Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums

Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality of Obamacare (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8766)

NateR 11-14-2011 06:51 PM

Supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality of Obamacare
 
http://aclj.org/obamacare/brief-supr...titutional-law

Quote:

The Supreme Court of the United States has officially announced that it will consider whether ObamaCare is constitutional. For more than a year-and-a-half, the ACLJ has battled ObamaCare in the courts. We knew from the very start that this law was bad for America. It is the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade and uses our tax dollars to do it. The law is a government mandate that individuals purchase a product, and it gives the government control of our health care decisions.

Now is the decisive moment to act in order to stop ObamaCare. Over 100 Members of Congress have signed on to the ACLJ’s amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reject ObamaCare and declare it unconstitutional. We need you to add your name now and to encourage others to sign as well.

Supreme Court Brief to Declare Obama’s Health Care Law Unconstitutional

To: The Supreme Court of the United States of America

ObamaCare fails the American people. It represents a government-run health care system, the government controlling our health care decisions, and penalizes Americans who choose not to participate. The tax dollars that ObamaCare directs to abortion will bring about the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. This law contradicts the will of the American people. I stand with the ACLJ and over 100 Members of Congress in urging you to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional.
You don't have to donate any money in order to sign the petition; but you can donate in order to help cover the legal fees that will be necessary in order to defeat Obamacare once and for all.

Neezar 11-14-2011 11:22 PM

I hope this law doesn't pass.

NateR 11-15-2011 01:38 AM

Unfortunately, the law has already passed, but I don't think it goes into effect completely until 2014. So, hopefully it can be struck down long before then.

flo 11-15-2011 06:53 AM

Kagan needs to recuse herself.

Neezar 11-15-2011 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateR (Post 179191)
Unfortunately, the law has already passed, but I don't think it goes into effect completely until 2014. So, hopefully it can be struck down long before then.

Excuse me! I'm trying to be in denial. :angry:





:laugh:

Neezar 11-15-2011 11:05 AM

I heard something disturbing on a talk show. I'm not sure if it is in this law or another. But it basically will govern the amounts that can be awarded in malpractice suits. The amount awarded will be based on the plantiff's salary. :unsure-1: They used this for an example, if a child/infant dies by malpractice and the mom is a stay-at-home mom then she would recieve something like $90,000. Same scenario happens to the child/infant, and the mom is a medical professional then she would get millions.

:scared0015:


THAT is f'd up.

CAVEMAN 11-15-2011 05:13 PM

If the Supreme Court decides that Obamacare is Constitutional, there will be no limit to the amount of socialist laws that will follow. Sign the petition, folks!

Play The Man 11-15-2011 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neezar (Post 179201)
I heard something disturbing on a talk show. I'm not sure if it is in this law or another. But it basically will govern the amounts that can be awarded in malpractice suits. The amount awarded will be based on the plantiff's salary. :unsure-1: They used this for an example, if a child/infant dies by malpractice and the mom is a stay-at-home mom then she would recieve something like $90,000. Same scenario happens to the child/infant, and the mom is a medical professional then she would get millions.

:scared0015:


THAT is f'd up.

21st-Century quasi-wergeld :laugh:

flo 11-16-2011 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Play The Man (Post 179221)
21st-Century quasi-wergeld :laugh:

Even after I googled it I couldn't understand it.

:fryingpan:

Bonnie 11-16-2011 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flo (Post 179228)
Even after I googled it I couldn't understand it.

:fryingpan:

I think he loves making us look this stuff up! :laugh: The definition for wergeld (below) goes to the example in Neezy's post of how much money the two women would be compensated for their loss. Their "rank" or "status" would determine the amount/value of their compensation.

Quote:

wer·geld (wûrgld) also wer·gild or were·gild (-gld)
n. - In Anglo-Saxon and Germanic law, a price set upon a person's life on the basis of rank and paid as compensation by the family of a slayer to the kindred or lord of a slain person to free the culprit of further punishment or obligation and to prevent a blood feud.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.