Enforce The Law Act - Another Attack on Obama

What part of "SS was cited only as a national mandate statute without vagueness in its execution" did you NOT GET the first or second time?" and with that auspicious start, I'm simply not going to respond to the rest, why bother, it's obvious you don't even read my posts, and you certainly don't respond honestly to them.

 

I understood the substance of your statement just fine. The problem is, the ACA is not vague in any way. The ACA is an incredibly long piece of legislation to enable specificity. The SSA did not have to deal with a preexisting industry and thus was much more concise for its aims, I believe the original act was something like 47 pages.

The ACA mandated the healthcare exchanges, how could the provisions of the ACA be enforced without the healthcare exchanges? They could not be, thus several delays were necessary by the plain fact that if a mechanism to implement a law is unavailable, the faithful execution of the law is impossible.

It is not obvious to you whether or not I have read your posts unless you were sitting next to me at the computer. You were not, so it was not obvious. In fact, I did read your posts, I can read a sentence and a run-on sentence that totals all of two and a quarter lines on my computer screen six times in five minutes.

I'm responding honestly to your posts. Don't project your intellectual inadequacies onto me, though it's a problem I've noticed all too often on these boards.

 

He said the sequester wasn't his idea and later was proven. That's a lie
Lobbyist really?http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/oba...obbyists-he-vowed-not-to-hire/article/2533397
Fast and furious was made up? Tell that to his parents. The courts didn't think it was made up. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/10/us/fast-and-furious-sentence/
Prove to me it was made up.

 

I say it is.

Would be like projecting a raindrop onto the ocean.

 

He said he will eliminate them. Hellohttp://youtu.be/X41AghgjC5A
And yet.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/obamas-mounting-hypocrisy/

 

The sequester lol really? He lied man. Like always. Your infallible savior lied. http://youtu.be/fNBhue9OMTY

 

Post your resume. I want to see what legal education you have that gives you the authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutionally vague.

Also, under what part of the Constitution is the ACA unconstitutionally vague? Vagueness is only unconstitutional if it violates a section of the Constitution.

Intellectually, you nailed it, Drippy.

 

>>>Don't make is personal<<<

I am a licensed attorney in private practice, but that's irrelevant. The "authority" I have to post my opinion on this forum is no less nor greater than yours is, sorry if that enrages you. I posted a link earlier in the thread to a very basic wiki discussion of vagueness, you should read it.

Mhhmm, raindrop on the ocean.

 

That IF needs to be WHEN. And we can discuss the Bush presidency if you want as an example

 

I'm no fan of Bush, but go on. If you can show me how one R's errors justifies one D's errors, I'm all ears.

 

My mother's credentials are irrelevant to this discussion. She is not the one asserting an authority to declare something unconstitutional.

You were not posting an opinion. "It is because I say it is" is stating a fact. In order to assert a fact on this board, you have to be able to back it up with evidence per Rule 10. I am not enraged by your antics. Amused is the more appropriate assessment of my reaction to you.

The cases I looked up that dealt with vagueness were struck down by the Fifth Amendment's due process clause because they dealt with a deprivation of liberty as a result of the statute that was struck down being criminal in nature. Thus, the only way the ACA could be deemed unconstitutional would be the provision regarding individuals being fined. That has not yet been tested in court because the first fines have yet to be levied, let alone evaded. There is no requirement for specificity itself within the Constitution.

 

Sorry, nothing I have said implies impeachment, that is your inference.

 

I didn't post "It is because I say it is." I posted "I say it is." so you are purposefully misquoting off the bat, and voila, you have just violated Rule 10 yourself because purposefully misquoting me is a definite misstatement of a fact you can't support.

"I say it is" is obviously an opinion or else I would simply say "IT IS," (which would still be an opinion among any reasonable people). And your attempt at citing some rule about supporting posted factual claims is beyond infantile, so thanks for letting me know exactly what kind of kiddy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ry I'm dealing with here.

You pepper your posts with the following types of passive aggressive garbage, make some point of asking for my resume'? until I rise to the bait and then have the nerve to bang the report button on me? LOL.

 

The sequester was a strategy to get them to say no if he said yes. When they said yes, he never thought they would go through with it because it would hurt their own political integrity. Obama was wrong. They did it any way and naturally the republicans are to blame. But he never lied. It was only a strategy.

I never said Fast and Furious was made up. What I am saying is, Fast and Furious was pushed to create a scandal out of the tragedy itself to try and put blame on Holder and Obama. The ones perpetuating to a level of scandal could care less about the victims or the parents. Their goal was to turn Fast and Furious into a scandal, which they did, and came up with nothing, just like the rest of them.

Lol! Your article is funny. Some of the lobbyists were not registered lobbyists while others worked around the rules without Obama's knowledge. Yea, Obama is a big time lobby man. What a joke.

 

And he lied about it. And you know this. You are just one of those people that will never admit that it. The man is a lier and you know it. And don't give me the crap about what's the definition of what is is!
I will post the video again. Where he says the sequester was congresses idea if you need to.
http://youtu.be/ukx7pM_ZHPo
Don't tell me he didn't lie man. Come on. It's right there.
Hell he wanted people to suffer. Watch this clip to prove he wanted this crap. It was his idea and he LIED about it. You can't prove otherwise cause the proof of his lies is caught on tape. So give up and realize your cult leader isn't the next coming savior. Maybe Hillary will be and y'all cal wash her feet and bow to her like good little servants in the progressive church of government.

 

Did he not hire lobbyist? Yes or no? And even if he didn't know some were lobbyist he other were. And what did he do when he found out these scum were lobbyist?
So my facts or true he knew some were lobbyist and hire them. Point proven. I truly hope you find another to worship now you know your savior is a liar .

 

Whatever. I say the President is doing fine. And unless there is some actual criminal indictment he's facing... I'm not concerned in the least.

 

Obama has hired people that is part of a company that lobbies in Washington. lol the only jokes he is Obama and your blind servitude to this liar and chief.

 

So you don't see a problem with a president changing laws after they are passed? None at all right. Not a problem? It seems ok to you right?

 

I don't see a problem with what the President has done.

If it is wrong or unconstitutional, take it to court.

I'm tired of sinister Conservatives trying to make something out of nothing; borders on OCD behavior.

Time to move on now.

 

Oh no that's cool cause I know things in nature run in cycles. It's the way of life. I just wanted to know where the progressive stands on this so when the right does it I won't have to hear it from none of the hypocrites known as the progressives

 

I watched it enough to be able to read between the lines. It's theatrics! The guy is looking for attention and he has hate in his blood. He's no mystery. You can be assured of that.


He says (4:55), "I will never stand and clap when ANY president, no matter whether he's your party or mine, promises to make us a Constitutional anomaly and an afterthought". That's not hypocrisy. That is the opposite of hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]

 

I know what I quoted, the misquotation was deliberate so that people would be able to realize what you were referring to and more easily follow the discussion. I would have direct quoted you from your post, but I was rushing to finish the post in question so I could join a friend for a few matches on XBox.

"I say it is" and "It is" are both equivalent. If you say "I say it is" you still have to justify it with your own reasoning. If you say "It is" you have to still supply reasoning to support your assertion if it is contradictory to what is known to others. What is known to others is that the ACA has not been ruled unconstitutional, only a certain part has been.

What you're dealing with here, is someone who has been in enough debates on this site to know that unsupported reasoning is not going to fly. I never take something at face value, especially on this site.

Actually, I didn't report that post, JohnnyMo probably saw the personal attack himself. He's a damn fine moderator. I wouldn't have reported it anyway. I prefer to let juvenile statements like yours stand. Belies your own statement that you're a lawyer.

You made your credentials, and thus your resume, pertinent to this discussion by declaring that the ACA was unconstitutional without stating any supporting argument. If you were a lawyer with any grounding in Constitutional law, I would take your word for it, but I would want to see your CV.

As for what I posted, it's called hedging my bets, because I have learned that on this site, there are both intellectually deficient people and ignorant people, then we have the very few that are both intellectually deficient and ignorant all in one fun package. Projecting is also a very commonly-used tactic of the GOP.

 

What an obvious lie.

ROFL, people are not obligated to preface every opinion with disclaimers that they aren't statements of fact, it is presumed.

The substantive claims I've made in this thread have been accompanied by reasoning. You kept harping on the SS/ACA comparison in a fallacious way and I finally got fed up. Readers can certainly review the posts for themselves.

Yet your posts are full of insults as previously noted.

You and I both know that demanding someone's CV is absurd on a forum such as this. You are free to disagree with people, ignore them, whatever, asking for their CV or resume' is ridiculous. Rationalize however you like. I think I see what's going on here, so carry on.

 

You're now not only in my living room, but in my head? Interesting. Read these thoughts...

Stating an opinion and stating a fact are two different concepts that I, as a writer, am acutely aware of. You were stating a fact that it was unconstitutional without giving any evidence.

I may be legally blind, but I've got enough sight left to see that you had no reasoning when you declared the ACA unconstitutional. When a law is declared unconstitutional, there is also a reasoning given. There has never once been a Supreme Court case that has said "It's unconstitutional because I say so".

Noting that someone is ignorant when they are showing ignorance isn't an insult, it's a statement of facts with the ignorance within the posts from the other person as the probative evidence.

I know it is absurd, but so too is saying something is unconstitutional just because you say it is. When I make an assertion such as that, I supply adequate evidence such as precedents that are on point, and I always frame it as an opinion and rarely speak in absolutes about matters such as this.