FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

I learned that one as to be very careful not to start anything that might start a literary war but , Is this OK with you

PATRIOTS We are being played as fools. Chief Justice Roberts did not say obamacare was constitutional..read his RULING ..

He said that the mandate was NOT Constitutional and that the ONLY WAY THAT the federal government could enforce obamacare is to to enforce it as a tax....

WELL here is where the obamacare mandate is unconstitutional..Right when Justice Roberts made that ruling THE ACA should have went BACK to congress and should have been VOTED ON BY EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS AS A TAX .. IT WAS NOT ..

The House did not pass obamacare as a tax..they said that it was NOT a tax..

The Obama Lawyers argued their case saying it was not a TAX... Roberst contorted his logic like a cheap soggy pretzel and called it a TAX.

So DO NOT BE FOOLS PEOPLE .. OBAMACARE IS ILLEGAL ..

BECAUSE OBAMACARE/THE ACA Originated in the SENATE and a Tax cannot originate in the Senate..

THEN.....OBAMA has unlawfully changed the law by giving exemptions and waivers to Corporations, Big Business and Labor ..HE HAS NO LEGAL STANDING TO DO THIS...

He is an Alinskite Radical revolutionary and his lap dog Main Stream media Knows the Alinski rules and is REPEATING THE LIE over and over and over again so it becomes the new reality..

JUST BECAUSE YOU HEAR SOMETHING ON THE NEWS DOES NOT MAKE IT ACCURATE .. They are trying so hard to make us all believe that Obamacare is legal BUT IT IS NOT LEGAL...

Once the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act could only be constitutionally enforced as a tax, that interpretation immediately invalidated the Affordable Care Act due to the fact that this illegal Act actually originated in the Senate and NOT IN THE HOUSE!!.

What Mr. Harry Reid was he pulled an illegal maneuver with Obamacae.
See he knew that the House wouldn't willingly go for the ACA as a new bill -- he took a bill that did originate in the House, gutted it of all it's provisions, then inserted the provisions of the ACA -- unfortunately, under the rules of Parliamentary Procedure (Roberts Rules of Order), he cannot change the subject of such a bill by substituting provisions that are not compatible with the original purpose of the bill. This was also the reason that he and Nancy Pelosi were so adamant that the House had to pass it to see what was in it.

So his trick cannot succeed -- he changed the provisions of the original bill so grossly that it could not legally be passed at all.

Then the only remedy available under our federal system of government would have been for the entire law to have gone back to the House for origination -- the only choice they legally had was to start over. They did not and the sneaked it in through that illegal procedure.

You see they needed 60 votes to get it passed and Scott Brown just won an election in Massachusetts.. so The office of Majority Leader Harry Reid said that there will be no attempt to swear in a new senator until Massachusetts gets all the right paperwork to Washington.

Till then "appointed" Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr. , a Democrat, in the meantime will keep the job and cast the votes for Obamacare. “When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers, and the Vice President is available, the successor to Sens. Kennedy and Kirk will be sworn in,” said Regan Lachapelle, a Reid, D-Nev., spokeswoman. The whole trick was to get Obamacare the 60 votes it needed before Scott Brown was sworn in and seated!

Senate precedent says Kirk can’t vote once the election has occurred. so they’ve technically lost their 60th vote but they went forward anyway... and NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING.. IT IS TIME TO FIGHT!!

They played this dirty trick and they got the 60 votes ... WITHOUT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTING FOR OBAMACARE...

IS THIS AN ILLEGAL LAW.. ?? HELL YES!

Obamacare is completely and totally illegal to enforce, and unconstitutional on it's face.

So ..lets work on taking the IRS to court if THEY try to garnish your bank account when you OPT-OUT ..go to (generation opportunity.org) AND (cchfreedom.org)

There will be a chance for class action law suits against the Federal Government but we cannot take them to court until they try to tax us for not having health insurance

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

This is what I have been saying. Of course the left are either blind or can not think for themselves. So be it but this is reason enough for me for an impeachment.

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

Thank's Bangee , now I am bracing for the rest :-D

Ka2azman Loc: Tucson, Az

Just a thought ... if it is illegal as you say; why was it once taken to the Supreme Court to have a determination made on it, but there is no action taking it to the Supreme Court presently, if its illegal, as you say? The possibility of future action is not the question, but if illegal now. I would definitely believe someone would have taken the lead on this.

When in a fight there are three sides to a story, the two participants and innocent by-standers. In this debate I am an innocent by-stander, neither for or against because it doesn't affect me one way or the other. I do understand the fiduciary responsibility I will be subjected to either way.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Great post Frenchy!

John Roberts was against the AHCA when it was first brought before the court, but despite his conservative ideology, it is speculated by those who closely follow the court that despite heavy pressure by the usual swing voter on the court, Anthony Kennedy. "He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this." and continued to be so right up to the end.

However, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

As Roberts explained in his opinion:
"The framers created a federal government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people."
Regardless of his thinking, it was clear to the conservatives that Roberts wanted the court out of the red-hot dispute. And while liberals believe they won a great decision, the truth remains that the court simply dodged an important constitutional point.

It seems that Roberts was more worried that a vote split along party lines would cast the court in a bad light and his concern for appearances over powered his conservative beliefs. Although he did place a firmer clamp down on the misuse of the commerce clause by congress, his twisted logic on the individual mandate question, allowing it under congress's taxing authority is still a puzzle to many court scholars. Never before in the history of this nation has congress passed a law that forces the people to purchase a product, and levy a tax if you fail to comply.

True conservatives can take some minor solace in the fact that the four remaining conservative Justices joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

The fact that the joint dissent doesn't mention Roberts' majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him.

The language in the dissent was sweeping, arguing the court was overreaching in the name of restraint and ignoring key structural protections in the Constitution. There are clear elements of Scalia - and then, there is Justice Kennedy.

"The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril," the dissent said. "Today's decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it."

So as I've said before, I believe it will only be a matter of time before another case comes before the court, and the rest of this monstrosity will fall. Only time will tell if I'm right.

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

Thank you Heyrob, I did NOT write this I am not educated enough on the subject , and I will leave this to you and others to clarifies the subject

colo43 Loc: Eastern Plains of Colorado

I had read the same thing as of yesterday!

Penny MG Loc: Fresno, Texas

Frenchy, forget the rest. They think that what conservatives say is just crap. Though some are truly smart, their perspectives have been horribly clouded and I can almost guarantee that some are going to say "its the law, get over it". You brought out very valid points and these are points that should be PLASTERED all over the press, but I don't forsee that happening just yet. Hopefully soon, though. I will pass your information on to some of the "un-informed" voters.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

I just started reading a book titled "Intellectual Morons - Why smart people fall for stupid ideas", haven't gotten to much of the meat yet, but I'm looking forward to trying to understand why some otherwise smart people, even those you are successful in business, fall for all the liberal BS & insanity.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

We libs think as you say because what you say is CRAP!

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Haven't seen that one before huh? Croce came up with that, initially for use on ole sarg and Twardlow, but we often use it on others as well. :lol:

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

NO !!! did not see it , very nice and sometime appropriate I guess .