LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Barbara Boxer: Right to Insurance Trumps Religious Freedom
Source:
LN.com
URL Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/15/ ... ance-trumps-religious-freedom/
Published: Feb 19, 2012
Author: Steven Ertelt
Post Date: 2012-02-19 08:56:22 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 92207
Comments: 155
Barbara Boxer: Right to Insurance Trumps Religious Freedom by Steven Ertelt Barbara Boxer, the leading pro-abortion member of the U.S. Senate, made some comments in a recent MSNBC interview that are sparking outrage across the Internet today. Boxer essentially says the right to insurance trumps religious rights and freedoms. The comments came during an interview concerning the controversial mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place recently requiring religious groups to pay for insurance coverage for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions. As the Washington Examiner reports: Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured. On MSNBC’s Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, Boxer affirmed that under the proposed amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, an employer would not be forced by the government to pay for medical practices against his religion. “I mean, are they serious? Sharpton exclaimed, “How do you make a law where an employer can decide his own religious beliefs violate your right to be insured?” “Oh Absolutely,” Boxer said, “Let’s use an example, let’s say somebody believes that medicine doesn’t cure anybody of a disease but prayer does and then they decide no medicine. “No medicine!” she exclaimed, “Under the Blunt amendment, they could do just that.” The new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to pay for insurance coverage including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs is so offensive more than 50 members of Congress will speak out against it today. Congressman Jeff Fortenberry will hold a press conference today with supporters of the bipartisan, bicameral Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. His legislation would protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Related Links Tell Obama: Stop This Pro-Abortion Mandate The Fortenberry bill currently has the support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators, the most strongly-supported legislative remedy to the controversial HHS mandate. This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage. The press conference comes as the U.S. Senate is expected to vote soon, possibly as early as today, on an amendment that would stop the mandate President Barack Obama put in place to force religious groups to pay for insurance coverage that includes birth control and abortion-causing drugs. Sen. Roy Blunt, a pro-life Missouri Republican, is putting forward the Blunt Amendment, #1520, again, and it is termed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. According to information provided to LifeNews from pro-life sources on Capitol Hill, the Blunt Amendment will be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill. The amendment would allow employers to decline coverage of services in conflict with religious beliefs. Republicans are moving swiftly with legislation, amendments, and potential hearings on the mandatethe Obama administration has put in place that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees. Congress will do what it can to fight back, starting this week, as pro-life Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, puts together a hearing on conscience rights. “If this is what the President is willing to do in a tough election year, imagine what he will do in implementing the rest of his health care law after the election,” Issa said. Rep. Dan Lipinski, a pro-life Illinois Democrat, and a host of Republicans from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), will hold a hearing entitled, “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” on Thursday, February 16th at 9:30AM in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building. On Thursday, Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and others offered Amendment #1520 to ensure Obamacare cannot be used to force health plan issuers or healthcare providers to furnish insurance coverage for drugs, devices, and services contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat, blocked the amendment. Leading pro-life groups, including Americans United for Life, are urging support for the Amendment, which could be added to another piece of legislation. “The Obama Administration continued its unprecedented attack on Americans’ freedom of conscience by refusing to reverse its mandate that nearly all insurance plans must provide full coverage of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved “contraception,” including the abortion-inducing drug ella,” the organization said in an action alert to its members. “We must urge the Senate to protect Americans’ freedom of conscience by supporting Amendment #1520, which would protect the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage that is consistent with one’s religious beliefs and moral convictions.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying Obama’s revised mandate involves “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions” and it urged Congress to overturn the rule and promised a potential lawsuit. Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the original mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose. Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees. Bishops across the country have spoken out against the original mandate and are considering a lawsuit against it — with bishops in more than 164 locations across the United States issuing public statements against it or having letters opposing it printed in diocesan newspaper or read from the pulpit. “We cannot — we will not comply with this unjust law,” said the letter from Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. “People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens.” The original mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.” The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program. The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days. The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.
Poster Comment: Now we know where a few people on here get their justification for implementing ObozoCare!!!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-113) not displayed.
.
.
.
#114. To: freedomsnotfree (#113)
Especially after the handouts stop and they decide to come to my house to "TRY" to liberate some of my personal possessions!!!
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
...believe it...I moved out of a major city years ago...I'm on 9 acres in the country, in a "town" of 4,500 folks...his kind won't be very welcome around here.
They're already not welcome around here, the city council have decided they will not allow the RTA to have bus stops anywhere around any of the local business establishments... I.E. "You ruined your side of town so we aren't going to allow you to ruin our side of town"
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
no bus stops here...or close to here. We can count the stop lights on both hands, easily. Most folks have been here for generations...so the interloper will be easily identified. The "you owe me" folks in the city won't last long...they're not many of those types in the country...not easy enough for them.
That is long time for ruling to stay in effect. Sounds like settled law. I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't have opinions on such complex areas of law. I do have faith in the people in most instances to make the right decisions regarding the law. And trust that court will make the right decision when it comes to the constitutionality of any law. And you find very broad support for Social Security, Medicare, and other social welfare programs. You should change your name from WTP to my view of the constitution and screw what the people want.
LMAO!!! OK, I'll take that into consideration. See, this is what is frustrating about idiots like you. For whatever reason, you think other peoples opinions on constitutional issues don't matter, on a political discussion forum, on a thread dealing with a constitutional issue. You'd rather play your childish and ignorant oneupmanship game, and you're not even good at that! What is ya boy, stupid? You admit you don't know anything about the subject, but you have the gall to pretend to tell someone else who reads everything he can find on constitutional issues that his opinion doesn't matter? LOL! In a place DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE TO POST THEIR OPINIONS AND DISCUSS THEM! And all because my opinion hurts your delicate little sensibilities? I know, let's talk about something that won't make you cry and that you do know about. Say... Oh, I don't know, maybe American Idol? Will that stop your vagina from bleeding?
LOL! You're admitting that you also don't know anything about history.
The Constitution was written so the people could read it and understand it...the fact you can't, or want it to read differently than it was written, is telling. And as far as what people want...I could care less, it seems to me at one time the people of Germany wanted to exterminate a lot of Jews...does that make it right. You never answered the mans questions....is government limited in its power by the Constitution or does it have unlimited power...oh, that's right...you don't "have" opinions...as long as you can benefit from the hard work of others. You really are a "special" kind of stupid aren't you.
Rules for Leftards #45). Why are you taking it personally that I make my entire living off of people like you that actually do something useful???
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
That is long time for ruling to stay in effect. Sounds like settled law. There is no such thing as 'settled law'. The general welfare clause was interpreted as it was written in the Constitution and explained in the federalist papers, for 150 years prior to 1937. Sound like 'settled law'?
HOW DARE you want to keep what you earn!!! It's MINE, MINE all MINE!! lol
Rules for Leftards #25). Why are you mad that I can afford to go on a vacation with “your” tax money and you can’t!!!
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
A constitutional issue is not a political issue. It is one that the courts deal with. And it is very complex legal issue which requires one to have a in depth understanding of the case law and precedents. I don't have that kind of understanding. What are your qualifications? How valuable or definitive should I consider your opinions on the matter
I think I did answer it. I said when the Supreme Court strikes down a law then the court limits the power of Congress or President. So yes the government does not have unlimited power.
So what happens when the appointees are communist/globalist minded judges that think the Constitution is an outdated document and we should move toward international law... are "we the people" supposed to ignore the Constitution just because 9 people in black robes say we should.
Sound like 'settled law'? Considering the number of laws passed since that time dealing with the issue and consequently the opportunities to overturn the ruling, I would call it "settled law." But I realize how happy you would be to return us to the the 19th century in terms of our welfare state. What a glorious time for the poor and elderly that was.
Well if enough people agree with you, you can change the constitution any way you want. You can also tell the Congress to end welfare programs. That would be your best bet.
POOR!!! You do realize this welfare/warfare state has put us 15 TRILLION dollars in debt...RIGHT!!! you REALIZE THIS RIGHT!!! You realize the middle class is being completely wiped out before our eyes and that we've gone from the wealthiest nation on the planet to the largest debtor nation in history of the world...there are MORE poor people, not less, since "redistribution" was considered "civilized". Oh, and in case we're wondering where all the confiscated money went...look at the growth of the government...it was NEVER intended to help the people...it was their so they're could take the lions share of what they fleeced for the people....and create a dependent society. I hope you're ready for the collapse...it's coming...THEN how will the poor and elderly make it. Take a GOOD look at Greece...
I won't have to tell Congress anything...the shows over and we're broke...the gravy train is going to crash to a halt...it's inevitable and unavoidable...thank goodness, it's way past time.
Fiction, no basis in fact. The supreme court ruled that Sam had to buy a license to live on Indian land. Andy Jackson said NO. Congress said NO. The voters said NO, and elected Jackson to a second term. Everyone flipped off the supreme court, and lived happily ever after. End of story.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Why Greece? Why not Iceland
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
we can prey we throw off the shackles of the Federal reserve and the international bankers, but Iceland is a very close nit community and the "you owe me" mentality is not there. Wait till the welfare, WIC, rent subsidies, and all the government checks come to a halt...think Katrina...only nationwide.
I wouldn't blame the current growth in spending on the welfare state but on financial crisis and the housing crisis. I think it was a mistake for Bush to not pay for the wars or for the Medicare drug program along with the tax cuts. Each of those has also contributed to our deficits since Obama took office.
There is way to solve the problem that involves both spending cuts and tax increases that can solve the problem and they will figure it out in the end.
the housing crisis had NOTHING to do with the debt...the debt has grown exponentially for years and we are coming to the end of fractional reserve banking. It will end as it ALWAYS does...hyperinflation. What we are witnessing is global welfare, where this country is bailing out poorer countries through the banking system...we are being brought down to their level, at the expense of the middle class. Governments hate the middle class because they can't control them...so the solution is to spend them into oblivion. Welcome to the communist/global government...or, to quote Bush...the "New World Order".
you don't understand fractional reserve banking or you won't have made that statement...it is of no matter, the collapse is inevitable and unavoidable. Educate youself and you will no this is true. "This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913 "We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". — Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa) "Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." — Modern Money Mechanics Workbook, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975
You should consider my opinions however you'd like, but if you can't refute them, with facts, then you should be on your way and leave the discussion to others. Bringing your emotions into the conversation and allowing my opinions to hurt your feelings is, quite frankly, stupid. We're on a discussion forum, and guess what scooter, you don't get to decide what issues I discuss or what opinions I put forth. I gave you nothing but facts in this thread. Fact 1; the SCOTUS interpreted the General Welfare clause according to the Constitution and the Federalist #41 explanation, for 150 years. Fact 2; In 1937 that changed and Congress has since been allowed to tax for whatever purpose they see fit. Fact 3; MY OPINION is that the founders original intent was interpreted correctly for the first 150 years. Now, if you can't discuss those facts without getting your feelings hurt, calling people names, telling others their opinions don't matter and generally being a pain in the ass who derails the conversation like you have, then maybe you shouldn't discuss issues that you can't contribute to.
I think I did answer it. I said when the Supreme Court strikes down a law then the court limits the power of Congress or President. It's interesting that you made no mention of the US Constitution when speaking of limits on government power. Do you believe the Constitution limits government power? Is the court the only arbiter?
Uhhhh, yes it is. It is one that the courts deal with. And I have an opinion on the matter, and I am allowed to discuss that opinion here, on a political discussion forum. And it is very complex legal issue which requires one to have a in depth understanding of the case law and precedents. Yes, and the engine in my truck is very complex mechanical issue, yet if it throws a rod, spins a bearing or bends a valve, I can pull it out, take it apart and repair the damage. My home is a very complex structure, but if a tree falls on it, I can not only remove the tree but also repair the home. Just like I can discuss constitutional issues on a political discussion forum. I don't have that kind of understanding. Yes, we're aware of that. Not only have you repeatedly told us all that, you have repeatedly shown it. In this thread alone, I have shown a level of knowledge of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Supreme Court, case law AND the history between the 4 that you admit you know nothing about. What makes you feel that my opinion, put forth on a political discussion forum, on a thread dealing with a constitutional issue, in a conversation that didn't involve you, doesn't matter?
And that's exactly right. Get rid of Corporations and you've fixed the Health Care problem.
I have chips and cheese though! And how come there's no apple ice cream and only orange sherbet. And chips, cheese and apples go together but not oranges, chips and cheese...;}
Hey! LMAO!! There is no apple ice cream! WTH?
Hey! LMAO!! There is no apple ice cream! WTH? ;}
BS Before Bush took office we were working to pay down the debt.
ABSOULTE BS!!! We were working on paying down the deficit...HUGE difference. How are you EVER going to pay down the debt when ALL money is BORROWED into circulation...what part of that do you not grasp.
Was our debt growing exponentially at the end of the 90's or not?
What are going to use to pay off the debt...remember EVERY dollar brought into circulation represents debt...so what will you use...below is the debt and how it's ALWAYS gone up... Date Amount 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/28/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66 09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03 09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00 09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42 12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88 12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 * 12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 * 12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 * 12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 * 12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 * 12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 * 12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 * 12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 * 12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 * 12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 * 12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 * 12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70 12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00 12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95 12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26 12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41 12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91 12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18 12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68 12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04 12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38 12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17 12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27 12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92 12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68 12/31/1959 290,797,771,717.63 12/31/1958 282,922,423,583.87 12/31/1957 274,897,784,290.72 12/31/1956 276,627,527,996.11 12/30/1955 280,768,553,188.96 12/31/1954 278,749,814,391.33 12/31/1953 275,168,120,129.39 06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57 06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43 06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93 06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04 06/30/1949 252,770,359,860.33 06/30/1948 252,292,246,512.99 06/30/1947 258,286,383,108.67 06/28/1946 269,422,099,173.26 06/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93 06/30/1944 201,003,387,221.13 06/30/1943 136,696,090,329.90 06/30/1942 72,422,445,116.22 06/30/1941 48,961,443,535.71 06/29/1940 42,967,531,037.68 06/30/1939 40,439,532,411.11 06/30/1938 37,164,740,315.45 06/30/1937 36,424,613,732.29 06/30/1936 33,778,543,493.73 06/29/1935 28,700,892,624.53 06/30/1934 27,053,141,414.48 06/30/1933 22,538,672,560.15 06/30/1932 19,487,002,444.13 06/30/1931 16,801,281,491.71 06/30/1930 16,185,309,831.43 06/29/1929 16,931,088,484.10 06/30/1928 17,604,293,201.43 06/30/1927 18,511,906,931.85 06/30/1926 19,643,216,315.19 06/30/1925 20,516,193,887.90 06/30/1924 21,250,812,989.49 06/30/1923 22,349,707,365.36 06/30/1922 22,963,381,708.31 06/30/1921 23,977,450,552.54 07/01/1920 25,952,456,406.16 07/01/1919 27,390,970,113.12 07/01/1918 14,592,161,414.00 07/01/1917 5,717,770,279.52 07/01/1916 3,609,244,262.16 07/01/1915 3,058,136,873.16 07/01/1914 2,912,499,269.16 07/01/1913 2,916,204,913.66 07/01/1912 2,868,373,874.16 07/01/1911 2,765,600,606.69 07/01/1910 2,652,665,838.04 07/01/1909 2,639,546,241.04 07/01/1908 2,626,806,271.54 07/01/1907 2,457,188,061.54 07/01/1906 2,337,161,839.04 07/01/1905 2,274,615,063.84 07/01/1904 2,264,003,585.14 07/01/1903 2,202,464,781.89 07/01/1902 2,158,610,445.89 07/01/1901 2,143,326,933.89 07/01/1900 2,136,961,091.67 * denotes a rounding up to nearest million NOTE 1: The National Debt has not gone down (from year to year) since the end of the Dwight Eisenhower administration. NOTE 2: World War I increased the Debt by $25
ABSOLUTELY!!
ABSOLUTELY!! Really? In fact the growth of debt was "slowing down" (not growing exponentially) as deficits were falling during this time.
It took us over 200 years to reach the first Trillion in debt in 1981...we were 3.2 trillion in debt by 1990. Within 10 years the debt ALMOST doubled to 5.6 Trillion by 2000...since 2000 we've gone another 10+ Trillion (almost double, but MUCH bigger numbers) in debt and now we're going in debt well over a Trillion per year...yeah, you're right...what took us 200 years to achieve, we now do in about 9 months...and YOU don't call that exponential...put the crack pipe down, it's effecting your judgement. You never answered the question...what are you going to use to pay off this debt...remember ALL money is put into circulation as debt...for every $100 put in circulation...$100 is added to the debt. In addition to the debt of $100, there is interest that is charged...
Comments (154 - 155) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestwe are headed for so very interesting times...and the "you owe me" crowd is going to be in for a rude wake-up call.
#115. To: CZ82 (#114)
#116. To: freedomsnotfree (#115)
...believe it...I moved out of a major city years ago...I'm on 9 acres in the country, in a "town" of 4,500 folks...his kind won't be very welcome around here.
#117. To: CZ82 (#116)
#118. To: We The People (#107)
the latter now for all of 75 years.
#119. To: NewsJunky (#118)
(Edited)
You should change your name from WTP to my view of the constitution and screw what the people want.
#120. To: NewsJunky (#118)
I do have faith in the people in most instances to make the right decisions regarding the law. And trust that court will make the right decision when it comes to the constitutionality of any law.
#121. To: NewsJunky (#118)
I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't have opinions on such complex areas of law.
#122. To: freedomsnotfree, AKA Stone (#121)
oh, that's right...you don't "have" opinions...as long as you can benefit from the hard work of others. You really are a "special" kind of stupid aren't you.
#123. To: NewsJunky (#118)
the latter now for all of 75 years.
#124. To: CZ82 (#122)
#125. To: freedomsnotfree, AKA Stone (#124)
HOW DARE you want to keep what you earn!!! It's MINE, MINE all MINE!! lol
#126. To: We The People (#119)
For whatever reason, you think other peoples opinions on constitutional issues don't matter, on a political discussion forum, on a thread dealing with a constitutional issue.
#127. To: freedomsnotfree (#121)
is government limited in its power by the Constitution or does it have unlimited power.
#128. To: NewsJunky (#127)
#129. To: We The People (#123)
The general welfare clause was interpreted as it was written in the Constitution and explained in the federalist papers, for 150 years prior to 1937.
#130. To: freedomsnotfree (#128)
So what happens when the appointees are communist/globalist minded judges that think the Constitution is an outdated document and we should move toward international law... are "we the people" supposed to ignore the Constitution just because 9 people in black robes say we should.
#131. To: NewsJunky (#129)
What a glorious time for the poor and elderly that was.
#132. To: NewsJunky (#130)
You can also tell the Congress to end welfare programs
#133. To: NewsJunky, freedomsnotfree, We The People, CZ82, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#127)
when the Supreme Court strikes down a law then the court limits the power of Congress or President
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" -President Andrew Jackson 
Samuel Worcester 
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#134. To: freedomsnotfree (#131)
Take a GOOD look at Greece...
#135. To: lucysmom (#134)
Why Greece? Why not Iceland
#136. To: freedomsnotfree (#131)
POOR!!! You do realize this welfare/warfare state has put us 15 TRILLION dollars in debt...RIGHT!!! you REALIZE THIS RIGHT!!!
#137. To: freedomsnotfree (#132)
I won't have to tell Congress anything...the shows over and we're broke...the gravy train is going to crash to a halt...it's inevitable and unavoidable...thank goodness, it's way past time.
#138. To: NewsJunky (#136)
#139. To: NewsJunky (#137)
There is way to solve the problem that involves both spending cuts and tax increases that can solve the problem and they will figure it out in the end.
#140. To: NewsJunky (#126)
How valuable or definitive should I consider your opinions on the matter
#141. To: NewsJunky (#127)
is government limited in its power by the Constitution or does it have unlimited power.
#142. To: NewsJunky (#126)
A constitutional issue is not a political issue.
#143. To: We The People (#111)
Corporations are not people.
#144. To: We The People (#110)
I don't even have any apples or oranges.
#145. To: mcgowanjm (#144)
And how come there's no apple ice cream
#146. To: We The People (#145)
And how come there's no apple ice cream
#147. To: freedomsnotfree (#138)
he debt has grown exponentially for years and we are coming to the end of fractional reserve banking. It will end as it ALWAYS does
#148. To: NewsJunky (#147)
#149. To: freedomsnotfree (#148)
grown exponentially for years
#150. To: NewsJunky (#149)
#151. To: NewsJunky (#149)
Was our debt growing exponentially at the end of the 90's or not?
#152. To: freedomsnotfree (#151)
(Edited)
Was our debt growing exponentially at the end of the 90's or not?
#153. To: NewsJunky (#152)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]