General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRand Paul Says Obamacare Is Unconstitutional
The Senator has batshit for brains
Posted by Paul Constant on Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:43 PM
It'll take more than a Supreme Court ruling to convince Rand Paul that something is constitutional:
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be constitutional does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional, the freshman lawmaker said in a statement. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/06/28/rand-paul-says-obamacare-is-unconstitutional
rurallib
(62,492 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)It is distinctly the province of the Court to say what the law is.
Bake
Igel
(35,393 posts)Purely a matter of opinion. Both are short for "I think that ...."
That said, not all opinions are of equal worth, although any may be expressed.
"The ACA is Constitutional" is short-hand for "The SCOTUS thinks ... the ACA is constitutional." Their opinion rules. It pays to remember that what they hand down are opinions, just as it does to remember their opinion is merely the most important.
SCOTUS has been known to change it's mind. What was constitutional can be unconstitutional, and versa-versa. If "It's Constitutional" were merely a fact without regard to opinion, then the facts would change. That's untenable.
Bake
(21,977 posts)When SCOTUS says a law is unconstitutional, that means it is, by golly, unconstitutional. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, per Marbury v. Madison, and therefore "what the law is," i.e., the law of the land. Can SCOTUS change its mind? Of course. But it doesn't do so lightly, and that is why Citizens United is such an abomination. How long has Roe v. Wade been the law of the land? Long time. It's been chipped away at, for sure. But overturned? Not yet.
Sen. Dumbass Rand Paul has an opinion, and his opinion doesn't count. SCOTUS has an "opinion" and theirs is the ONLY one that counts. But perhaps he doesn't know that.
Bake, Esq.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)Both of them, actually. Real winners, those two.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Bake
Harry Monroe
(2,935 posts)libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)Senator, though he is really bad.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)But it's not. Aqua Budda.
jmowreader
(50,604 posts)I wonder what he thinks of their Eminent Domain ruling.
Carla in Sequim
(228 posts)Here is another I found on TPM. I also have a suggestion. Perhaps these nuts should have to spew this stuff in front of a mirror first so they can see and hear the stupid.
This is from Sen. Rubio.....
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on why the mandate is a tax at the federal level from President Obama but not at the state level from Gov. Romney
Romney supported it on the state level. Which means if you didnt like it in Massachusetts, you could move to another state, Rubio said on Bloomberg Television.
-----------------------------------
Really? Just pick up and move is, to him, as easy as snapping your fingers. Wow. And of course now we have to pick another country! I hope they keep this up. Isn't this fun to watch?
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)THE SUPREME COURT RULED IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL!!!
GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Um, yes it does. That's what "constitutional" means.