why don't you answer my questions first.
Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Whatever questions have been asked and answered are irrelevant if one cannot define the meaning of "abide by the Constitution". Since no one has as yet come up with a definition that is acceptable to everyone, the demand is meaningless and has no force.
The same applies to most of the rest of the nine.
We have to abide by the intent of the document, not get lost in niggling "open to interpretation" details about the authors' wording or spelling, etc.
Now, turning our attention to the ACA...
I happen to agree. But that still doesn't let the TPs off the hook regarding just what the items on that list mean.
If, for example, we are to "abide by the Constitution", what about Brown v Board of Education, or Roe v Wade? They don't appear to be too keen on "abiding by the Constitution" in those regards.
wtf are you talking about?
I asked you 2 simple questions which you won't answer, but your silence is good enough for me to judge that you understand you're on the losing side of this one, but refuse to yield and would rather play semantics and look for tiny inconsistencies in what I write.
I'll answer your question anyway. Yes I think that primarily the words on the paper carry the most weight. However, in instances where ambiguity is present, then the next best material is the words of the Founders, as they pertain to specific parts of the Constitution. And let's not forget about history and tradition. In the case of enumerated powers, there really isn't any ambiguity and like I said originally, the words of Jefferson, Madison and the logic of how they were written, back this up. there is very little evidence that goes the other way. Mainly Hamilton, who contradicted himself between his actions at the Treasury and what he wrote in the Federalist papers.
Please show me an argument someone in the Tea Party has made regarding Roe vs. Wade that is constitutional in nature.
The Court ruled that a woman has a right to abortion until viability. So if one were to "abide by the Constitution", he/she would abide by the ruling.
However, TPs are intent on overturning all of this rather than abide by the Court's decision. Surely this is not news to you.
The TPs are intent on making a scientific argument, or even a religious one and are attempting to use the system granted to them in the Constitution to have the Supreme Court re-review the case. I don't recall the TPs saying that the Supreme Court's decision is not Constitutional.
If there are radical activists out there not allowing the law to be followed, then there is a vehicle to deal with that trouble - it is called Law Enforcement.
There are FAR more liberals out there attempting to overturn the 2nd amendment, though there have been many politicians, especially on the local level who have taken it upon themselves to interpret the 2nd amendment. New York, Conn, Colo, etc. They have not used the system properly and are following your theory of "i can interpret it to whatever I want" horseshit.
They aren't seeking to overturn it so much as demand that it be followed. Or "abided by".