The constitution? who cares....

[Dan T 8]

i was not really trying to gauge the faith of VJers in the competency of the scotus more so I wanted to know what level priority preserving the constitution was over letting this bill stand on the basis that it extends insurence to people that dont have it. accepting the givens that it was deemed unconstitutional by the scotus and perhaps you even agree with that assessment. Im attempting to avoid the discussions about whether or not this bill is actually constitutional or not, and about whether the scotus is competant to render such a decision.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

you hit the nail on the head with your interpretation of the question and I happen to agree with your stance 100%. who are the source of those quotes btw, Ive heard them both numerous times but no credit ever given

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." - Gerald Ford

I've used both of these in my siggie on various occasions.

[Dan T 8]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." - Gerald Ford

I've used both of these in my siggie on various occasions.

they are true words of wisdom in an obamanation

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yeah, we all respect the rule of law... but thats not what we are talking about here.... we are talking about you taking "their interpretation" of the law and your embracing it as final.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before and in fact often times, if you had just one different person out of nine, the judgment would have been different aS well.

Not sure why you feel you need to reassure everyone so often that you aren't wearing a tinfoil hat...... especially since no one has suggested you are but feel free to wear one if you like ... or not.

The Supremes have been wrong numerous times, and have reversed themselves. Plessy vs. Ferguson, being a notable example. A study of the history of the Court shows that many decisions have been made in consideration of the norms of the time, and for political reasons. Afterall, the justices do not come to their posts with no prior judicial temperment or philosophy.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Note to Barry: Blacks are no longer 3/4 of a person in the Constitution.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That Barry was a Constitutional law professor at one time scares me, but explains alot.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

We need to be aware of what the man who can remake the Supreme Court by appointing its interpretors thinks of the Constitution.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[NickD 203]

US Constitutional demands balance of power between the executive, congressional, and judicial branches of government.

But how can you have that when the executive that appoints a justice that is approved by a congress, when they all have to answer to Karl Rove if they want to be reelected? Same with the democratic party.

What I find most ironic about the supreme court, only takes a 5-4 vote to redefine the Constitution and that one vote can be obtained by putting in a trained monkey into that court. Wasn't intended to be this way, but sure worked out this way. Those 5-4 votes are ruining this country, should be unanimous. But we have an executive, a congress, and a supreme court that makes their own rules.

Where do we, the people, fit into all of this? We are just another dictatorship, and if you don't believe this, fail to pay your taxes and see what happens.

[Dan T 8]

to offer his side i give you democrat phil hare in his own words

http://loudobbs.com/videos?vid=-279054548074943417&chartID=147

[Darnell 8,478]

do you really give a darn if the constitution is shreded in order to "extend health insurance to 30 million people that don't currently have it".

Yes.

I'm asking hypothetically if this bill, or portions of it, were found to be unconstitutional how many of you would say screw it, it helps a lot of people, sure shred the constitution I don't really care about a 230+ year piece of paper.

I wouldn't say 'shred the constitution'.

Instead - I'd say - go back and write a new bill, not stepping on the constitution, this time.

[Dan T 8]

just in the interest of full disclosure i am uninsured because I am a self employed IT consultant and cannot afford insurence until business picks up, but i suspect I could be in this limbo for a long time based on the tax-burdens caused by this bill putting a freeze on hiring and new projects at businesses that would otherwise hire me.