#1 Fail: it's not illegal. Fact: since 1935, the supreme court has never invalidated any federal or state law for infringing economic liberties. Sure, the insurance regulation is not an constitutionally enumerated right, but there are many things done by Congress that isn't explicitly enumerated and that does not automatically make such laws unconstitutional. Only the supreme court can make the determination if a law is unconstitutional, and in the case of the HC bill it is unlikely to do so because Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

#2 Fail: Obama did not sign the Posse Comitatus Act, it passed in 1878. as for the rest: reference please.

#3 Win (sort of). If you mean the extension of the Patriot act; then yes, this can be construed as trading liberty for security (yes, that's bad). But I still need a reference detailing the “anti-administration speech is now illegal” part...

#4 Fail: Obama did no such thing. The HC bill was passed by a supermajority and only later, Senate leaders made minor changes that were passed by reconciliation which isn't a law, it's a Senate rule.

#5 Fail, What? Fail: Acorn: no worries, thanks to a Fox-lead smear campaign, ACORN is now out of business. So much for that: http://mediamatters.org/resea...
SEIU, reference please.
BP: http://mediamatters.org/resea...

P.S. What followed was another collection of trendy smear-words that show your irrational dislike of our president. Just calm down, and instead get angry at the majority in Congress – it is them who give him the laws to sign (yes, that's majority rule for all of us: a DEMOCRACY).

Hello,

(1) Violating the Tenth Amendment IS illegal. The mere fact that "the supreme court has never invalidated any federal or state law for infringing economic liberties" does not matter, because previous violations of the Tenth Amendment may never have been challenged.

(2) The fact that Obama did not sign the Posse Comitatus act has nothing to do with anything. The point is that Posse Comitatus forbids use of miltary troops for local policing purposes. The Governor's Conference plan has already been started via an executive order signed by Obama, and the World Police plan is already being negotiated by Sec. of State Clinton with NATO allies. You can easily Google for both of these to obtain sources.

(3) The anti-administration speech extention to the Patriot Act has not to my nowledge been implemented. It was publicly stated to be an intent of Obama to add it at some time in the future. Congress would of course have to approve the change before it could become law.

(4) You are wrong about reconciliation not being a law. Article 7 of the Constitution provides that a supermajority is required to block a filibuster, with the exception of budget resolutions, which only require a simple majority for blockage. Obama illegally calssified the HC bill as a budget resolution because a supermajority was no longer available after Scott Brown's win in MA.

(5) The fact that ACORN collapsed is irrelevant to the discussion. AG Holder violated his affirmative duty as officer of the court by not procescuting the ACORN, SEIU, and Black Panther cases.

You seem to misunderstand what democracy means. It means we get to elect Congressmen and other officials, rather than being ruled by a king or dictator. It does NOT mean that once laws are passed, Congress and the administration are free to ignore laws already on the books.

Stu

Hello again,

"I meant to say that the determination whether the HC bill conforms to the constitution is for the supreme court to decide" - Agreed. All I am saying is that if the court acts according to the law, my belief is that they will find it illegal on Tenth Amendment and Article 7 grounds.

"I have been outraged about this since 2007 when GWB signed the Executive Order" - GWB was in the wrong, because an EO should only temporarily suppress a law (in this case Posse Comitatus) to address a specified exigency, which his EO didn't. Obama's EO regarding the use of domestic military (already signed) has this same defect. So also does the World Police initiative being negotiated by Sec. Clinton.

"No law was signed q.e.d." - This does not mean that a bill infringing on First Amendment rights won't at some later date be submitted to Congress. So there is still a risk here.

"reconciliation has been used several times before for non-budget changes to bills that were later signed by the president" - This may be true, but multiple wrongs do not make a right. The fact is that Obama illegally denied the Senate its right to filibuster by misclassifying the HC bill as a budget resolution.

"I am sure there are valid reasons for AG to prosecute or not." - I believe all three major cases of voter intimidation (ACORN, SEIU, and Black Panthers) were caught on tape. The AG chose not to prosecute for political reasons. He had an affirmative as officer of the court to do his job, and he didn't.

"Although I disliked the policies of the GWB administration (warrantless wiretapping, torturing, not paying for two wars, etc), I did not label them tyrant[s]." - You may be amazed at my saying this, but I think GWB was a tyrant. There was absolutely no proof that Iraq was engaging in nuclear research in 2003, but Bush was running low in the polls due to American frustration that the invasion of Afghanistan did not eliminate the Taliban. He needed a quick, decisive military win to get his popularity up to beat Kerry. It's a classic case of the "tail wagging the dog."

Stu

Hey, I thought GWB was clearly trying to convert our constitutional democracy into a dictatorship (“just as long as he is the dictator”:-) but jokes aside, consider two examples of socialism in this country: Medicare (no politician dares to touch it), Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent passage and now it is an effective health insurance system that is affordable on the large scale needed for the US. [yes, there are problems, but keep in mind, the objective is to be “not-for-profit”]
VA (even more social, single payer, they administer benefits and hospitals and hire the doctors, etc), yes there are problems, but see if politicians on either side of the isle dare abolish it.
I am optimistic that a combination of individual and shared responsibility can work very well even in this country and that does not automatically mean that we will loose the freedoms granted by the US constitution. Unfortunately, socialism is such a scary word in the US, nobody can argue its benefits without facing an angry mob.

On a more philosophical topic – [not specifically related to the current discussion] , I know we all love our freedoms, but we also want to keep our shared values and ethics. As time passes, society gets more complicated and there are always people ready to defraud others in new ways that were not possible before. In order to uphold our shared values and ethics (“be fair”) we limit the freedom to the extent necessary to prevent abuses (“enforce the law”). Hence the need to regulate a large variety of actions and entities ("nobody is free to shoot their neighbor").

A more specific and current example: we would want to prevent big banks from lying and defrauding investors. (needless to say, Obama already faces fierce opposition to proposed financial reforms)

Hello,

"Hey, I thought GWB was clearly trying to convert our constitutional democracy into a dictatorship (“just as long as he is the dictator”:-)" - I remember when he said that. I couldn't believe it, even as a joke. What a jerk.

"Medicare (no politician dares to touch it), Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent passage and now it is an effective health insurance system that is affordable on the large scale needed for the US." - Not true. Medicare is bleeding red ink and is a major source of deficit spending. It's "affordable" to the beneficiaries, only because the taxpayer is getting reamed to finance the funding gap (i.e., the premiums are highly subsidized).

"VA (even more social, single payer, they administer benefits and hospitals and hire the doctors, etc), yes there are problems, but see if politicians on either side of the isle dare abolish it." - I'm not sure you can classify this as socialism, as it really is a fringe benefit for work (having served in the military).

"I am optimistic that a combination of individual and shared responsibility can work very well even in this country and that does not automatically mean that we will loose the freedoms granted by the US constitution." - In a limited sense I agree. I have no problem with federal government project spending, as long as the anticipated increase in the tax base resulting from the spending will result in a surplus for the government. Critical infrastructure is a good example. The government builds roads and bridges, and as a result businesses can grow around them, employ people, and generate tax revenue from company and employee earnings. As long as the anticipated incremental tax revenue more than offsets the project cost, it creates an incremental federal surplus, and reduces the national debt.

"we limit the freedom to the extent necessary to prevent abuses" - I agree with this. I am not a libertarian. But you don't need the nanny state to deter crime. You simply need to have punishment levels that are adequate to deter it.

"A more specific and current example: we would want to prevent big banks from lying and defrauding investors." - The best way to do this is to vigorously enforce laws related to capital levels, capital structure, and risk standards. We already have laws on the books in these areas, but Bush and Greenspan didn't enforce them. So we ended up with a gargantuan taxpayer funded bailout, that perversely encourages more speculation (grow like crazy at all costs to raise management bonuses, and when the operation goes bust, the taxpayer bails you out).

Stu