Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

dbphoenix said:
Those enumerated powers including "provid[ing] for the . . . general Welfare . . .." Whether it is limited to defense and highways and so forth is a matter of interpretation.
More...
yawn. . no it isn't, this is the same ole flawed argument. Follow this simple logic so I don't have to go digging through old posts for quotes. They included the phrase "common defence" as well as "general Welfare" , yet they went on to list specific powers for providing defense. IF they meant "do whatever you deem necessary to provide a national defense" then why would they go on to list specifics? They wouldn't, the same is true for the "general Welfare" clause. If they meant for Congress to do anything the present body thinks is in the best interests of the nation, then why did they list non-defense related powers after that clause? Because that isn't what they meant, and they laid out specific powers.

The first sentence of the section is explanatory and the powers that follow are definitive.

There are also many quotes and writings from the Founders that prove this to be the case. Again, if Congress/fed govt wants more authority for social programs etc, then they should do it the right way which is by Amending the Constitution. Since they have gotten away with doing as the please without following the proper procedure, they don't bother and probably never will unless we elect the right people. Which won't happen as long as voters remain ignorant and/or pretend the above isn't the case and the "general welfare" clause is open to 'interpretation'.
 
PiggyBank said:
The first sentence of the section is explanatory and the powers that follow are definitive.
More...

That's your interpretation. One could also argue that the first sentence is equivalent to all the rest and they are not subsumed to it.
 
dbphoenix said:
Pleased to have lightened your day.
More...

Yeah, it's a brilliant strategy. Just keep saying "I interpret that differently" to every argument posed to you, and there's nothing that can be said otherwise. No one can argue against it, even if you tell us that the sky is red to you, not blue. We can't argue, because maybe you think blue is actually red, right? What is blue? It could be open to interpretation!

Hilarious!
 
Ricter said:
I've posted this warning before, but I hope other advanced nations are paying attention and don't try this national healthcare thingy themselves.
More...

Other "advanced nations" follow your ET activity?
 
The part I don't get is that one court and the administration say the bill clearly says that folks who buy insurance through the federal government get a subsidy. OTOH, this court says the law clearly says that folks have to go through the state run exchanges.

Doesn't seem like it should take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, WTF does the law say? And it sounds like at least one of the two groups are lying like rugs.
 
DHOHHI said:
Here's some feedback from someone I know that's well connected in DC.

The thinking around here is that, since it was a split decision, the full DC Circuit will hear it en banc and since the court has been stacked with liberal Obama appointees as a result of Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option last year on judicial nominations, the full court will overturn it. However, since that decision will also be split, that gives the US Supreme Court (and John Roberts in particular!!) a chance to take the case and redeem itself/himself.
More...

7 of the 11 justices on the Appeals court were appointed by Dems, 4 of which were by Obama
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top