It still will end up at the SCOTUS anyway.

ITS ON!!!!!!

I KNEW YOU’D COME THROUGH SUSAN!!!!!

I’ll light a candle for you and say a prayer to St. Anthony-you are going to face some rough times ahead but stay strong!

Time to stop fooling around and the Congress needs to address reform of the entire immigration question, including border security, legalization, employment sanctions, etc.

not surprising. it’s not over.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Eat shit Teabaggers.

valkyrie101 said:
Time to stop fooling around and the Congress needs to address reform of the entire immigration question, including border security, legalization, employment sanctions, etc.

So true.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

“Eat shit Teabaggers.”

Tell em how you really feel!

LOL

You won , King Obama . But what did you win ? Just one of your 57 states .

Here’s the key to the ruling:

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law),” Bolton ruled. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

So, we have as the legal bases a law illegal as written and as (to be applied), in contravention of Equal Process and Due Protection and preemption. That’s broad.

To be sure, we’ll be winding through the courts, for years, perhaps. However, much can be whittled away without changing the essence of the ruling and its effect.

I think, and this is clearly opinion, this is going to be the mindset of most judges acting in accordance with the Cosntitution, except Alito, Scalia and Thomas, who don’t seem to realize we have a Constitution anyway.

Good, good news! A reaffirmation of our essential American values. A repudiation of fear.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

Libs must be rejoicing- now their homeworkers can stay- for now.

This was not even a close call. The law is legal and any judge that says it isn’t is just ignoring facts. The courts are infested with judges that want to rewrite the Constitution. These judges need to be removed. The next real president must weed out these fools. The next congress must block all left-wing judge appointments.

The ninth circut will uphold this decision and the Supremes will overturn their decision by 5 to 4.

This was a Clinton appointed judge .

DON’T WORRY LIBS , OBAMA’s POLL NUMBERS WILL DROP EVEN FURTHER NOW !!!

PROGS= WE ALWAYS STAND WITH THE BAD GUYS .

gordonbloyershow said:
This was not even a close call. The law is legal and any judge that says it isn’t is just ignoring facts. The courts are infested with judges that want to rewrite the Constitution. These judges need to be removed. The next real president must weed out these fools. The next congress must block all left-wing judge appointments.

What law school did you attend, and when did you graduate?

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

“The ninth circut will uphold this decision and the Supremes will overturn their decision by 5 to 4″

Can I start laughing at you now or should I save it up for when your prognostication DOESN’T HAPPEN?

gordonbloyershow said:
The ninth circut will uphold this decision and the Supremes will overturn their decision by 5 to 4.

6 – 3 with only Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting. Of course. Roberts may dissent as to part of the ruling arguing that only preemption applies. He may be a rabid ideologue, but he does have some integrity, and he seems to at least recognize we do have a Constitution.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

Sorry king-

Don’t you mean that’s a “Refudiation of Fear”

snicker

And gordo got his law degree at the EIB institute for shut in malcontents. Snerdy wiped his ass with the diploma so its “official”

Bootleghaircut said:
Bootleghaircut say

You should be happy too- this means you and your family can stay a little longer.

Michelle-in-Utah is going to be very upset. Her son is not going to be the star on his “Spanish” soccer team if the “Spaniards” remain, and she fervently believes question of Constitutionality are best resolved by poll results. Rasmussen, of course. Apparently, Murf agrees.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

Royal Race-Baiter says:

I think, and this is clearly opinion, this is going to be the mindset of most judges acting in accordance with the Cosntitution, except Alito, Scalia and Thomas, who don’t seem to realize we have a Constitution anyway.

And that’s why no one takes your opinions seriously.

“You should be happy too- this means you and your family can stay a little longer”.

Glad there’s room in your dad’s ass for all of us including Grandma.

Jackass.

“And that’s why no one takes your opinions seriously”

Which is why she is CONSTANTLY responding to then.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, did I offend the day version of the real johnt?

tsk, tsk, tsk- you really need to control your rage, libby- it makes you appear so childish.

The Democrats will get CLOBBERED in November!

BOOT & KING = What unpopular position can we support today ?… Wait .. What’s that ? .. Yes we keep our doors locked at night . .. No , no we haven’t ever been to the AZ border . Who cares though , we are liberals, we know what’s best for you !

The feds complaint is that Arizona would be usurping their authority. Trouble is, the feds have done little to stop the flow of illegals, but don’t want anyone else doing it either.

notsofast said:
Libs must be rejoicing

You have no idea how much we are!!!!!!!!!!!
And wait, wasn’t there some Republican governor who was caught with an illegal immigrant housekeeper? Hmmmm.

This is not the first time our corrupt government has supported and protected criminals. Maybe this decision will inspire more Americans to outwardly support the AZ law and states that are considering similar legislation before it is too late.

notsofast said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, did I offend the day version of the real johnt?

tsk, tsk, tsk- you really need to control your rage, libby- it makes you appear so childish.

So is he arguing with JohnSimpson, me1ranger or barney right now?

Bootleghaircut said:
Glad there’s room in your dad’s ass for all of us including Grandma.

There will always be room in my dad’s ass for you and your family.

His ass is your home away from your brick mobile home.

But openly admitting that you live In someones ass- OMG?

And fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
The_Reasonable_Lib says:

Have you become legal yet?

libra blue said:
This is not the first time our corrupt government has supported and protected criminals. Maybe this decision will inspire more Americans to outwardly support the AZ law and states that are considering similar legislation before it is too late.

So the government enforces the Constitution and you get angry? Certainly says something about some of you conservatives. Let’s go to a hard-line Constitutionalist (not a fake one like the tea partiers and Glenn Beck), ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Andrew Napolitano; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SuxjzoLyf0

WHY DOESNT ERIC HOLDER SUE SANCTUARY CITIES ?

Answer : More Hispanic votes for us !

notsofast said:
Have you become legal yet?

I would provide you with my birth certificate, but I only have a COLB given when my parents lied to the registrar in hawaii 20 years before the actual statute which would allow them to do so existed.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I would provide you with my birth certificate, but I only have a COLB given when my parents lied to the registrar in hawaii 20 years before the actual statute which would allow them to do so existed.

That’s tough.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I would provide you with my birth certificate, but I only have a COLB given when my parents lied to the registrar in hawaii 20 years before the actual statute which would allow them to do so existed.

Ahhhhhh, you must be Barry!

Hi Barry! Are ya nervous about “The View?’

The Real Royal King said:
That’s tough.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

The definitive birther smackdown, my friend.

notsofast said:
Ahhhhhh, you must be Barry!

Hi Barry! Are ya nervous about “The View?’

No, I’m actually more worried about that Constitution, the wars and the economy. You know, the things dealt with on a regular basis. Maybe I’ll go talk with the Republicans again on national tv and destroy every one of their talking points with facts?

@The_Reasonable_Lib, “So the government enforces the Constitution and you get angry?”

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am an Independent that supported Hillary Clinton. The AZ law was legal, but “this” governemt has been allowed to twist the Constitution anytime it pleases and it always does it to protect the criminals amongst us.

Box of rox has stated on another thread that the law has been overturned. LOL. The judge has issued a stay. She did not overturn the law.

RRK and Bootlikker, how many times has the ninth circuit been overturned by the Supremes?

notsofast said:
brick mobile home

I didn’t know they made them in brick. All of the mobile homes I have seen in television news reports from Alabama and West Virginia, they are twisted, rusted metal of some sort and there are old tires on the roofs. I didn’t even know aluminum rusted. I bet in takes a big car to pull a brick mobile home. My Subaru Outback probably wouldn’t work would it?

By the way, why are there tires on the roofs?

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

Royal Race-Baiter or Baby-Bootie, will one of you constitutional scholars POST the portion of the constitution that gives the gov’t the power to force it’s citizens to buy health insurance?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
No, I’m actually more worried about that Constitution, the wars and the economy. You know, the things dealt with on a regular basis.

Yes, I’m sure you have such a major impact on those things on a daily basis.

Rolls eyes.

“There will always be room in my dad’s ass for you and your family.

His ass is your home away from your brick mobile home.”

Awesome!

Mi casa es su casa mi amigo!

libra blue said:
@The_Reasonable_Lib, “So the government enforces the Constitution and you get angry?”

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am an Independent that supported Hillary Clinton. The AZ law was legal, but “this” governemt has been allowed to twist the Constitution anytime it pleases and it always does it to protect the criminals amongst us.

Once again, please go to the video. Fox puts Napolitano out front and center when he has a view that is consistent with theirs like during healthcare debate, but now that he disagrees, this went fairly unnoticed. Napolitano’s judgement is based on the Constitution and legal precedent, the same things the supreme court looks at. The ruling is unconstitutional and usurps federal power.

The King doesn’t mind stereotyping white people. But if you stereotype minorities, better get him a crying towel. The tears will be flowing like rain, amidst his bleating “You’re a racist!” LOL

gordonbloyershow said:
Box of rox has stated on another thread that the law has been overturned. LOL. The judge has issued a stay. She did not overturn the law.

RRK and Bootlikker, how many times has the ninth circuit been overturned by the Supremes?

Basil Marceux!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how goes spreading the grenery?

writer said:
The feds complaint is that Arizona would be usurping their authority. Trouble is, the feds have done little to stop the flow of illegals, but don’t want anyone else doing it either.

The number of illegals entering is less than in previous years. Obama is deporting a record number who do enter. And crime on the Arizona border is relatively mild as compared to similarily populated areas of the country. The hispanics are being scapegoated by the tea party crowd.

notsofast said:
Yes, I’m sure you have such a major impact on those things on a daily basis.

Rolls eyes.

Tell me; have you ever actually engaged in a serious debate or do you instantly degenerate into baseless character attacks? YOU must be Rush Limbaugh.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Fox puts Napolitano out front and center when he has a view that is consistent with theirs like during healthcare debate, but now that he disagrees, this went fairly unnoticed.

And you found out that the judge disagreed with the law how? By watching him say so on FOX.

notsofast said:
And you found out that the judge disagreed with the law how? By watching him say so on FOX.

Oh dear god you don’t read. FRONT AND CENTER vs. background unnoticed. READ, man, READ!!!!!!!

valk, saying there are less people entering illegally now is like saying that since the oil leak has been stopped, there is no problem in the Gulf.

“Royal Race-Baiter or Baby-Bootie, will one of you constitutional scholars POST the portion of the constitution that gives the gov’t the power to force it’s citizens to buy health insurance?”

1. Oh so now you want to hear TRRK opinion? I can’t answer for him but allow me to point out that yes, you are not a hypocrite-but a liar.

2. Shelly why do you always try to change the subject of the thread? You do this all day every day without fail. You know I’ve even seen you post one of your moronic links first post off off the bat and lo and behold it has nothing to do with subject at hand. I honestly don’t know why you persist in such transparent bullshit.

Perhaps a more interesting post from you would be to illustrate how the Arizona law fits into the constitutional framwork of the 10th amendment and actually make your case insttead of obfuscating.

Don’t worry-I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to come up with something intelligent about the topic.

But who knows? Maybe you’ll surprise us all…

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Oh dear god you don’t read. FRONT AND CENTER vs. background unnoticed. READ, man, READ!!!!!!!

Ahhhhh, you were suggesting that he was NOT out front and center when he voiced his disapproval.

Bolton put a hold on the “requirement” of police to ask about immigration status, but, from what I understand, she did not prohibit them from asking about it.

MichelleF said:
Royal Race-Baiter or Baby-Bootie, will one of you constitutional scholars POST the portion of the constitution that gives the gov’t the power to force it’s citizens to buy health insurance?

“it’s” means it is. I think you wanted the possesive whic is “its” without an apostrophe.

And we are not subjects, we are citizens. We are not citizens of the government. An important distinction, but not one which I would expect you might be able to grasp.

Now, as for your fraudulent and vacuous question, that authority lies in a number of places including the interstate commerce clause. Health care is demonstrably interstate.

But, there is no comparison with immigration. The states have powers not reserved to the federal government. That is Constitutional as well. Immigration is conclusively understood to be such a power. That’s why even the rabid ideologue Chief Justice Roberts will have difficulty joing with Alito, Scalia and Thomas should the case come before the Court for arguments.

However, you just confirmed the strategy of the radical right. Since we’re losing on every subbstantive issue, let’s return to HCR to see if we can again excite the easily excitable with more lies like death panels. Problem is, you’re not going to get much help from FOX this time. Murdoch realized it’s bad for business.

Did I cover everything?

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

When an arrest is made, law enforcement can ask for immigration status. Both sides win on this.

libra blue said:
Bolton put a hold on the “requirement” of police to ask about immigration status, but, from what I understand, she did not prohibit them from asking about it.

Indeed.

But, the key is the mandate. In urban areas, few police are going to ask and, indeed, the may jeopardize federal funding, and police departments get huge funding blocks. The local procedures prohibiting this practice will remain in full orce and effect. So, we’re almost at the same point.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

Baby Bootie, I didn’t change the subject, I was reponding to a comment of Royal Race Baiters about Libs being all for the constituion. I merely included you because I thought he could use the help and you guys seem to be tight. I’ll note that you can’t point of where in the const. where it gives the gov’t the power to force us to buy Health Ins. and wait for race-baiters response.

ps, colby is that you?

pss, consider me checked colby!!!

The_Reasonable_Lib, “Fox puts Napolitano out front and center when he has a view that is consistent with theirs like during healthcare debate, but now that he disagrees, this went fairly unnoticed.”

If it ain’t on Shep’s shows I probably didn’t see it.

Race-Baiter,
IF you are using the argument that AZ doesn’t have the authority to enforce this law becuase it interferes with the Fed. Gov’t, then by that logic, Holder should be suing sactuary cities also. He AND you are giant hypos, per usual.

The Real Royal King said:
Now, as for your fraudulent and vacuous question, that authority lies in a number of places including the interstate commerce clause. Health care is demonstrably interstate.
But, there is no comparison with immigration. The states have powers not reserved to the federal government. That is Constitutional as well. Immigration is conclusively understood to be such a power. That’s why even the rabid ideologue Chief Justice Roberts will have difficulty joing with Alito, Scalia and Thomas should the case come before the Court for arguments.

Nice analysis. How long have you pretended to be a lawyer ?

Excellent point, Michelle. The sanctuary cities are also ‘usurping’ federal authority. I’m sure Holder will get right on it.

George C, the King also pretends to be a christian, a white Texan, an important business man, and a world traveler. He hasn’t gotten around to being an astronaut yet, but give him time.

“I’ll note that you can’t point of where in the const. where it gives the gov’t the power to force us to buy Health Ins. and wait for race-baiters response.”

Uh, yeah-you do that! TRRK already answered your inspid question-

“However, you just confirmed the strategy of the radical right. Since we’re losing on every subbstantive issue, let’s return to HCR to see if we can again excite the easily excitable with more lies like death panels. Problem is, you’re not going to get much help from FOX this time. Murdoch realized it’s bad for business.”

BULLSEYE!

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa Eat shit Teabaggers.

Like most liberal progressives.. you’re all class.

“RRK and Bootlikker, how many times has the ninth circuit been overturned by the Supremes?”

Sooooo….I can start laughing now?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Tell snerdly I said “what up.”

Baby-Bootie says:

Uh, yeah-you do that! TRRK already answered your inspid question-

Yeah and he’s wrong. Plus, I’m still waiting for the actual wording from the constitution. Good luck, it’s NOT in there! The fact that you think it’s a stupid question says more about you than it does me, you liberal lunatic!

The hatred that all of you people have for everyone else is sad, shocking, and appalling.

MichelleF said:
Race-Baiter,IF you are using the argument that AZ doesn’t have the authority to enforce this law becuase it interferes with the Fed. Gov’t, then by that logic, Holder should be suing sactuary cities also. He AND you are giant hypos, per usual.

Intererence is not the legal issue, Michelle-in-Utah. It’s preemption. The difference is something akin to your driving off of Compound W and flashing your lights to warn your Sister Wives that there is a speed trap ahead as opposed to your leaving Compound W and issuing tickets on a state highway. Does that help?

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

Thanks for proving my point, that you can’t answer my questions. I will take your non-response and slam at my religion that you CAN’T refute what I said and therefore know I’m right.

MichelleF said:
Baby-Bootie says: Uh, yeah-you do that! TRRK already answered your inspid question- Yeah and he’s wrong. Plus, I’m still waiting for the actual wording from the constitution. Good luck, it’s NOT in there! The fact that you think it’s a stupid question says more about you than it does me, you liberal lunatic!

Michelle-in-Utah, you can’t find the Interstate Commerce Clause? My goodness, it’s even in Article I. Does it specifically say health care? No. But it doesn’t say motels and lunch counters, either. Guess what the basis for such civil rights rulings was, Dearest? You’re in way, way over your head, again, and you’re also off topic. The topic is the unConstitutional Arizona Immigration Law. Please, try to stay on topic.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

“The fact that you think it’s a stupid question says more about you than it does me, you liberal lunatic”

did I say it was a stupid question? No. I SAID YOU WERE OBFUSCATING LIKE THE LYING ASS FOOL YOU ARE!!!

CONSIDER YOURSELF REFUDIATED BAMBI!

MichelleF said:
Thanks for proving my point, that you can’t answer my questions. I will take your non-response and slam at my religion that you CAN’T refute what I said and therefore know I’m right.

Well, folks, we just scored another point for the Side of the Angels!

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

“The topic is the unConstitutional Arizona Immigration Law. Please, try to stay on topic.”

What funny about this shrill harpy from hell is that she pulls this kind of diversionary tactic ALL THE FREAKING TIME and then plays dumb when called on it.

So Bolton thinks AZ illegal alien law is “undermining” and “interfering” with a fed law that the feds themselves fail to enforce? How stupid would someone have to be to fall for that ridiculous reasoning?

“The hatred that all of you people have for everyone else is sad, shocking, and appalling”

Fuck You Argyle.*

*just kiddning…ok not really

HAHA, you have got REAL anger issues, colby, i mean baby-bootie!! You really should do something about that, for the sake of those who have to be around you.

“How stupid would someone have to be to fall for that ridiculous reasoning?”

Stick around buddy-you’re about to find out!!!!

It is great news that the 9th will get their hands on this ridiculous ruling in Az. Everyone knows they will uphold this judge, which means as usual, they will get slapped by the Supreams and both rulings will be struck down….The Fed Gov is totally out of this until Az made a move to do the job for the Feds. Now Obama has to save face and try to slap at Az to get his revenge, Embarasement is a tuff thing huh Obama. But finally he is moving illegals out of country, not fast enough but its a begining…. Im sure Joe in Az will be happy to help.

I actually think this further helps R’s in the upcoming elections. Only 20% of the country are raving liberal lunatics and I think the other 80% are getting a little sick of BO and his ilk telling them they are racist idiots, who don’t know how to make correct decisions for themselves. I mean do they REALLY think this is a winning stratege come election day?!

MichelleF said:
Baby-Bootie says:

Uh, yeah-you do that! TRRK already answered your inspid question-

Yeah and he’s wrong. Plus, I’m still waiting for the actual wording from the constitution. Good luck, it’s NOT in there! The fact that you think it’s a stupid question says more about you than it does me, you liberal lunatic!

Will this do? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SuxjzoLyf0

Will this do? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SuxjzoLyf0

Oh my my my my my

Fox approved and wingnut tested.

This is typical of how the Left operates. Policies they could never get voters to approve they force through the courts. It’s called “legislating from the bench,” and allows one leftwing ideologue in a black robe to usurp the rights of voters. But it’s precisely this kind of heavy-handed disregard for the public interest, democratic process and state rights that will backfire on the Left. The public can smell this power play for what it really is. The Left is already looking for whupping in November, but with each passing day they dig themselves into an even deeper hole.

MichelleF said:
I actually think this further helps R’s in the upcoming elections. Only 20% of the country are raving liberal lunatics and I think the other 80% are getting a little sick of BO and his ilk telling them they are racist idiots, who don’t know how to make correct decisions for themselves. I mean do they REALLY think this is a winning stratege come election day?!

Yes, only 20% list themsleves as liberals, but if you actually address the issues rather than affiliation, you’ll see that the majority of the country’s opinions actually lean more towards the left, despite their self-label. It has actually been that way for quite some time which is part of the reason why up until recently most presidents held more liberal leanings. Studies have shown that a whopping majority of the country actually feel that the gov’t should provide for those who can’t provide for themselves, however, that side has been silenced by the “keep your hands out of my pocket” tea party. Maybe we can go throw some money at a Parkinson’s survivor with a doctorate later?

“I think the other 80% are getting a little sick of BO and his ilk telling them they are racist idiots,”

note no sourcing for this except the voices in little shelly’s head!

Plus race baiting bonus points!

Knew you could not get throught a whole day.

Knew it.

Yes, only 20% list themsleves as liberals, but if you actually address the issues rather than affiliation, you’ll see that the majority of the country’s opinions actually lean more towards the left, despite their self-label

IF that were true UNreasonable Lib, why do clear majorites want obamacare repealed and agree with the AZ law. Your logic makes no sense, whatsoever.

You see, Michelle-in-Utah ….

[Never mind, too easy]

Have a nice afternoon.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

“Your logic makes no sense, whatsoever”

Maybe that’s just because you’re a tad bit confused. Nothing to say about Judge Napolitano? He was JUST ON FOX saying its game over for you.

Weep.

Congressional Research Service memo raises fresh constitutional questions about Obamacare

A just-released memo from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) raises fresh constitutional concerns about a provision in President Obama’s health-care law that could impose tens of millions of dollars in fines on Congress, state and local governments.

As reported by The Daily Caller, Congress could be fined up to $50 million annually by its own health-care law if low-level aides apply for government subsidies to help pay their health-care costs.

The new memo from Congress’s research arm states that state and local governments would be on the hook for such fines as well – but argues those fines may be unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedents on federalism.

The issue is important because a slew of states are challenging the health-care law’s legality in court. If governments were found to be exempt in court, a ruling could establish one set of rules for the private sector and another more lenient set for the rapidly expanding public sector.

The April 29 memo, sent to top House conservative Rep. Tom Price, Georgia Republican, and obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, is inconclusive about whether the health-care law will withstand constitutional scrutiny in court on the provision in question. On one potential challenge, CRS says the argument is “unlikely” to be successful in court. On another, CRS says recent rulings “might suggest” the Supreme Court would look harshly at the relevant provision in the law.

Uncertainty is providing fodder for critics of the health-care law who charge Democratic leaders did not fully think out a written bill negotiated behind Sen. Harry Reid’s, Nevada Democrat, closed doors.

A spokesperson for Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted the government would be considered an “employer” under the law, thus subject to the fines. “The health-care legislation signed into law makes it clear that all employees, wherever they work, are treated the same and have access to health care,” Nadeam Elshami said. But neither the speaker’s nor Reid’s offices offered comment on the constitutional concerns. “We haven’t seen the memo until now, but stand by the bill,” one aide said.

Privately, a second Democratic aide questioned whether the health-care law will ensnare Congress and local governments in the fines, thinking the law will be implemented to avoid such an outcome. The source said exempting the public sector would be politically difficult because it would look hypocritical.

Specifically, the CRS memo says the health-care law may be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment under two legal doctrines the Supreme Court has developed under that constitutional amendment: the “commandeering” doctrine and intergovernmental tax immunity.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/02/crs-memo-raises-fresh-constitutional-questions-about-obamacare/#ixzz0v0PuLDWP

MichelleF said:
Yes, only 20% list themsleves as liberals, but if you actually address the issues rather than affiliation, you’ll see that the majority of the country’s opinions actually lean more towards the left, despite their self-label

IF that were true UNreasonable Lib, why do clear majorites want obamacare repealed and agree with the AZ law. Your logic makes no sense, whatsoever.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=753
Taken from 2004, ma’am. 66% believe gov’t should take care of the needy, it’s not my words alone here. It also states that this number was actually higher during Republican administrations, the previous Bush to be correct (1991). It also shows decrease in the belief that the poor have become too dependent. Sorry.

Pretending that no law professors question Obamacare

Earlier this week at the University of Washington Law School, a “debate” was held on the constitutionality of Obamacare. All four of the debaters said that the new law is unquestionably constitutional. According to moderator Hugh Spitzer, the reason that the “debate” featured only one side was that “we tried very hard to get a professor who could come and who thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional…But there are relatively few of them, and they are in great demand.” The Center for American Progress touts this story as proof of the constitutionality of Obamacare, and the comments on the blog post are a self-congratulatory frenzy about the stupidity of anyone who doubts Obamacare.

Well, all I can say is that if I had some legal problem that required modestly diligent research, I sure wouldn’t hire any of those Washington panel organizers.

My Cato Institute colleague Ilya Shapiro has just posted an offer to debate Obamacare anywhere, anytime. Besides working at Cato (where he edits the Cato Supreme Court Review, and helps manage Cato’s extensive constitutional litigation program), he is also an adjunct professor of law at George Washington University.

Like Sanford Levinson, Randy Barnett, of Georgetown Law School, is also the author of a constitutional law textbook; Barnett has commented extensively on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare. Cato’s Roger Pilon has written many legal scholarly articles, and is an adjunct at Georgetown, although he teaches Government, so perhaps he does not count. Another law professor skeptic is Richard Epstein, of the University of Chicago. Lee A. Casey, who is co-counsel for the 13-Attorneys-General lawsuit, is currently in private practice, but has been an adjunct law professor at George Mason.

Michael McConnell (Stanford) wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal challenging the constituitonality of the mandate.

Writing in USA Today, Jonathan Turley (George Washington) suggested that Obamacare is a flagrant violation of federalism and the Tenth Amendment.

Hypothesizing that Barnett, McConnell, and Epstein were asked to participate in the UW and declined because of schedule conflicts, and that Casey doesn’t count because he is not currently teaching, Shapiro avers that he was never contacted.

As VC readers know, I also think that Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Wall Street Journal excerpted some of my blog post on March 25. I teach Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University Sturm College of Law. My most extensive article on the interstate commerce power is Taking Federalism Seriously: Lopez and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, 30 Connecticut Law Review 59 (1997). In that article, Glenn Reynolds (Law Professor, U. of Tenn.) and I argue that the post-Lopez interstate commerce power does not give Congress the power to regulate the particular technique that is used in abortions. [The plaintiffs in Gonzales v. Carhart did not raise this issue, but the concurrence by Justices Thomas and Scalia indicated that they might have voted against the federal ban, if the plaintiffs had raised the commerce clause.] A fortiori, at least as Glenn and I see things, the interstate commerce power does not include the power to compel every American in buy a congressionally-designed product.

http://volokh.com/2010/04/01/pretending-that-no-law-professors-question-obamacare/

RL, I’d wager that alot less people would agree that gov’t should be MORE involved, after experienciing BO’s hope and change for the last 18 months. Just a guess though.

MichelleF said:
RL, I’d wager that alot less people would agree that gov’t should be MORE involved, after experienciing BO’s hope and change for the last 18 months. Just a guess though.

Prove it please as I did. Without proof it’s just opnion.

Wait unreasonable lib, I don’t have to guess:

as a group independents are more skittish than they were two years ago about expanding the social safety net and are reluctant backers of greater government involvement in the private sector.

This is from 2009

http://people-press.org/report/517/political-values-and-core-attitudes

and there you have it two subject changing meme obfuscating posts from the misstress of misinformaion full of bluff and bluster but nothing that looks like a provable fact.

Just the usual schuck and jive

I will say this RL-you lived up to your name and god bless ya.

Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, the public now
wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed. With the exception
of greater regulation of major financial institutions, there is less of an appetite for government
solutions to the nation’s problems – including more government control over the economy – than
there was when Barack Obama first took office.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/606.pdf

I will say this RL-you lived up to your name and god bless ya.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

Remember in November folks !

A desire for smaller government is particularly evident since Barack Obama took office. In four surveys over the past year, about half have consistently said they would rather have a smaller government with fewer services, while about 40% have consistently preferred a bigger government providing more services. In October 2008, shortly before the presidential election the public was evenly divided on this issue (42%
smaller government, 43% bigger government).

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/606.pdf

Obama is in dire need of more poor ignorant voters. His previous supporters are no longer as ignorant as before.

writer said:
valk, saying there are less people entering illegally now is like saying that since the oil leak has been stopped, there is no problem in the Gulf.

So why was nobody complaining when far more people were illegally entering a few years ago? Now all of a sudden it is an urgent problem requiring extreme laws and daily castigation of the Obama administration for supposedly not doing anything. The point is, it is not that serious of an issue, though, serious enough to warrant reconsideration and reformation of our current policies. Which is clearly the prudent thing to do. Just like McCain used to say, before the tea party forced him to become an extremist. The irony for Arizona is that they need the illegal aliens to keep their agriculture industry going, and now they are moving somewhere else where they are not despised, while Arizona is in economic crisis.

So why was nobody complaining when far more people were illegally entering a few years ago?

Well that’s a lie, R’s were screaming fromt he rooftops. Bush drove me nuts on the immigration issue.

valk, all twelve million illegals didn’t get on a bus and come here all at once. But the numbers have grown to a point where people are taking notice. The feds have been lax for years and years at securing the border. No president has ever taken the problem seriously, and Obama is merely following in their footsteps.

Writer says:

No president has ever taken the problem seriously, and Obama is merely following in their footsteps.

But it’s more than that Writer, he’s actively disparaging those who are trying to do something about the problem. He’s not just ignoring it like past presidents. He’s purposefully lying and misleading the public on what this law does and it’s dispicable, in my opinion.

Before Royal Race-Baiter corrects me, I meant despicable.

The immigration problem got ridiculous when going to Wal-Mart and noticing the the English speakers are outnumbered by those speaking Spanish.

MichelleF said:
So why was nobody complaining when far more people were illegally entering a few years ago? Well that’s a lie, R’s were screaming fromt he rooftops. Bush drove me nuts on the immigration issue.

And McCain too?

Valkyrie – Governor Janet Napolitano killed ALL legislation even sniffing like what Brewer passed.

Moderate said:
The immigration problem got ridiculous when going to Wal-Mart and noticing the the English speakers are outnumbered by those speaking Spanish.

English is, and will always be our primary language. But in many countries other languages are tolerated, or even supported. We live in a hemisphere where most of the people speak Spanish.

murf said:
Valkyrie – Governor Janet Napolitano killed ALL legislation even sniffing like what Brewer passed.

Good for her. She knows the Constitution well.

Those of us who live in border states, even not along the actual border, speak a dialectical form of English with a great deal of Spanish in it. It’s exciting, vibrant, fun.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

murf said:
Valkyrie – Governor Janet Napolitano killed ALL legislation even sniffing like what Brewer passed.

A governor should refuse to sign unConstitutional legislation.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

“We live in a hemisphere where most of the people speak Spanish.”

20 years ago I seldom heard anyone speaking Spanish, so I forgot all that I had learned, now I need to learn Spanish all over again.

MichelleF said:
Writer says: No president has ever taken the problem seriously, and Obama is merely following in their footsteps. But it’s more than that Writer, he’s actively disparaging those who are trying to do something about the problem. He’s not just ignoring it like past presidents. He’s purposefully lying and misleading the public on what this law does and it’s dispicable, in my opinion.

That’s not really true. Obama, and the Democrats, would like to deal with the overall immigration issue, as a national debate, as opposed to putting an ugly bandaide on just one part of the problem. Again, that is the position that McCain took until he started getting hammered by the tea party folk and did a 360 strictly for political reasons. Tightening up the border is probably a good idea, together with some kind of a Reagan-esque amnesty program, improved employer sanctions, and perhaps it is time for a national ID card to protect employers from fraud.

Moderate said:
“We live in a hemisphere where most of the people speak Spanish.” 20 years ago I seldom heard anyone speaking Spanish, so I forgot all that I had learned, now I need to learn Spanish all over again.

No you don’t. English is and will always be our primary language, and the language of our government.

Yeah , we all know about Napolitano’s view of ” terrorists ” and ” man made disasters ” ..

What a genius she is

writer said:
valk, all twelve million illegals didn’t get on a bus and come here all at once. But the numbers have grown to a point where people are taking notice. The feds have been lax for years and years at securing the border. No president has ever taken the problem seriously, and Obama is merely following in their footsteps.

No. Obama wants reformation of the current situation and would love to have the support of the minority party, which has chosen to say no to everything, in crafting said reform.

And McCain too?

I’ve never been a McCain supporter, so you aren’t going ot get me there.

No. Obama wants reformation of the current situation and would love to have the support of the minority party, which has chosen to say no to everything, in crafting said reform.

Which we are more than willing to give JUST AS SOON AS HE SECURES THE BORDER! Of course, he’s not going to do that.

writer said:
valk, all twelve million illegals didn’t get on a bus and come here all at once. But the numbers have grown to a point where people are taking notice. The feds have been lax for years and years at securing the border. No president has ever taken the problem seriously, and Obama is merely following in their footsteps.

I think we can argue President Obama is not doing enough. I believe he is not. But, I also think we have to admit that he is doing more concerning immigration than most of his predecessors. Raygun inherited a mess which he turned into a bloody mess, and W got at such odds with the Republican Congress that he finally threw in the towel. I wonder, and this is simply thinking out loud, Righter, if we might not be better served if we were to provide broader guidelines and leave more up to agency policy, procedure and enforcement, along the lines of TSA and airport security. The problem could be, in some measure, micromanagement by the Congress.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

MichelleF said:
No. Obama wants reformation of the current situation and would love to have the support of the minority party, which has chosen to say no to everything, in crafting said reform. Which we are more than willing to give JUST AS SOON AS HE SECURES THE BORDER! Of course, he’s not going to do that.

You speak for the minority party? I missed that announcement. Well, that ought to make 2010 and 2012 easier. For we on the Side of the Angels.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

Royal Race-Baiter, I wonder if you, Baby-bootie, BFD, Ted, John, Iris, DonnaK, and the rest of you know how ridiculous your obsession with me looks to the average passer-byer. Well, if your obsession with me is what gets you through the day, I’m here for you man. Obsess on!

MichelleF said:
Royal Race-Baiter, I wonder if you, Baby-bootie, BFD, Ted, John, Iris, DonnaK, and the rest of you know how ridiculous your obsession with me looks to the average passer-byer. Well, if your obsession with me is what gets you through the day, I’m here for you man. Obsess on!

Really doesn’t have all that much to do with you personally, it is simply that so many of your ideas are so bone-headed, your research is so flawed and feeble and that your presentation is so shrill and self-righteous. In light of this, if we didn’t challenge you, you wouldn’t be doing our jobs.

Have a nice evening.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

MichelleF said:
Royal Race-Baiter, I wonder if you, Baby-bootie, BFD, Ted, John, Iris, DonnaK, and the rest of you know how ridiculous your obsession with me looks to the average passer-byer. Well, if your obsession with me is what gets you through the day, I’m here for you man. Obsess on!

By the way, it is an honor to be included in your Enemies List. The company is good, but I wouldn’t have omitted Val.

FOX NEWS AND BREITBART
WHERE LYING’S AN ART!

MichelleF said:
No. Obama wants reformation of the current situation and would love to have the support of the minority party, which has chosen to say no to everything, in crafting said reform. Which we are more than willing to give JUST AS SOON AS HE SECURES THE BORDER! Of course, he’s not going to do that.

Yes, because trying to seal the border is: 1) Very expensive (and we know how much the Republicans don’t like the Feds spending their tax dollars. Right?); 2) And when you have a problem with many facets, such as our nation’s illegal alien/immigration problem, it makes no sense doing a piecemeal job of fixing it. The entire Congress, Democrats and Republicans, need to get together and decide on a comprehenisve fix. Obviously.

The Real Royal King said:
your ideas are so bone-headed, your research is so flawed and feeble and that your presentation is so shrill and self-righteous.

Always a bad sign when people start talking to themselves….

So val, when the oil rig exploded, using your theory, it would’ve been logical to start the clean-up BEFORE you stopped the leak. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me or alot of other people. First, you plug the hole, then you worry about the rest. But the left doesn’t really want to stop it, now does it. Let’s be honest here.

(Blacks attacking Mexicans? That wasn’t part of the script)

As police on Staten Island continue to investigate a string of bias attacks in Port Richmond, the latest victim is speaking out exclusively to NY1.

The 40-year-old Mexican man says he was attacked Friday night after walking home from Faber Park.
He says he was beaten by five men who yelled anti-Mexican comments and made off with his backpack.
The victim, who has lived in the country for more than five years, says he does remember bits and pieces of the moments leading up to the attack. He says he had just finished up a soccer match at the park and was simply heading home
when he was approached by a group of young black men…

http://www.ny1.com/?ArID=122707

MichelleF said:
So val, when the oil rig exploded, using your theory, it would’ve been logical to start the clean-up BEFORE you stopped the leak. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me or alot of other people. First, you plug the hole, then you worry about the rest. But the left doesn’t really want to stop it, now does it. Let’s be honest here.

Apparently the right does not want to stop it either, since the leak has been going on, even worse than it is now, during the time period of Republican control of our government. True? And in any event, since the Obama administration has been deporting an unprecedented number of illegals, your theory is incorrect.

It’s surprising that only one part (albeit the most audacious) was rebuked, though the process is far from over. The constitution is clear on this one. But I guess we’ll just have to wait a while longer before it’s completely overturned.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Eat shit Teabaggers.

You should say dung or feces.

it was “our” Progressives who said that the SSN – would NEVER be used as a national “identity number”…???..
I support the AZ judge! (or was that fed?)

Yes the Constitution is even MORE clear on this:

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), was a UNANIMOUS decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows detention of a search subject in handcuffs while a search is being conducted, and that it does not require officers to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a subject about their immigration status.

In a word: UNANIMOUS.

The only thing that the Judge could base striking down two of the provisions was that the AZ Law *REQUIRES* them to do this. Actually, there is a Federal Program that *supports* and *encourages* this to happen, so all that AZ has to do is change tracks and issue an executive order which states that officers in the State of Arizona *should* do this. If it is not *mandated* the Judge is looking at something that mirrors Federal Law already in place. If a challenge is raised at that point, the smart money says that AZ include that the Federal Law be shot down in ALL 50 STATES as well. The SCOTUS will see it on an expidited schedule at that point, and I doubt the Libs are going to like the outcome.

Rhode Island law could be put into the mix as well at that time. Oh, yes. They have had a similar law for some time now. Long enough for it to withstand a Constitutional Challenge.

The effect is pretty much the same, except that now a Judge can’t object without objecting to the Federal Laws as well! THe effect would be to hack off many more Americans who seem to have the attitude: “as long as it isn’t in *my* back yard” since they suddenly would find that it is just where they don’t want it!

ROFL!!!