The Gadiantons Triumph Again... and Satan Laugheth.

[_sansfoy]

by the way, why do people use archaic language (laugheth?) in order to make a point. Do they think that this gives their argument a serious sounding veneer?

[Guest]

I found if I read Mr. Droopy's posts in John Wayne's voice it makes sense. I'm not kidding.

- VRDRC

I was just talking to my TBM neighbor. She thinks the world might very well end tomorrow as a result of this.

Eventually, your world and the world of people like Dr. Cam, Scratch, Kish, Toronto, Beastie, Graham, Eric, Delusion, TD, Chap, Schreech etc., etc (the world of the secular humanist/materialist/idolitarian/socialist/fascist/communist/National Socialist (multiculturalist) postmodern Left)., will end.

In scriptural terms, we know this as the Eschaton.

There is a way to avoid being a part of that final and irrevocable end, however, and that is to repent, be baptized for the remission of sins, receive the Holy Ghost by one who has authority to administer that ordinance, and endure to the end.

[_Droopy]

by the way, why do people use archaic language (laugheth?) in order to make a point. Do they think that this gives their argument a serious sounding veneer?

I didn't use it, the Book of Mormon did. That was a paraphrase.

[Guest]

The majority said that the individual mandate was not valid under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. But you would have to have read the opinion (and understood it) to know that.

Goody for them. They fundamentally misread Obamacare as law, and allowed a major departure from the rule of law and and the constitution in allowing the Obamacare to go forward under Congress' power to tax. The concept of the rule of law and of limited government have, indeed, been further and severely crippled by this decision, and it creates what secularist Morlockian Lawyers like Darth most dearly belove - precedent - that open the floodgates for further government dictates as to what Americans must buy or face punishment.

No, it doesn't. This case sets precedent that does exactly the opposite. And you don't have the slightest idea how stare decisis works. Stare decisis is a method of jurisprudence that has been part of Anglo-American law for a thousand years. "Precedent" is not a value judgment or a political ideology. The petitioners in this case were looking to establish precedent as much as the respondents were. If you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, and really believed in the ideals you parrot without understanding, you would be happy with this ruling.

The commerce clause, which is now a blank check for Congress and other government agencies to do pretty much anything they so desire, must also be severely delimited and brought much closer to its original intent.

Looks like I won my bet.

The majority specifically rejected the individual mandate as being permissible under the Commerce Clause. The precedent set by this case has the opposite effect of what you are asserting. From pages 20-21 of the opinion.

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.

From page 26 of the opinion:

Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.

From page 27 of the opinion:

The Government says that health insurance and healthcare financing are “inherently integrated.” Brief for United States 41. But that does not mean the compelled purchase of the first is properly regarded as a regulation of the second. No matter how “inherently integrated” health insurance and health care consumption may be, they are not the same thing: They involve different transactions,entered into at different times, with different providers.And for most of those targeted by the mandate, significant health care needs will be years, or even decades, away. The proximity and degree of connection between the mandate and the subsequent commercial activity is too lacking to justify an exception of the sort urged by the Government. The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce."

Where's my five bucks, Droopy?

[_Darth J]

(the world of the secular humanist/materialist/idolitarian/socialist/fascist/communist/National Socialist (multiculturalist) postmodern Left)., will end.

Mormons are materialists, Droopy.

D&C 131:7

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

materialism

the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

[_Darth J]

......Congress and other government agencies........

Congress is a government agency, is it?

[Guest]

I see that this is yet another occasion for Droopy's hypocrisy to do the talking. For posters here who are relatively new, it needs to be said that Droopy has never really worked--he has effectively lived on the government dole his entire life. Either that, or he lucked out and got an inheritance (some of which he apparently squandered on an ill-advised paintballing venture), thus enabling to avoid work for even longer stretches of time. Personally, I think that decisions and opinions on matters like this one are more valid when they are being made by people who actually work and pay taxes, and Droopy doesn't fit into either of those categories.

I already sent Shades a PM about this privately, but [content of private message deleted], so here it goes. You have now opened yourself up to a liable lawsuit with regard to the above comment, as it appears to me that this, and in particular, the first claim you make here is very likely actionable.

I do not know how you could possibly know anything about my life over the past 53 years, let alone my working life, which began at age 16. While I have been quite clear about the time frame of the inheritance I received from my Father (a little over six years ago), as well as what became of it (paying off my house, cars, and other large items so as to be debt free, massive medical bills, taking care of my wife full time, and going to school), you seem to imply here that I have somehow lived my entire life with a silver spoon in my mouth. You claim, and this is the major point, that I have never worked a day in my life (that I have lived on the "government dole" my "entire life," (I've mentioned roughly two to three years on a consistent basis, between about 1981 and 1983, all during my first marriage). You also imply that this inheritance has covered much of my adult life, rather than approximately six years.

My patience with this kind of thing is at an end.

Now, I will absorb, and have absorbed, countless insults, put downs, character assassinations, and personal attacks by you over some seven years. That's all part of dealing with people like you, unfortunately.

However, you have now made clear, unambiguous empirical and historically verifiable claims regarding literally my entire lifetime and its some of its major features. The purpose is clearly slanderous. These are no longer simply insults and flaming cut-downs. They are claims about my actual life and life history that are either demonstrably legitimate or demonstrably false. That means they are clear, unambiguous defamations that you can either support factually, or cannot support factually.

I don't have much of that inheritance left, but I do have enough to find out who your really are, what your name is, and who your informants are. Believe me Scratch, as it was you yourself who originally claimed to have an informant on this forum who had knew my life story intimately enough to know what I've been doing since about 1976, we're going to find out who that is too, and it the process, we're going to find out if its the same "informant" skulking around NMI.

I am not bluffing. Call me any name you wish. Use four letters, or use four hundred. But unless you can empirically back-up the assertions you have now made, prepare yourself.


Loran

[_Droopy]

......Congress and other government agencies........

Congress is a government agency, is it?

No ALF, Congress AND other government agencies.

Get it, Darth? GET IT, DARTH? Congress AND other entities of government that make and enforce law.

Your home must be a drug paraphernalia collectors paradise.

[_Darth J]

You have now opened yourself up to a liable lawsuit with regard to the above comment, as it appears to me that this, and in particular, the first claim you make here is very likely actionable.

That's good, because lawsuits where people are not liable tend to be less effective.

[_Darth J]

Congress is a government agency, is it?

No ALF, Congress AND other government agencies.

Get it, Darth? GET IT, DARTH? Congress AND other entities of government that make and enforce law.

Your home must be a drug paraphernalia collectors paradise.

By phrasing it "and other government agencies," you have included Congress in a category. Not that I would question you're grammar, as your probably right.

What was your favorite part of the Supreme Court's opinion today, Droopy? I'm sure you read it before posting the OP here.