Posts Tagged John Roberts

Didn’t one old woman SAY something on the order of: “we have to pass it, so we know what’s in it”? Well, old woman..

Gosh, now It’s a PENALTY! Tennis anyone?

..John Roberts  STILL does not know, “what’s in it”. As evidenced by his healthcare to tax decision. Is not a TAX, “revenue”!?

Article 1 U.S. Constitution:

Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question ofAdjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Me thinks Steyn is speaking to you SCOTUS, particularly Roberts..

Constitutional Contortions By Mark Steyn

Great. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf macchiato in the Supreme Court snack bar. There’s nothing constitutionally seemly about a Court decision that says this law is only legal because the people’s representatives flat-out lied to the people when they passed it. Throughout the Obamacare debates, Democrats explicitly denied it was a massive tax hike: “You reject that it’s a tax increase?” George Stephanopoulos demanded to know on ABC. “I absolutely reject that notion,” replied the president. Yet “that notion” is the only one that would fly at the Supreme Court. The jurists found the individual mandate constitutional by declining to recognize it as a mandate at all. For Roberts’ defenders on the right, this is apparently a daring rout of Big Government: Like Nelson contemplating the Danish fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen, the chief justice held the telescope to his blind eye and declared, “I see no ships.”

, , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Dedicated to all those Tweeters, including buzzy feed and buzzy feeders

Buzzfeed uses liberals’ tweets to portray conservatives as stupid  via http://twitchy.com/

17 people who said they are moving to Canada because of ObamaCare.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-…

buzzfeed_lrg

Yesterday, Buzzfeed ran an article, “People Who Say They’re Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare,” featuring 17 people who claim they are moving to Canada to protest the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act. The snarky subhead: “I’m sure they’ll like the healthcare just fine there.”

Shorter Buzzfeed: Stupid conservatives! So very, very stupid!

Continue reading →

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: