Fortunately, the US is an nation of laws not of men. Just because you get pissy about a constitutionally valid law, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, does not impact that law. If you want to repeal it, you have the same opportunity as those who elected representatives that passed it. .
Actually, that's pretty much how it went. Democrats in the legislative and executive branches rammed this crap legislation through, and the judicial branch rubber stamped it. - - - Updated - - - Face it. You would defend an act to make Obama emperor for life if it were somehow passed through legal channels.
How the hell could it be law unless it was also constitutional? Have you ever even read the supremacy clause? Again, I expect constitutional illiterates and enemies of this Republic to think so - or at lest to engage in the pretense to that effect.
So I guess I can refer to those that want to change the law about two guys being able to marry as being "pissy" if they oppose the law?
You see, that is precisely the type of nonsense that wacko birds spout that renders them so absurd. I have never assessed the President's performance in terms more effusive than, "okay." Just because I recognize how laughable it is to mewl that he is a foreign-born Muslim socialist does not mean that I feel he is entitled to more than two terms as President of the United States, the leadership role that the American electorate twice conferred upon him. Try to compose yourself and frequent the realm of reality more often.
The Supreme Court determines what is legal, not what is necessarily "right." If any law is deemed not to be "good" the People, through their elected legislature, can amend or repeal that law.
The 1857 Dred Scott v Sandford decision was effectively overturned by the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments in 1865 and 1868. When the Constitution was thusly amended, the decision no longer comported with the Constitution.
You are welcome to characterize anyone who takes exception to any law by whatever terms you fancy. It doesn't change the law. .
Sure and those "pissy" people wanting to change laws on marriage and on gun rights can call anybody in their opposition such names, but it does not change the law for them either. I and other Americans will continue to voice opposition to being required by the ACA to buy a product, that being insurance. What is the government going to require me to buy next under pain of fine? A Chevy Volt?
Obama changed the law 19 times after it was signed law. How is one man able to change the law? What is the use of having laws if they can be changed at the whim of one person?
You are free to advocate for a return to your "form of socialism" and to demure concerning what the Repubs' 2012 nominee for the presidency also told GOP party leader Glenn Beck is "ultimate conservatism" - as well as to fantasize about our government of, by, and for the People insisting that you dance a sprightly tango on every other Tuesday if that is your concern, but I wouldn't expect the former conservative value of personal responsibility to be abandoned, nor the latter terpsichore to be mandated if I were you. [video=youtube;JIPynMZuQtI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIPynMZuQtI&feature=player_embedded[/video]
You apparently swallow whole a Republican congressman's half-truth that TPs have been parroting: If your point is that laws that are enacted should comply in their execution with their specified provisions to the extent that is practical, I agree.
So if it's half true, then part of it is true, which means he changed the law. So my question still stands. How can one person change a law? What use is a law if one person can change it?
That is the major point in this. The law was passed and in each clause of the law it stated that the interpretation of it was to the discretion of the Secretary of health and Human Services. What is going to happen now? We are going to pass these hollow laws and fill in the vast blank with whatever a President wants?
Reality: You'll accept any piece of crap legislation as long as the government approves it according to its own standards for passing it. This isn't about 0bama, but about someone like you accepting anything and everything the government does.
If anyone here believes that, it sure as Hell isn't you. I don't see anyone here doing that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your weaselly evasions by now, but at least we may now safely conclude you either haven't read the supremacy clause or don't comprehend it.
They did, in 2010 and 2012 and will get to remember again in 2014. - - - Updated - - - a threat of a filibuster is not a filibuster. There has been no filibuster since the 1990's. I forget the actual date, but it's been a long time. Make someone do a real filibuster.
Yes. And my agreement stands. In regard to the substantive changes, they should not have been made. The law should be implemented in accordance with its provisions and scheduling.
You have departed from reality once more. First, you falsely claim, "You would defend an act to make Obama emperor for life if it were somehow passed through legal channels." Then, you claim that it is not about Obama butt rather, abouthe law - that I do, indeed, respect. Democratically-elected politicians sometimes legislate in ways in which the electorate does not concur. When that happens, there are proper channels for legal redress if it is a matter of legality or, if it is a matter of policy, the electorate seeks to replace those representatives that they have elected with others more responsive to their wishes. Isn't that how it works?
So, you cannot honestly confront any point that I have presented, and resort to churlish poopdoodle. The Supreme Court is quite conversant with the Constitution, regardless of whether you consider your opinion superior. They prevail every time.
That's singularly silly. If someone is believed to have violated a law, we do not throw out the law. Rather, we follow the proper legal procedures to see that the law is obeyed.
But it's too late for that. The time has passed on a lot of these violations. So in that case what is the recourse for violating the law?
