a concrete plan that is as good as or better than the federal one.
They're not "just saying" anything. Until there's Supreme Court review, the state of the law right now is that it's been ruled unconstitutional. Why should Alaska, or any state, be enforcing an unconstitutional law?Alaska needs to bring the case to the State Supreme Court, if they want to be excluded. Just "saying it" doesn't help.
Because I see access to basic medical care for all people that live in a country as a fundamental responsibility of the state.Why?
Seriously, why do they need a Gov't run plan for Medical care?
And I see it as a responsibility of the individual. Did I just make your head explode? Regardless, we cannot enforce unconstitutional laws just because they mean well. The good intent behind this or any law is irrelevant.Because I see access to basic medical care for all people that live in a country as a fundamental responsibility of the state.
It's obvious that our prior system of healthcare is unworkable. I dont think anyone can effectively argue that the healthcare system we had prior to any sort of reform was in any way acceptable.And I see it as a responsibility of the individual. Did I just make your head explode? Regardless, we cannot enforce unconstitutional laws just because they mean well. The good intent behind this or any law is irrelevant.
Actually it was acceptable to about 80% of the US.It's obvious that our prior system of healthcare is unworkable. I dont think anyone can effectively argue that the healthcare system we had prior to any sort of reform was in any way acceptable.
How glibly you state that, as if blowing off the Constitution is no big deal.We may need to consider making exceptions for the greater good. Stubbornly clinging to a broken system because our laws are not flexible enough is not acceptable.
As costs rose, that number was shrinking rapidly. Additionally, the economic impact of having tons of medical debt around the working poor is pretty serious. People dont spend money when they're fighting off thousands of dollars of un-preventable debt.Actually it was acceptable to about 80% of the US.
I'm sorry to burn your toast, but the Constitution is a piece of paper, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a holy relic, it is not the word of a divine being, it was not given to us as a holy charter. Like any other document that details instructions, it should be followed until it has been found at serious fault. If it has been found at serious fault, it should be changed. If it cannot be changed, then it should be discarded.How glibly you state that, as if blowing off the Constitution is no big deal.
As costs rose, that number was shrinking rapidly. Additionally, the economic impact of having tons of medical debt around the working poor is pretty serious. People dont spend money when they're fighting off thousands of dollars of un-preventable debt.
I'm sorry to burn your toast, but the Constitution is a piece of paper, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a holy relic, it is not the word of a divine being, it was not given to us as a holy charter. Like any other document that details instructions, it should be followed until it has been found at serious fault. If it has been found at serious fault, it should be changed. If it cannot be changed, then it should be discarded.
Tradition is not an acceptable excuse for staying on a sinking ship.
It makes a certain sort of sense, though, doesn't it? Although, it does "burn my toast" some, I give Hoplite credit for honesty.The constitution is what has put the good in this country. The "piece of paper" you are referring to has given you your rights and freedoms. It kinda funny when the constitution is only working in "your favor" but when you see fault it must be discarded.
Erm...that...was my whole point. If something works, great, keep it. Once it STOPS working, then we need something else.The constitution is what has put the good in this country. The "piece of paper" you are referring to has given you your rights and freedoms. It kinda funny when the constitution is only working in "your favor" but when you see fault it must be discarded.
Erm...that...was my whole point. If something works, great, keep it. Once it STOPS working, then we need something else.
There is no reason we cant have something that outlines our rights AND makes provisions for the welfare of the citizenry.
Of course, I disagree with you that it has "stopped working". Peach's point, I believe, is that, if it wasn't for the Constitution, we wouldn't even have a country where the standard of living is so high for everybody. To me, it seems it's you who want to get away from what obviously works.Erm...that...was my whole point. If something works, great, keep it. Once it STOPS working, then we need something else.
There is no reason we cant have something that outlines our rights AND makes provisions for the welfare of the citizenry.
Of course, I disagree with you that it has "stopped working". Peach's point, I believe, is that, if it wasn't for the Constitution, we wouldn't even have a country where the standard of living is so high for everybody. To me, it seems it's you who want to get away from what obviously works.
Whatever it is they think is best for everybody else.But if they're getting away from the Constitution, it's in favor of what to replace it?
I'd say that if the constitution is preventing the state from providing the basic necessities to those that need them but cannot access them, then it isnt working.Thats the thing, no one is ever going to elect to get rid of the constitution. It doesn't have to favor your opinion for it to be working.
Ok, I know low-standards is great for feeling accomplished, but let's focus on something a little more productive. If your only standard for success or failure is anarchy, I dont think we can really have a conversation on this point.Of course, I disagree with you that it has "stopped working". Peach's point, I believe, is that, if it wasn't for the Constitution, we wouldn't even have a country where the standard of living is so high for everybody. To me, it seems it's you who want to get away from what obviously works.
If they want to be excluded, then I think they need to have a concrete plan that is as good as or better than the federal one.
That would be easier than picking up dirt in a garden as Obama's HCR SUCKS.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.That would be easier than picking up dirt in a garden as Obama's HCR SUCKS.
As costs rose, that number was shrinking rapidly. Additionally, the economic impact of having tons of medical debt around the working poor is pretty serious. People dont spend money when they're fighting off thousands of dollars of un-preventable debt.
I'm sorry to burn your toast, but the Constitution is a piece of paper, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a holy relic, it is not the word of a divine being, it was not given to us as a holy charter. Like any other document that details instructions, it should be followed until it has been found at serious fault. If it has been found at serious fault, it should be changed. If it cannot be changed, then it should be discarded.
Tradition is not an acceptable excuse for staying on a sinking ship.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?