Attorney General Holder Agrees with the Fifth Circuit: Supreme Court Has the Right to Overturn Obamacare - Do you believe him?
|
|
|||||
|
7 votes
|
|
32% | |||
|
8 votes
|
|
36% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
32% | |||
Dear Judge Smith, Judge Garza, and Judge Southwick:
This Court’s letter of April 3, 2012 requested a response to questions raised at oral argument in this case, Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebelius, No. 11-40631. From the electronic recording of the argument, I understand the Court to have requested the views of the Department of Justice regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The Court indicated that its inquiry was prompted by recent statements of the President.
The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.
The government’s brief cites jurisdictional bars to the instant suit and urges that plantiffs’ constitutional claims are insubstantial. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 17-38. At no point has the government suggested that the Court would lack authority to review plaintiffs’ constitutional claims if the Court were to conclude that jurisdiction exists. The case has been fully briefed and argued, and it is ready for disposition. The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.
Holder goes on to review the relevant case law, and notes that “the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress.” Holder concludes by stating that “The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.”
Your move, Judge Smith."
Read More: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/05/attorn...
Some example of leadership, huh?
Tell that to George Washington, who signed the second Militia Act in 1792, or to John Adams, who signed the Act for the Relief of Seamen in 1798. And you ALREADY are "forced" to buy a product - it's called Social Security, and its constitutionality has been upheld numerous times. Social Security is a system in which you are REQUIRED to pay into a system that provides retirement income to anyone who needs it.
And FDR didn't bully anyone. Then as now the Court was in the grip of an activist conservative minority that didn't want the government to help poor people improve their lives, and that didn't change until two of the four retired (one may have died, I'd have to check) and the Court returned to upholding the Constitution. Once that happened the United States embarked on our most prosperous era ever, which lasted until 1981 when Ronald Reagan began to dismantle the American economy.
"If you are a mainstream Christian or a Jew, you need not apply to Opt Out of ObamaCare; that exemption is reserved for Muslims, Scientologists, Amish, Christian Scientists and Native American Indians who have a “conscientious objection” to insurance. A conscientious objection to theft committed by rogue politicians under the color of law with the threat of violence for non-compliance isn’t sufficient in America today to exempt average Americans from the stranglehold of government.
Believe it or not, if you are a Muslim you may claim a special religious exemption to Obama-Care that is denied to main-stream Christians and Jews. Or if you prefer a New-Age religion to Islam, you may become a Scientologist and Opt Out of ObamaCare’s mandatory pur-chase of health insurance. Or, if you happen to be of Native American Indian extraction you too can opt out of the insurance laws by which everyone else in America must abide".
“There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insura...&
"If you are a mainstream Christian or a Jew, you need not apply to Opt Out of ObamaCare; that exemption is reserved for Muslims, Scientologists, Amish, Christian Scientists and Native American Indians who have a “conscientious objection” to insurance. A conscientious objection to theft committed by rogue politicians under the color of law with the threat of violence for non-compliance isn’t sufficient in America today to exempt average Americans from the stranglehold of government.
Believe it or not, if you are a Muslim you may claim a special religious exemption to Obama-Care that is denied to main-stream Christians and Jews. Or if you prefer a New-Age religion to Islam, you may become a Scientologist and Opt Out of ObamaCare’s mandatory pur-chase of health insurance. Or, if you happen to be of Native American Indian extraction you too can opt out of the insurance laws by which everyone else in America must abide".
“There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is ‘haraam,’ or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Other excluded groups include Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists.” Quote from Liberty & Pride Blog
DEMAND an Individual Opt-Out AMENDMENT!
You can post facts and the truth to PP until your fingers bleed and he will never acknowledge that you are right. All he knows how to do his post his cut & paste BS replies. He still whines about Gore losing to Bush. Talk about not being able to deal with reality and getting over things!
French / Canadian Style Health Care!
Attorney General Holder should enforce commodities laws and end speculation driven, artificial price hikes in oil / gas!
Attorney General Holder is a pussy! The Justice Department is not doing its job!
America is a political, legal mess.
"High Oil Prices Must be Subject of Criminal Investigation"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
what about the liberal activist judges over the years. looks like 8 cases were 5-4 one was bush vs gore.
Gore won every full recount. That's not even debatable. And that doesn't even take into account the 8,000 people Katharine Harris illegally deprived of their right to vote because they had similar names to convicted felons in Texas, and it doesn't take into account the voters who were conned into voting for Pat Buchanan instead of Gore by an illegal ballot. It also doesn't take into account the conservative robocalls telling people that "due to high turnout, Republicans will be voting on Tuesday and Democrats will be voting on Wednesday,"
This was from a USA Today story in May 2001
By Dan Keating and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 12, 2001; Page A01
In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.
www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11... Similarto Bush v. Gore: The Disputed Election Fades Into History
Nov 8, 2010 ... Bush v. Gore Alas, America has endured these past ten years her most .... the overseas vote thrown out, AND that Bush won every recount. the ...
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida’s disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 “undervote” ballots that were at the center of Florida’s disputed presidential election.
And then came a NY Time...
This was from a USA Today story in May 2001
By Dan Keating and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 12, 2001; Page A01
In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.
www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11... Similarto Bush v. Gore: The Disputed Election Fades Into History
Nov 8, 2010 ... Bush v. Gore Alas, America has endured these past ten years her most .... the overseas vote thrown out, AND that Bush won every recount. the ...
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida’s disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 “undervote” ballots that were at the center of Florida’s disputed presidential election.
And then came a NY Times analysis, which I wrote about , along with some other media projections.
Fun and games. Bottom line is that the butterfly ballott threw the election. But you can’t quantify how many people who voted for Pat Buchannan would have voted for Gore, making it a moot point. You can only could the ballots as cast.
Here is what I wrote back then. ..
At last The New York Times finally has weighed in on the disputed presidential election.
The Times apparently spent six months on an exhaustive investigation designed to show that George W. Bush might have won because election officials in Florida counted illegal overseas military ballots.
And after sending reporters out around the nation, and researching thousands of documents, the Times uncovered the alarming fact that it wasted a lot of money.There was no great conspiracy to toss the election to George W.The Democrats simply got out-slimed, outwitted and out-lawyered by the Republicans.
That’s the way we’ve always elected presidents.
As for the gist of the story, the Times found 680 overseas military ballots with problems such as no postmarks and no witness signatures. But even if these were tossed out, Bush still would have won.
I did my own math to discover that 90 percent of the illegal ballots would have had to go to Bush to have made a difference in the election.
The military may vote Republican, but not by a 9-1 margin.
You would think the Times could have mentioned these numbers somewhere amid the four pages it spent on the project. Instead, it waited well into the story before quoting a Harvard expert as saying he doubted the ballots affected the election.
The Times added that this is “impossible to know.”
Sure it is, sure it is.
After spending only six hours on my own exhaustive investigation, I will reveal the true winner of the election: As you may recall, the official tally had Bush winning Florida by 537 votes.
I will toss out the illegal military ballots found by the Times, which brings Bush’s lead down to an estimated 245 votes.
But then there are those 5,600 illegal ballots cast by former felons that also were counted, according to a story in The Palm Beach Post. It said former felons tend to vote Democratic, a safe bet given the Republican position on minimum sentencing.
So if I assume 70 percent of the felon vote went to Al Gore, and we toss it, Bush’s lead goes to 2,485.
But the Post also reported that Gore would have gained 784 votes in Palm Beach if all those punch-card ballots with hanging chads, pinholes, dings and dimples were counted.
This cuts Bush’s lead to 1,701.
Gore gains another 696 votes after an analysis of votes by the Sentinel and other newspapers in Lake, Orange and 15 other counties. Bush’s lead is now 1,005.
Now for the intangibles: The Florida Highway Patrol set up a checkpoint near Tallahassee on Election Day that Democrats claim was used to intimidate black voters. But I’ll call that a wash when put up against the networks calling the Florida results early, costing Bush Panhandle votes.
The butterfly ballot, however, puts Gore over the top. As many as 3,000 elderly Palm Beach voters may have picked Pat Buchanan instead of Gore. I’ll give Gore half those, handing him the election by 495 votes. I think. . .
This doesn’t include a Miami Herald report that said if all the dangling chads in all the counties were counted, Bush would have won the election by 407 votes. But if dimpled chads were included with the danglers, then Gore wins by 332 votes.
And then there is The Washington Post, which says its analysis found an additional 30,000 votes for Gore.
Of course, this number may include the voting felons.
Don’t you love us?