Obama's Violating Oath, Constitution in Implementing Obamacare

[pbrauer]

No surprise. You've already bought into an ideology, which is in disregard of facts and outcome.

Whatever you say. :coffeepap

 

[Master PO]

Obamacare does not violate the constitution.

actually it is unconstitutional for many reasons, however i will chose only one:

when obamcare was submitted to the USSC it was submitted under the commerce clause, and was adjudicated in that way, however, justice Roberts, moved obamacare out from under the commerce clause and put it under the taxing clause, that's illegal, judges dont make laws they only adjudicate them, he had no power to move the law and put it under the tax clause.

 

[pbrauer]

No surprise. You've already bought into an ideology, which is in disregard of facts and outcome.

Out of curiosity were did you get this bull**** story?

 

[Slyfox696]

actually it is unconstitutional for many reasons, however i will chose only one:

when obamcare was submitted to the USSC it was submitted under the commerce clause, and was adjudicated in that way, however, justice Roberts, move obamacare out from under the commerce clause and put it under the taxing clause, however that's illegal, judges dont make laws they only adjudicate them, he had no power to move the law and put it under the tax clause.

That's incorrect. When the lawyers for the administration argued Obamacare, one of the arguments they made was that it was a tax. Yes, I know Democrats/Obama told citizens the individual mandate was not a tax. However, when they argued it before the Supreme Court (as well as lower courts, from what I understand) they did argue the individual mandate could be considered a tax.

 

[Master PO]

That's incorrect. When the lawyers for the administration argued Obamacare, one of the arguments they made was that it was a tax. Yes, I know Democrats/Obama told citizens the individual mandate was not a tax. However, when they argued it before the Supreme Court (as well as lower courts, from what I understand) they did argue the individual mandate could be considered a tax.

yes that's correct, but it was submitted to the court it was under the commerce clause, not the tax clause, in the middle of the arguments, when it looked like obamacare would fail, the government wanted it called a tax.

 

[Slyfox696]

yes that's correct, but it was submitted to the court it was under the commerce clause, not the tax clause, in the middle of the arguments, when it looked like obamacare would fail, the government wanted it called a tax.

I'm pretty sure arguments before the Supreme Court don't work that way. In fact, from what I understand, most legal arguments are not allowed to work that way. If you want to be able to argue a position in court, you have to declare it ahead of time, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not 100% on that. But I do not believe it happened the way you are claiming it did.

 

[Master PO]

I'm pretty sure arguments before the Supreme Court don't work that way. In fact, from what I understand, most legal arguments are not allowed to work that way. If you want to be able to argue a position in court, you have to declare it ahead of time, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not 100% on that. But I do not believe it happened the way you are claiming it did.

i listen to the arguments , that day on the radio, becuase it was a big story, becuase the attorney for the government had done a terrible job that day, and the governments side looked bad that day, they argued over is it a tax or a fine.

however obamacare was submitted under the commerce clause ....not the tax clause.

 

[Slyfox696]

i listen to the arguments , that day on the radio, becuase it was a big story, becuase the attorney for the government had done a terrible job that day, and the governments side looked bad that day, they argued over is it a tax or a fine.

however obamacare was submitted under the commerce clause ....not the tax clause.

While I'm highly suspicious of your statement here, given the bias you've shown in the past, I'm not going to take the time to try and refute it. However, you will understand if I'm a bit leery at trusting your understanding of the Constitutional powers of the Supreme Court instead of the Supreme Court itself.

 

[Master PO]

While I'm highly suspicious of your statement here, given the bias you've shown in the past, I'm not going to take the time to try and refute it. However, you will understand if I'm a bit leery at trusting your understanding of the Constitutional powers of the Supreme Court instead of the Supreme Court itself.

does the court have the power to change law, or adjudicate it only.

 

[Trip]

That's incorrect. When the lawyers for the administration argued Obamacare, one of the arguments they made was that it was a tax. Yes, I know Democrats/Obama told citizens the individual mandate was not a tax. However, when they argued it before the Supreme Court (as well as lower courts, from what I understand) they did argue the individual mandate could be considered a tax.

It being a "tax" or a "penalty" is irrelevant.

This nation's founders were not such fools as to allow conniving men to change the word applied to a thing, to make it legitimate, but the thing itself remains the same. Such would become the tool of tyrants, and already it is precisely why these criminals in Congress could not consistently indicate that it was either a Tax or a Penalty.

In fact there were equal checks set by the founders to prohibit ObamaCare, with those checks still being applicable and prohibiting ObamaCare as both a Tax, and a penalty.



ObamaCare: Tax vs Penalty Irrelevant

 

[Objective Voice]

1) Where is the enumerated power to take over health care and dictate its terms, not to mention take over de facto ownership of each and every American citizen's body, and declare their worth relative to other citizens, and dictate what health care they might, or might not, be entitled to?

2) How do you imagine ObamaCare might be in any way be Constitutional when it abrogates a full 80% of the Bill of Rights, with even more rights to be forfeit at the mere "deeming" of the Secretary of Health and Human Services?

ObamaCare isn't just flagrantly in violation of the Constitution, but it is so obscene that it is real and undeniable cause for Americans to take up arms against this corrupt form of government, so as to restore their freedoms.

There was a time in this country when "Liberal" meant standing up for those unalienable individual rights, and against Big Brother oppressive government, and when that outlook was more than defensible. Now the term "Liberal" is nothing but a lie, in disregard of the Constitution and repeatedly violating those individual rights in support of an ever-expanding big government dictate and intrusion into every aspect of our lives.

I once had respect for "Liberal", even if I did not agree with it, but now there is no means to respect that moniker at all.

:doh Another way over the top hyper-partisan :censored session. Where to begin?....

The Bill of Rights...first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The first one deals with freedom of religion, speech and the press, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition that which you disagree with. The PPACA (aka, ObamaCare) does NOT remove any of these freedoms from the citizenry. For example, you may not like the idea that Catholic organizations can now obtain birth control free of charge through their church insurance provider, but that's not infringing on the Catholic church to preach Catholicism nor for those who practice this religion to worship as they please. The provision in the PPACA simply says to the Catholic church the same thing it says to all other religious faiths, "if you want to use birth control, there it is free of charge from your church's insurance provider". And if you still want to practice the rhythm method, go right ahead. I could go on with the other issues such as freedom of the press, but what's the point of it? Presidents have been steering the news that want issued to the public for as long as there's been a White House press core. Nothing new here. But just so we all understand each other: You can still worship as you please, say pretty much what you want to say short of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room, assemble peacefully to protest any issue you disagree with (or politician for that matter), have a jury of your peers and not have your property (home) entered or seized without a warrant.

No one's come to take your guns away.

No military serviceman has been illegally quartered.

No criminal has been denied legal counsel.

So, what's the problem?

Oh, you're still upset that the Supreme Court ruled the PPACA constitutional under Congress' enumerated taxing power. I'm so sorry. Moreover, it's too bad people have to take responsibility for themselves and get health insurance to ensure their good health should they get sick or injured. That's such a terrible, terrible thing.

As to authority as to who governs ObamaCare, the President didn't give those powers to the Sec, HHS. C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S did that: 1) when the health care reform bill was drafted and subsequently approved. All the President did was sign the bill Congress sent him, thereby making it law. As to him staying certain provisions of the law, that's a far cry different from him arbitrarily refusing to carry out a provision of the law. He can delay implementation; he just can't change the law at-will.

 

[windowdressing]

By Terry Jeffrey
July 10, 2013


The Constitution requires the president to take an oath or affirmation that says: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II, Section 3 says, "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

In his unequal and discriminatory implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), President Barack Obama is now violating both his constitutional oath of office and his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

The Obamacare law mandates that individuals must maintain health-insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents or pay a penalty. Similarly, it requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide those workers with health-insurance coverage or pay a penalty.

The separate sections of the law spelling out these two mandates conclude with identical language: "The amendments made by this section shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013."

For Obama to fulfill his constitutional oath of office and faithfully execute the Obamacare law, he would need to take care that his administration enforced this statutory Dec. 31, 2013, health-insurance deadline on both individuals and employers.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Obama's Violating Oath, Constitution in Implementing Obamacare - Terry Jeffrey - Page full

There is no doubt that Obama President Obama has overstepped and over reached his authority on many occasions both in his first term and now at the beginning of his second term of office. His promise to transform American is being kept. But at what cost to American Freedom and Liberty.

werewolf, hadn't seen you in a while ... I see you're still up to your usual silliness ... trip seems to have followed suit ... IMPEACH THE CANADIAN!!!! Oh, sorry, I got him confused with someone else ... IMPEACH THE HAWAIIAN!!!! Ooops, blew it again. O.K. ... here goes ... IMPEACH THE KENYAN MUSLIM COMMUNIST!

 

[Objective Voice]

actually it is unconstitutional for many reasons, however i will chose only one:

when obamcare was submitted to the USSC it was submitted under the commerce clause, and was adjudicated in that way, however, justice Roberts, moved obamacare out from under the commerce clause and put it under the taxing clause, that's illegal, judges dont make laws they only adjudicate them, he had no power to move the law and put it under the tax clause.

Now, that I'll buy! Still, I wonder why Congress hasn't tried to repeal the law under those circumstances? Instead, most of the 40 House repeal votes have come under reason of appropriations (cost).

 

[EdwinWillers]

What blows my mind is that it doesn't seem to matter how much people point out these blatantly obvious violations, nothing is really being done but a bunch of talking.

Why isn't he being impeached???

For the very simple reason that we are now a nation with an overabundance of ill-informed, uneducated (but certainly not un-indoctrinated) voters who couldn't tell the difference between an impeachable offense and a chain link fence.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Obamacare does not violate the constitution.

Yes, it most certainly does.

 

[Knowledge=power]

For the very simple reason that we are now a nation with an overabundance of ill-informed, uneducated (but certainly not un-indoctrinated) voters who couldn't tell the difference between an impeachable offense and a chain link fence.

Well said, my friend.

 

[keith]

The fact is our whole welfare state is a gross violation of the Constitution.

 

[Wiseone]

Well, this ignores the fact that ObamaCare is undeniably in gross violation of the Constitution, having abrogated a full 80% of the Bill of Rights, as well as direct prohibitons to Congress, such as direct taxation, and bills of attainder.

By this fact, 5 of the Nine members of the Court must be impeached as well, not to mention every member of the Congress that voted for this obscenity. Furthermore, an independent counsel must be appointed to investigate any corruption involved in Roberts' last minute flip-vote on ObamaCare, after having written a will 70% of what became the minority opinion entirely rejecting ObamaCare.

You cannot simply reference support of the Constitution, and then ignore the vast expanse of that Constitution violated by ObamaCare to only target the Commander-n-Thief.

Reference: Declaration of ObamaCare to be Null & Void

80% of the Bill of Rights so 8 out of the 10 amendments? Could you perhaps explain why you say that a little further please???

 

[davidtaylorjr]

By Terry Jeffrey
July 10, 2013


The Constitution requires the president to take an oath or affirmation that says: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II, Section 3 says, "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

In his unequal and discriminatory implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), President Barack Obama is now violating both his constitutional oath of office and his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

The Obamacare law mandates that individuals must maintain health-insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents or pay a penalty. Similarly, it requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide those workers with health-insurance coverage or pay a penalty.

The separate sections of the law spelling out these two mandates conclude with identical language: "The amendments made by this section shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013."

For Obama to fulfill his constitutional oath of office and faithfully execute the Obamacare law, he would need to take care that his administration enforced this statutory Dec. 31, 2013, health-insurance deadline on both individuals and employers.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Obama's Violating Oath, Constitution in Implementing Obamacare - Terry Jeffrey - Page full

There is no doubt that Obama President Obama has overstepped and over reached his authority on many occasions both in his first term and now at the beginning of his second term of office. His promise to transform American is being kept. But at what cost to American Freedom and Liberty.

:caution: :alert you are speaking truth!

 

[rocket88]

Before Obama, no President ever expanded federal power!

 

[calamity]

For blatantly violating the constitution.

Really?


Didn't SCOTUS recently rule and find OBCare to be constitutional?

 

[calamity]

Before Obama, no President ever expanded federal power!

It only matters when the Pres is a Democrat...and, it's made far far worse when he happens to be a Black man who was born in Kenya /s

 

[Comunitee]

The fact is our whole welfare state is a gross violation of the Constitution.

That is not a fact, it is your opinion. And one that the facts do not support.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States... "

 

[Comunitee]

It only matters when the Pres is a Democrat...and, it's made far far worse when he happens to be a Black man who was born in Kenya /s

And a Muslim! And a black liberationist! And a Marxist, therefore an atheist! All at the same time!

Seriously, right-wingers: Pick a single lie and go with it.

 

[keith]

That is not a fact, it is your opinion. And one that the facts do not support.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States... "

Concluding paragraphs of Federalist paper #41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!