Obamacare vs Supreme Court Round 2: This time its personal?

[DinoDoc]

I think they really threw in the towel in 1942.

[giblets]

Technically 5 said it was unconstitutional. 1 of those became more concerned with his "legacy" and party invites rather than what the Constitution said.

Sure he did.

[DinoDoc]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let the Conservatives have their myth. It's all they got these days.

[giblets]

But Obama can still fire rockets from drones at American citizens. When lawyers decide that the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean, it becomes meaningless.

Yeah, if those US citizens are islamic militants in an organization that committed acts of war against the US.

[giblets]

Let the Conservatives have their myth. It's all they got these days.

Don't they have the blocked Medicaid expansion? They can still take solace in the fact that they can inflict suffering on the poor in Republican-run states.

[DinoDoc]

Let the Conservatives have their myth. It's all they got these days.

In my defense the bit about being concern didn't come from a Right Wing blog. I added the bit about party invites in a fit of pique.

[DinoDoc]

Don't they have the blocked Medicaid expansion? They can still take solace in the fact that they can inflict suffering on the poor in Republican-run states.

They also have the Health Care exchanges: WSJ: Yep, the feds are totally unprepared to launch ObamaCare exchanges

[Felch]

Yeah, if those US citizens are islamic militants in an organization that committed acts of war against the US.

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." If they committed treason, arrest them and charge them. It's not like they were killed in a shoot out with police; they were murdered in cold blood.

[regexcellent]

We don't arrest people anymore because with the restrictions on gitmo it's more convenient to just shoot them.

To be quite honest our #1 problem in Afghanistan is our excessively legalistic attitude. We have to give people warning before shooting them. That was a new rule introduced after troops figured out the best way to take out taliban head honchos was kill them in their sleep. Now they get away.

[Felch]

You're right, it is more convenient to just shoot American citizens than it is to give them their due process. But the Constitution isn't about what's convenient for the government.

[giblets]

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." If they committed treason, arrest them and charge them. It's not like they were killed in a shoot out with police; they were murdered in cold blood.

They're in the middle of Yemen and they're at war with the United States. Does the Constitution give the government the power to kill people who are at war with the US? Yes, yes it does.

[self biased]

[Felch]

They're in the middle of Yemen and they're at war with the United States. Does the Constitution give the government the power to kill people who are at war with the US? Yes, yes it does.

Did Congress declare war on Yemen? Did Congress even declare war on some obscure militant group in Yemen? How are we at war with them?

[DinoDoc]

Did Congress declare war on Yemen? Did Congress even declare war on some obscure militant group in Yemen? How are we at war with them?

This should make you feel better: Obama Rushed Rules for Drone Assassinations in Case Romney Won