Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

Ah, it's so kind of you to grant a waiver to that particular group!

What a joke.

For adhering to the letter of the law re that particular amendment, but that has nothing to do with "abiding by the Constitution" in toto. And there's a lot of Constitution.

Why not switch to "believe in the people"? This is particularly amusing. What "people"? "Real" Americans?
 
For adhering to the letter of the law re that particular amendment, but that has nothing to do with "abiding by the Constitution" in toto. And there's a lot of Constitution.

Why not switch to "believe in the people"? This is particularly amusing. What "people"? "Real" Americans?

We can switch to Believe in the People, since that one should be much easier for you. I can understand why'd you'd want to backtrack from the previous statements you've made on the Constitution one.

I think, but cannot be certain, that "Believe in the People" is to believe that they know what is best for them, and government does not. But it is quite cryptic. I'll bet, however, if you dig a bit you can get a better understanding of just what they mean by that.
 
Who's trying to rewrite it? If the subject was "settled", why not just delete the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" clause and be done with it? Save everybody a lot of trouble? Perhaps it wasn't "settled" after all.
AAA already told you why, the first cause is explanatory. That is the ruling of courts. It is also explained as an individual right by many of the Founders during the debate over the Constitution. And most telling, it has always been treated as an individual right.

For fucks sake dude, do you really believe that people were just buying guns all over the country, illegally, for like the first 100+ years of our nations history with no govt intervention? Washington had an army march on some State or town where they refused to pay taxes on whiskey (or whatever) you don't think he would have done something about guns? Wake up man, your argument is absurd.

And yes you are trying to rewrite history, you're essentially saying that we, the people AND the govt, had it all wrong up until now. You don't see the moonbat in that? lol
 
We can switch to Believe in the People, since that one should be much easier for you. I can understand why'd you'd want to backtrack from the previous statements you've made on the Constitution one.

I think, but cannot be certain, that "Believe in the People" is to believe that they know what is best for them, and government does not. But it is quite cryptic. I'll bet, however, if you dig a bit you can get a better understanding of just what they mean by that.

If you think but cannot be certain, then how is the TP wannabee supposed to follow this particular dictum? Since you think this list is so straightforward, why not do the digging yourself and explain just what it means? Again, unless one can define what "believe in the people" means, it's just hot air.
 
AAA already told you why, the first cause is explanatory. That is the ruling of courts. It is also explained as an individual right by many of the Founders during the debate over the Constitution. And most telling, it has always been treated as an individual right.

For fucks sake dude, do you really believe that people were just buying guns all over the country, illegally, for like the first 100+ years of our nations history with no govt intervention? Washington had an army march on some State or town where they refused to pay taxes on whiskey (or whatever) you don't think he would have done something about guns? Wake up man, your argument is absurd.

And yes you are trying to rewrite history, you're essentially saying that we, the people AND the govt, had it all wrong up until now. You don't see the moonbat in that? lol

It's irrelevant. The discussion has to do with "abiding by the Constitution", or rather the difficulties of agreeing on what that means.
 
I have only gone back a few pages....
but is someone arguing... that the people do not have a right to keep and bear arms?
Could the document be any more clear... once you look up the words?
Let me explain for those who are allergic to liberty...

The people keep and have guns and other arms so that they can participate in an effective militia.
You can not screw with this even if you are leftist because it keeps the nation free from tyrants and enemies.


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

reg·u·late
ˈregyəˌlāt/Submit
verb
past tense: regulated; past participle: regulated
control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
"a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function"
synonyms: control, adjust, manage More
control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"
synonyms: supervise, police, monitor, check, check up on, be responsible for; More
set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard.


mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/Submit
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
 
It's irrelevant. The discussion has to do with "abiding by the Constitution", or rather the difficulties of agreeing on what that means.
yea yea, piss poor dodge right here. We were just talking about the 2nd.

And I don't know why you keep harping on "abiding by the Constitution" because even when people shoot your arguments to shit, you still can't accept you're wrong and default to "no one knows what the Constitution means" . It's ridiculous. . retarded even.

Abiding by the Constitution simply means obeying the law as ruled upon. You can obviously disagree and challenge SC rulings or the laws would be permanent and they are not. Anything can be altered in the Constitution but there is a right way to do it and the other ways are wrong, and illegal. The only real exception to this is what to do if the SC rules in favor of a blatantly unconstitutional law. Like banning free speech, then I guess we have to take matters into our own hands or live as subjects. Although imo, this already happened with the passing of social programs and the like, the fed govt has no discernible limits at this point. Our rights are really the last thing we have protecting us, yet sheep like you want us to give them up or WORSE, pretend they don't exist and are just a figment of our collective imagination. dumb.
 
I have only gone back a few pages....
but is someone arguing... that the people do not have a right to keep and bear arms?
Could the document be any more clear... once you look up the words?

No, it's been about "Tea Party Principles" and "Abiding by the Constitution", even though no one can agree on what "abiding by the Constitution" means. Hence the need for a certain degree of brain death to "follow" these principles.
 
Back
Top