Benghazi fiasco
- Thread starter Monello
- Start date
This is a cover-up/revision of facts that exceeds anything in my 59 year lifetime. The entire administration is involved, and needs to be purged from the empty suit on down, including the mouthpiece liar-in-chief Jay Carney.
Impeachment, then prosecution for malfeasance/dereliction of duty.
Shrieking sound - akin to fingernails on a chalk board:
What difference does it make? What does it matter now?
Impeachment, then prosecution for malfeasance/dereliction of duty.
Shrieking sound - akin to fingernails on a chalk board:
What difference does it make? What does it matter now?
mamatutu
mama to two
The H2 Channel (part of the History Channel) was advertising last night that a documentary on the Benghazi event will be shown this Friday @ 10pm. Their website is not showing the title of the show yet in that time slot.
H2 TV Show Schedule on History.com
H2 TV Show Schedule on History.com
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Hopefully, they will show the debate footage of Mitt suggesting we do exactly what the good ambassador got killed-ed trying to do; run guns to 'responsible' actors.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Oh, come on!
Dredd Scott
Roe v Wade
Wickard v Fillburn
Kramer v Kramerlmao
Obamacare
Oh, come on!
Dredd Scott
Roe v Wade
Wickard v Fillburn
Kramer v Kramer
What article or section of the Constitution was amended resulting from any of those cases?
If you meant to say that the judicial has sometimes rendered rulings that appear to be legislating from the bench, I would probably agree but I don't see it as a re-write of the Constitution.
PsyOps
Pixelated
What article or section of the Constitution was amended resulting from any of those cases?
If you meant to say that the judicial has sometimes rendered rulings that appear to be legislating from the bench, I would probably agree but I don't see it as a re-write of the Constitution.
That's the problem... it wasn't through the proper process. There is nothing in the constitution that supports RvW , yet having an abortion has been deemed a constitutional right. Having it not enumerated in the constitution decisions for abortion should have deferred to the 10th amendment; each state should decide the legality of it.
Wickard v Filburn… I’m not so sure this is an attempt to amend the constitution so much as it’s a distortion of the intent of the commerce clause. Revoking a person’s right to sustain themselves in any way they want seems to violate the 4th and 14th amendments.
The fact the SCOTUS found Obamacare a tax is such a wide stretch I can’t see how any of them could feel the slightest bit comfortable with it; aside from the fact of ignoring that it forces every person to buy something they may not want. Since the SCOTUS can stretch this so thin under the tax clause, I can easily stretch it that it also violates the 4th and 14th.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
What article or section of the Constitution was amended resulting from any of those cases?
If you meant to say that the judicial has sometimes rendered rulings that appear to be legislating from the bench, I would probably agree but I don't see it as a re-write of the Constitution.
Defacto.
De facto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No, at least that wasn't a finding of some bizarre new reality.
Roberts didn't write something that created what Roe did, what Dredd did, what Filburn did. He said "Well, OK. You created a steaming pile of sh1t and are arguing it's a steaming pile of sh1t. That's a steaming pile of sh1t right there. I guess you kids will clean it up if you like."
PsyOps
Pixelated
Obamacare a tax, simply because the IRS collects the ‘PENALTY’? Even in their decision the SCOTUS admitted it was a penalty; but only by a slick maneuver of having the IRS collect it makes it technically a tax. Even someone like Roberts should recognize it was never the intent of this government to pass on a steaming pile of sh1t to the people; oppressing them with a mandate to buy something; and if you don’t you will be penali… errr… taxed. Taxes have always been collected by two methods: based on what you earn and based on what you spend (and I consider the latter unconstitutional). Now we have a new tax that is strictly based on your very existence. Every human, because we are born, must pay this.
If I decide to roamed the country, never owning property, never earning a dollar, living off the land, I would never have to pay a penny in taxes. But now, because I exist, I will have to either buy something – that I don’t want or need – or pay this ‘tax’. I consider this to be a grave distortion of Art 1 Sec 8 and the 16th:
Art 1 Sec 8
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Roberts, like me, expects Congress to do the legislating. Roberts, like me, figures it is up to trust in our institutions and balances of power, to function properly as the best, and only, remedy.
PsyOps
Pixelated
And when legislating oversteps its boundaries it’s up to the courts to remedy this. I think they failed miserably in this instance. I can't help but think it's largely in the back of all members minds of the SCOTUS to not be pushed front-and-center in front of Obama again during a SOTU address and chastised like a bunch of children that just got in a rumble on the playground.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
If they think it unconstitutional.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I wonder when this thing fully kicks in and Americans in droves are penalized because they can't afford to pay for health insurance, and can't afford to pay the penalty, and potentially millions are facing jail time and this suddenly becomes a crisis (a crisis specifically manufactured to establish a single payer system)… I wonder if the SCOTUS will regret their decision. I wonder if they regret it now.
I can’t wait to read Roberts’ memoirs when he retires.
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
The court CAN'T, or should not, regret it because they made the correct decision; you people don't like this, talk to your REPRESENTATIVES.
You hack on me for being rough on Dubbya and Boehner and not understanding what they have to battle but, they are the best and ONLY route; the executive HAS to lead. The Speaker runs the show when it comes to purse strings. The court judges.
Right now, Boehner continues to, in my view, fail this nation miserably but, hey, I'm not a constituent.
:shrug:
PsyOps
Pixelated
Strange... you believe Obamacare is an abomination yet you think the SCOTUS made the right decision on upholding an abomination. I’m really trying to wrap my head around this.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
So, are you saying 'Constitutional", in your wrap around mind, is synonymous with "non-abominable"?
Of course not. Congress can, and does, all sorts of abominable things that pass constitutional muster.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Which brings up a question; are you able to see something you disagree with being legal and accepting of it?
Put another way, is your idea of a more perfect union a matter of everything being as you think it should be or a collection of things you agree with as well as things you don't agree with?
De facto, says you. So not one single word of the Constitution has been amended by the Supreme Court.
It's all interpretation as to what the Constitution means and that has changed with changes to the court. We've seen the rulings change 180 degrees before like the change of interpretation of the court that ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson versus what the court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education.
I thought for sure that you would have mentioned Marbury v. Madison when the court ruled that it had the judicial power to determine whether or not a particular law or governmental action is proper under the Constitution, which I am pretty sure was the birth of judicial review which cannot be specifically found anywhere in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court reasoned that such power is necessarily included within the judicial power given to the Supreme Court under Article III.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
De facto, says you. So not one single word of the Constitution has been amended by the Supreme Court.
True. And not very many more words in it are actually paid much attention to.
.