Our Constitution Belongs to ...

Thank you for finally ESTABLISHING that you were WRONG about your inane fearmongering nonsense.

You must have ALSO MISSED my previous ANSWER in post #147 above.

Is there some aspect of it that needs to be EXPLAINED?

Or does it just need to be POSTED THREE TIMES instead?

 

If your tax return is penalized for not BUYING A PRIVATE PRODUCT, you ARE being forced. Not sure how I can get that point to sink in. Again, for like the 4th time, did you miss where I called it a LAUGHABLE THREAT? lets see if giant type helps, I doubt it.

 

Repeating the same inane allegation WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATION does not make it any less inane.

If you don't want to pay taxes no one is stopping you from moving to some place where is there is no taxation. You could try Somalia which should be perfect for "rugged individualists" who embrace the failure of libertarianism in action.

 

Keep running from the facts. What a waste of time, good night. A mandate taking your taxes is force. It's obvious, trying to get you to see that is a fools errand, so I abandon the effort, It's futile.

 

What is even more futile is trying to get libertarians to understand the concept of taxation being necessary in order to live in a civilized society.

Obviously that too is a "fools errand" which is why I just state FACTS that they are NEVER able to refute.

 

Nah, that's your issue, not mine. Inversion Fallacy. I doubt you've ever read through the Constitution before...

WRONG. SCOTUS does not interpret the US Constitution. SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy. SCOTUS does not own the US Constitution. Any legislation that does not abide by the text of the US Constitution is unconstitutional.

Sources: The US Constitution itself: Article I Section VIII, Article III, Article VI, Article VII, Amendment X.

 

I agree that taxation is necessary in order to live in a civilized society - I disagree with your claim that all libertarians do not understand this.

Obamacare was lipstick on a pig - neither Red or Blue has done anything substantive to address the systemic issues that plague our HC system.

 

Nah, that would be you. READ. THROUGH. THE. CONSTITUTION. FOR. YOURSELF.

WRONG. SCOTUS has no such power over the Constitution. Read through Article III of the Constitution to learn what the scope and powers of SCOTUS and other inferior courts is. Read through Article VII of the Constitution to learn who created, ratified, and owns the document.

Yup.

Irrelevant. SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy. SCOTUS does not have the power to amend the US Constitution. The States (collectively) own the Constitution, NOT SCOTUS. The Federal Government does not have legislative power over healthcare. It is a State issue, not a federal one. See Article III, See Article VII, See Article I Section VIII. See Amendment X.

 

RQAA. (Repetitive Question Already Answered)

 

RQAA.

 

i see you still use words you don’t know the meaning of.

well again, reality, basic civics and 250 years of constitutional law says otherwise.

That you don’t understand basic civics is your own problem. All legislation is constitutional unless ruled u constitutional by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of matters arising under the constitution. This is reality.

 

No, that's what you are doing, even in the very next section of your response to me. Inversion Fallacy. Some people refer to this as "projection". You are attempting to project your own faults onto others. That is a logical fallacy.

** You are using "reality" as a meaningless buzzword. Buzzword Fallacy. Define "reality".
** False Authority Fallacy. You need to use the US Constitution as the authority for what the US Constitution says. You can't appeal to any other authority.

Inversion Fallacy.

ARF. (Argument by Repetition Fallacy) ... Repeating the same argument over and over again does not address my counter argument nor does it magickally make your argument true. I have already countered this argument of yours.

ARF. RAAA. (Repetitious Argumentation Already Addressed)

Not what "reality" is. Reality is defined by Phenomenology...

 

WRONG. They wanted a small ("weak") federal government. That's why the States kept most of their powers for themselves. That's why the States were very specific about which powers the federal government has in Article I Section VIII.

The federal government has the constitutional power to maintain an air force, just as they do an army and a navy. They are all part of the federal government's duty to protect the States from invasions. See Article I Section VIII, See Article IV Section IV.

 

SCOTUS does not have the power to change the US Constitution. SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy.

 

One of the single most important things this President can do, is prevent a liberal majority in the SC, they just rule however they wish, Constitution be damned.

 

Yup, you got it right!

The Liberals use SCOTUS in this unconstitutional way because they ultimately want the USA to become the SOA (Socialist Oligarchy of America). They want to destroy the Constitution.

 

all you are doing is confirming you don’t know the meaning of inversion fallacy.

the Supreme Court is the highest authority. This is reality. This is basic civics.

you don’t know what that means.

Well, since my argument is the correct one, and demonstrable case law going back to the inception of this country, why would you expect me to make a different argument?

Which I refuted.

What you were just educated on is reality. The Supreme Court is the final authority regarding constitutional matters. This is very basic civics.

 

Strawman. Nobody suggested they can change the constitution. They used the constitution to reaffirm the constitutionality of the ACA. That is their job.

 

Somewhat likened to an Ernest Hemingway book titled -
- A Moveable Feast -. His memoir in written form.
As opposed to Beer or Bar talk.

 

You meanie like the way Harry Reid ran around Congress accusing
his rival Senators like { Majority leader Bill Frist } of pulling the Nuclear
Option.Frist never even came close.Retired before Obama got in.
Harry Reid on the other hand Did pull a Nuclear Option on appointing
judges.

 

What does this rambling incoherent mess have to do with my post regarding the Supreme Court?

 

You did. Your beliefs about their role and powers are in direct contradiction to the Constitution. I have already provided the applicable sections of the Constitution which support my position. You continue to ignore them.

No, they ignored the Constitution (the liberal justices did anyway). Congress does not have the power to legislate universal healthcare. I have already provided the applicable sections of the Constitution which support my position. You continue to ignore them.

 

ARF. RAAA.

 

Because today's showing by these pathetic Democrats was
also at best a " rambling incoherent mess ".
If you must know.

 

The Tax and Spend clause is about the general welfare of the United States, the federal government and paying it's bills and maintaining itself. Not the welfare for the People.