Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
This is all Constitutional. Put down the Bible and read some SCOTUS rulings. One Two


This is an accusation, provide a link (proof) about this. Also Obamacare care does allow for waivers for states that request one, like Vermont which is setting up its own single payer plan. Read the bill yourself. Specifically Section 1332. It specifies that waivers must be sent to the Secretary, by which I assume it means the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is a cabinet member under Obama. So yes, Obama's Administration can approve waivers. Congress passed the law, SCOTUS reviewed it, it is Constitutional.


Presidents have the ability to issue executive orders, and every president has used executive orders beginning with George Washington. Executive Orders have been used from the very beginning to promote agendas. Guess what, Andrew Jackson put out an Executive Order back in 1836 that the US government needs to be paid with gold or silver only. Oh I'm sorry, that sounds like a law Congress should have passed. But they didn't pass it, and yet it was treated as law and every President can make executive orders dictating new directives as long as there is sufficient cause from the Constitution to promote this new directive.

EDIT: Btw, Obama is still 100 Executive Orders behind Bush's number. And three hundred behind Dwight D. Eisenhower.


You didn't listen to me when I talked about the 14th Amendment. It's a real thing, you should give it a read. Prohibiting store owners from discriminating based on someones background is illegal as it subjects people to an unequal protection under the laws.


It is not a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court actually stated the opposite. Promotion of Christianity in public schools, even if non-denominational violated the First Amendment as it still promoted a specific sect of Abrahamic religion. Engel v. Vitale. Give that one a read as well.



That one is legitimate. What? Did you expect me to refute everything you said?



The Federal SCOTUS has already ruled that police can search your car if there is probable cause. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling was in the first paragraph stating that they are simply affirming that Pennsylvania constitution does not provide protections greater than the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, thus it upholds the SCOTUS precedent. Probable cause is specified within the 4th Amendment, so it is completely Constitutional as dictated by the SCOTUS.


Look, if you want to complain about these things. That's ok. But be honest and simply say that you disagree with these decisions on an ideological standpoint and that you want new laws and new Supreme Court justices. Don't try to spin all of this as politicians breaking the law and going against the Constitution. It's embarrassing how fast google just hands me SCOTUS cases that refute what you are saying.
Lot of things to respond to, I will do it in order. First, put down the Bible? Why? It wasn't even a part of that argument. And it is the basis of everything I believe, and what our country was founded on. Read the words of our founders, we WERE established on Christian principles, here is are two remarks by John Adams.
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. John Adams
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
Here is a link if anyone cares to read more.
http://faithofourfathers.net/

A lot of my arguments here are based on original intent, which I understand is subjective, but we can fairly easily deduce it using the founders' writings.
Second Amendment. Look at the meaning of the word "infringed", especially in an older dictionary. Now certain people such as criminals forfeit those rights by committing crimes, I think everybody agrees that criminals, especially such as murderers, should lose at least their freedom. So some people lose their rights based on their actions; the mentally ill, I am kind of torn on that one. It would not be good for the criminally insane to get their hands on a gun, so my dilemma. Back then, though, the insane were locked up, so I guess that was grounds for losing freedom. But restricting where I can carry a gun is definitely not according to the Second Amendment.

The waivers I am talking about, I did not mean for states, I meant for certain groups, such as the ones who "passed" Obamacare (I know they have their own insurance plans already), and they changed definitionsdefinitions of who qualified for an exemption. Besides, as our illustrious Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, ruling the fine if you don't get coverage as a tax, that makes it a revenue bill, which should have originated in the House of Representatives. It originated in the Senate. Oh, and what about delaying implementation of certain parts of the bill such as the employer mandate? That is changing the law, which Congress alone can do.
Onto executive orders. Yes, the President has executive power for when immediate executive action is needed. Executive orders are never specifically granted, by the way, but are implied. But if Congress is not doing what he wants, he does NOT have the power to create a law by executive order. If he has that power, that makes him a dictator, and Congress is then irrelevant. It is not, "the President wants, the President gets". Obama has stated he will bypass Congress if necessary with executive orders. That is against the Constitution, and if he tries it he will have violated his oath of upholding the Constitution.

14th Amendment. The STATE cannot deny those rights, individuals can refuse service. Many stores say they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. And homosexuality is not just condemned in the Old Testament. Read Romans 1, homosexuality is still wrong. Read Jude verse 7. Read 1 Corinthians 6. Those are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.
Schoolchildren being told not to talk about Jesus, or punished for praying over their food. First Amendment guarantees right to FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Children being allowed to talk about their faith is not a government promoting any religion. And besides, the context of the First Amendment was the institution of a state religion. While we are on religion in schools, the Supreme Court has ruled Secular Humanism to be a religion as well. Hmm.

NSA spying, um…free from unlawful searches. The founders would turn over in their graves if they found out the government was spying on citizens (and our allies, including Chancellor Merkel's cell phone). Listening to calls going out of country may have some legality, I don't know all the laws associated with that, but on normal citizens? Definitely not. At least not according to original intent, not without probable cause. And the Pennsylvania ruling essentially gives officers carte blanche to search cars at will, all the officer has to do is come up with some reason. And would our founders have consented to allow search without warrants? We are not the founders, but my personal opinion is that they would not, though that is subjective. The warrant would be issued upon probable cause, and then the search.
Pannonian, the President does not have power to overrule a court, so that is a moot point.
Brennus, it is a particular phrase I don't get, I get most of what he is saying, and that is what I am answering.