obamacare upheld

[LikesShinyThings]

I would guess it begins like it did in Syria and Libya. Some group would start organizing protests, probably via social media. These protest would become large and begin provoking authorities. Local authorities would begin to use some level of force to counter the protesters. Some of the protest organizers would take video of the authorities' actions and post them online, provoking other people to become angry and join in the protests. At some point, it would become too much for local officials to handle and the national government would step in. Organizers would then provoke the national government, most likely military at this point, who would again respond with force, which would get video taped and spread, causing other people to become angry, etc.

I thought the military couldn't be deployed against americans. Are you talking about the various State & National Guards, or are you implying Obama will try to do it anyway?

The various National Guard units would be the first to be deployed, yes. But if Martial Law were declared, the regular military would then be able to deploy.

The question to consider here is: if any military unit were to receive orders such as this, would the members of the unit and/or the commanders obey the order? How many soldiers, if any, would defect? Would entire units decide to disobey their orders at that point?

I used to think the same thing about the police. Then Katrina hit. 'nuf said.

[Kythas]

I would guess it begins like it did in Syria and Libya. Some group would start organizing protests, probably via social media. These protest would become large and begin provoking authorities. Local authorities would begin to use some level of force to counter the protesters. Some of the protest organizers would take video of the authorities' actions and post them online, provoking other people to become angry and join in the protests. At some point, it would become too much for local officials to handle and the national government would step in. Organizers would then provoke the national government, most likely military at this point, who would again respond with force, which would get video taped and spread, causing other people to become angry, etc.

I thought the military couldn't be deployed against americans. Are you talking about the various State & National Guards, or are you implying Obama will try to do it anyway?

The various National Guard units would be the first to be deployed, yes. But if Martial Law were declared, the regular military would then be able to deploy.

The question to consider here is: if any military unit were to receive orders such as this, would the members of the unit and/or the commanders obey the order? How many soldiers, if any, would defect? Would entire units decide to disobey their orders at that point?

I used to think the same thing about the police. Then Katrina hit. 'nuf said.

Good point.

[The Annoyed Man]

For all of you who say things like "revolution is coming" or a new civil war is in the offing, please tell me how this will happen? I mean, what will start it? Because let me explain something to you: it takes a LARGE GROUP of people to do something like that. If the group is too small, they are labeled "terrorists" or "extremists" or just plain crazies...and then law enforcement will be sicked on them, and they WILL get arrested. And the press WILL tell everyone that the nation was saved by law enforcement who arrested said terrorists, extremists, or crazies...and folks will believe whatever the press tells them to believe. I hate the current administration. I despise their principles, their ideology and their methodology. But, all I can do is tell others WHY I don't like them and then I can go to the polls and VOTE AGAINST the administration and hope that enough of those I talked to will do the same. That's it, there is NOTHING ELSE, until such time as a large enough group of people, AS A WHOLE, come together to do something different than that. Everything else is wishful thinking, even if a lot of folks are thinking the same thing. The Civil War happened because a number of states seceded and banded together in their succession. They lost, yes, but that isn't the point of what I am saying...they were able to make a go of it because they were large enough of a group to do so...otherwise, they would simply have been arrested or captured, and probably hung for treason or imprisoned. So, once again, I challenge any of you who do not love this administration to come up with a plan to get them out of office, and to still feel as if you haven't compromised your principles.

The only way either occurs, is after we have lost all our freedom. "Frogs in a pot" and all that, otherwise you are correct, the numbers are too small to make any appreciable difference. People don't truly appreciate the liberties that we have and won't even begin to make true steps to take them back until we live in an oppressive socialist society. THEN, revolution is possible.

It is my humble opinion, that the best thing that could possibly happen now is for a state, any state, to have the courage to stand up and tell the feds off. For example, if the citizens of the State of Texas, voted for secession and had the willingness to follow through.

I would guess it begins like it did in Syria and Libya. Some group would start organizing protests, probably via social media. These protest would become large and begin provoking authorities. Local authorities would begin to use some level of force to counter the protesters. Some of the protest organizers would take video of the authorities' actions and post them online, provoking other people to become angry and join in the protests. At some point, it would become too much for local officials to handle and the national government would step in. Organizers would then provoke the national government, most likely military at this point, who would again respond with force, which would get video taped and spread, causing other people to become angry, etc.

Note this is what OWS tried and failed to do, partly because of the incredible amount of restraint by local authorities and also the American People saw through the OWS charade to who was behind it, also the provocation to local authority was far too egregious on the OWS side to provoke any sympathy from regular Americans.

Unfortunately, I think one of the first things the federal government would do in an insurrection would be to shut down any websites which posted these videos ASAP, denying that propaganda avenue to the insurrectionists. So actually what would have to happen is very much like what has happened in other parts of the world in the Internet age, which is that the videos get smuggled out of the country and posted to foreign web servers. Then the fed has to do like China and regulate Americans' access to foreign content.........which would further provoke more and more people to join the insurrection.

[Winchster]

TAM, You can pretty well bet that the day the internet, cell service and cable tv all go down simultaneously that people will be arming themselves in expectation of "something"

[Dave2]

Unfortunately, I think one of the first things the federal government would do in an insurrection would be to shut down any websites which posted these videos ASAP, denying that propaganda avenue to the insurrectionists. So actually what would have to happen is very much like what has happened in other parts of the world in the Internet age, which is that the videos get smuggled out of the country and posted to foreign web servers. Then the fed has to do like China and regulate Americans' access to foreign content.........which would further provoke more and more people to join the insurrection.

I'm not saying this can't happen or that they wouldn't try, but the Internet was designed to resist such efforts. The only reason China and few other countries have any success at all is that everyone within those countries have to go through government-controlled routers and DNSs to access out-of-country servers.

[philip964]

OK here is a view I had not heard before.

Roberts gave Obama a poison pill.

He originally sided with the conservatives and appointed him self to write for the majority which at the time was to reject ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

The solicitor general said it was a tax, so Roberts considered that and agreed it was. He issued his opinion and asked the liberals to side with him and they did. They could have said no, but followed the liberal line and get ObamaCare found constitutional, even if it was called a tax. The Poison Pill.

For the rest of the time until the election the liberals must defend ObamaCare as not a tax. But when you say "its not a tax" enough pretty soon everyone just remembers "tax". They may win or they may loose. But you have to agree he has lit a fire under the conservatives like no other.

The Supreme Court is now adjourned. Their clock is not ticking.

Obama, Pelosi and Reed are all saying right now it is not a tax. It will no doubt be the focus of the election.

When the court resumes session in October, any party to the suit, another justice or Robert's himself can ask for a reconsideration of the ruling.

If Obama wins the elections, Roberts can simply write a new opinion, saying that for example: statements made by the president after the opinion was issued, say it is not a tax, we were mislead and therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional. He has that power and can do it if he wants.

Or if Romney wins and the Republican's take both houses, he can do nothing and wait for it to be voided. Which is sort of what he said in his opinion.

Anyway this is a view I have not heard before.

[Winchster]

OK here is a view I had not heard before.

Roberts gave Obama a poison pill.

He originally sided with the conservatives and appointed him self to write for the majority which at the time was to reject ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

The solicitor general said it was a tax, so Roberts considered that and agreed it was. He issued his opinion and asked the liberals to side with him and they did. They could have said no, but followed the liberal line and get ObamaCare found constitutional, even if it was called a tax. The Poison Pill.

For the rest of the time until the election the liberals must defend ObamaCare as not a tax. But when you say "its not a tax" enough pretty soon everyone just remembers "tax". They may win or they may loose. But you have to agree he has lit a fire under the conservatives like no other.

The Supreme Court is now adjourned. Their clock is not ticking.

Obama, Pelosi and Reed are all saying right now it is not a tax. It will no doubt be the focus of the election.

When the court resumes session in October, any party to the suit, another justice or Robert's himself can ask for a reconsideration of the ruling.

If Obama wins the elections, Roberts can simply write a new opinion, saying that for example: statements made by the president after the opinion was issued, say it is not a tax, we were mislead and therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional. He has that power and can do it if he wants.

Or if Romney wins and the Republican's take both houses, he can do nothing and wait for it to be voided. Which is sort of what he said in his opinion.

Anyway this is a view I have not heard before.

What I wouldn't give for you to be right.

[sjfcontrol]

They have stated that in order for SCOTUS to decide on the constitutionality of a tax, that tax must actually have been collected from somebody first. So it would seem that once somebody is "fined" the tax, the supremes could then come back and call it unconstitutional.

[smoothoperator]

If it's a tax, doesn't that make obamacare unconstitutional because it originated in the senate?

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

[Dave2]

If it's a tax, doesn't that make obamacare unconstitutional because it originated in the senate?

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

Works for me.

[LikesShinyThings]

OK here is a view I had not heard before.

Roberts gave Obama a poison pill.

He originally sided with the conservatives and appointed him self to write for the majority which at the time was to reject ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

The solicitor general said it was a tax, so Roberts considered that and agreed it was. He issued his opinion and asked the liberals to side with him and they did. They could have said no, but followed the liberal line and get ObamaCare found constitutional, even if it was called a tax. The Poison Pill.

For the rest of the time until the election the liberals must defend ObamaCare as not a tax. But when you say "its not a tax" enough pretty soon everyone just remembers "tax". They may win or they may loose. But you have to agree he has lit a fire under the conservatives like no other.

The Supreme Court is now adjourned. Their clock is not ticking.

Obama, Pelosi and Reed are all saying right now it is not a tax. It will no doubt be the focus of the election.

When the court resumes session in October, any party to the suit, another justice or Robert's himself can ask for a reconsideration of the ruling.

If Obama wins the elections, Roberts can simply write a new opinion, saying that for example: statements made by the president after the opinion was issued, say it is not a tax, we were mislead and therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional. He has that power and can do it if he wants.

Or if Romney wins and the Republican's take both houses, he can do nothing and wait for it to be voided. Which is sort of what he said in his opinion.

Anyway this is a view I have not heard before.

Just curious - I would love to believe the bold part, but I've never heard that before. Do you know this from your own knowledge/education/profession/research/etc? Or did you "take someone's word for it"? (not trying to be derogatory ... basically trying to discern if this is coming to you from hearsay or from a reliable source)

[philip964]

OK here is a view I had not heard before.

Roberts gave Obama a poison pill.

He originally sided with the conservatives and appointed him self to write for the majority which at the time was to reject ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

The solicitor general said it was a tax, so Roberts considered that and agreed it was. He issued his opinion and asked the liberals to side with him and they did. They could have said no, but followed the liberal line and get ObamaCare found constitutional, even if it was called a tax. The Poison Pill.

For the rest of the time until the election the liberals must defend ObamaCare as not a tax. But when you say "its not a tax" enough pretty soon everyone just remembers "tax". They may win or they may loose. But you have to agree he has lit a fire under the conservatives like no other.

The Supreme Court is now adjourned. Their clock is not ticking.

Obama, Pelosi and Reed are all saying right now it is not a tax. It will no doubt be the focus of the election.

When the court resumes session in October, any party to the suit, another justice or Robert's himself can ask for a reconsideration of the ruling.

If Obama wins the elections, Roberts can simply write a new opinion, saying that for example: statements made by the president after the opinion was issued, say it is not a tax, we were mislead and therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional. He has that power and can do it if he wants.

Or if Romney wins and the Republican's take both houses, he can do nothing and wait for it to be voided. Which is sort of what he said in his opinion.

Anyway this is a view I have not heard before.

Just curious - I would love to believe the bold part, but I've never heard that before. Do you know this from your own knowledge/education/profession/research/etc? Or did you "take someone's word for it"? (not trying to be derogatory ... basically trying to discern if this is coming to you from hearsay or from a reliable source)

I had never heard of this either. It was told to me personally by a successful litigator who I have great respect for.

[texasmusic]

OK here is a view I had not heard before.

Roberts gave Obama a poison pill.

He originally sided with the conservatives and appointed him self to write for the majority which at the time was to reject ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

The solicitor general said it was a tax, so Roberts considered that and agreed it was. He issued his opinion and asked the liberals to side with him and they did. They could have said no, but followed the liberal line and get ObamaCare found constitutional, even if it was called a tax. The Poison Pill.

For the rest of the time until the election the liberals must defend ObamaCare as not a tax. But when you say "its not a tax" enough pretty soon everyone just remembers "tax". They may win or they may loose. But you have to agree he has lit a fire under the conservatives like no other.

The Supreme Court is now adjourned. Their clock is not ticking.

Obama, Pelosi and Reed are all saying right now it is not a tax. It will no doubt be the focus of the election.

When the court resumes session in October, any party to the suit, another justice or Robert's himself can ask for a reconsideration of the ruling.

If Obama wins the elections, Roberts can simply write a new opinion, saying that for example: statements made by the president after the opinion was issued, say it is not a tax, we were mislead and therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional. He has that power and can do it if he wants.

Or if Romney wins and the Republican's take both houses, he can do nothing and wait for it to be voided. Which is sort of what he said in his opinion.

Anyway this is a view I have not heard before.

Just curious - I would love to believe the bold part, but I've never heard that before. Do you know this from your own knowledge/education/profession/research/etc? Or did you "take someone's word for it"? (not trying to be derogatory ... basically trying to discern if this is coming to you from hearsay or from a reliable source)

I had never heard of this either. It was told to me personally by a successful litigator who I have great respect for.

I don't want to play these games. It was and is unconstitutional, I wish he would have called it what it is.

Even if there's something to be gained by getting Obongo out of office, the SC should have done their job as the last line of defense against idiocy like ACA, not put their fingers in to help select the next loser who gets to live at the WH.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM, You can pretty well bet that the day the internet, cell service and cable tv all go down simultaneously that people will be arming themselves in expectation of "something"

Some will be arming themselves. Others, like me, will already have been well armed. BUT......again......I strongly reiterate that this is NOT what we should be desiring. The founding fathers exhausted all other means of trying to get King George to reverse the course he pushed them onto. They did not WANT revolution. It was forced on them. That should be your attitude too.

So what does "exhaust all other means" actually mean? Well, how much money have you given to Mitt Romney's campaign since he is the de facto nominee who will be running against Obama? I put $200 of my hard earned, sparse dollars into his campaign a couple of days ago. What about donations to the political campaigns of other conservatives? How often do you buy booklets to distribute for free to reclaim the minds of the nation's youth? I buy THESE BOOKS 5 or 6 at a time and make sure that I always have 1 or 2 on me to give to a young person—high school or college age—to help them get the foundation that they never received in public schools. I have never failed to have a youngster that I gave that book to express genuine appreciation and say something like "I had no idea...."

There is a lot we can do to reclaim this country without resorting to the bullet box.......just yet.

(....edited to fix a spelling error.....)