Jimbo3 on August 3, 2010 at 10:55 PM

I figured that was the case from what I’ve read.
I’m all on board to sear BO over wrongdoings, but this issue is nothing to focus on.
People need to stop poking at it.
We’ve certainly got enough to razz BO on already.
Picking on something like this will only make us look like fools.

His attorney status was inactive in 2002,

right2bright on August 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM
From what I’ve seen on this, from an article from World Net Daily (& of course I will have to take their word for it since I have no clue).
It seems very plausible considering the continuing education requirements for a law degree, you’d be nuts not to get your license as inactive if you’re not going to be practicing for a while. Seems as though an inactive status is not always bcs someone did something bad.

“Popularity” has nothing to do with it, Hawk. It’s whether it passes muster legally. Whether a majority of people like it or dislike it is irrelevant to whether it’s permissible under the Commerce Clause.Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:44 PM
OK. Did you really say this yourself?!
Bcs if you mean this, you are EXACLTY what is wrong with this country.
It does not matter if the majority of Americans want to ignore & exploit parts of the Constitution.
Regardless of how the electorate feels about anything, the Const. is not something we can get rid of parts of just bcs the ‘majority’ wants to.
This is why we have the framework of the Const. in the first place.
Everyone has to operate under it, whether the ‘majority’ likes it or not.
This is why we are a Republic & not a mob rule Democracy.
What an insane thing to say.
The judicial branch should not be able to make rulings that go against the Const.
And yet they clearly have. We the People should not be putting up with it at all.
And this is where Congress has failed us all miserably, hence we have failed ourselves by letting all these schmucks line their pockets (& some of their constituents) at the expense of the Const.

Badger40 on August 3, 2010 at 2:08 PM

–I put my law license in Michigan in inactive status after Texas issued me a law license. There’s no need to have simultaineous active law licenses in more than one state unless you plan to practice simultaineously in all of them, which is unlikely unless you’re a litigator or you are a member of a law firm with offices in those states. If you later decide to practice in the inactive state, you pay additional amounts to make your payments current (as if you had kept an active license for all the inactive years) and you have to catch up on all missed CLEs during a two or so year period.

As Christopher Hitchens said, all the truly cutting-edge young people are in the military now.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM

What does that mean?

So it doesn’t bother you that your fellow leftists have obligated taxpayers and health professionals to involuntary servitude?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Well no, since we no one has done that.

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Oh, lookie, the law student had a Freudian slip. She admits that she’s a “leftist” and therefore, has no interest in proving that Obamacare is Constitutional; she simply wants to find a loophole so it can be rammed through.

As Christopher Hitchens said, all the truly cutting-edge young people are in the military now. Post-adolescent, law student leftists are so 1967.

It seems very plausible considering the continuing education requirements for a law degree license, you’d be nuts not to get your license as inactive if you’re not going to be practicing for a while. Seems as though an inactive status is not always bcs someone did something bad

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?
I guess you don’t like that question. Am I right, Chip?
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I don’t really understand why you brought this up as a talking point.
Can you please explain how it’s relevant o Obamacare & the Commerce Clause?

“Popularity” has nothing to do with it, Hawk. It’s whether it passes muster legally. Whether a majority of people like it or dislike it is irrelevant to whether it’s permissible under the Commerce Clause.Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:44 PM

I think you should read this again.

While you’re at it, please tell me where in the Const. or Decl. Of Indpndnc. it states that if the majority of the people don’t like what’s written in the founding documents that they can jut vote to not obey those documents?

His attorney status was inactive in 2002,

right2bright on August 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM

From what I’ve seen on this, from an article from World Net Daily (& of course I will have to take their word for it since I have no clue).
It seems very plausible considering the continuing education requirements for a law degree, you’d be nuts not to get your license as inactive if you’re not going to be practicing for a while. Seems as though an inactive status is not always bcs someone did something bad.

“Popularity” has nothing to do with it, Hawk. It’s whether it passes muster legally. Whether a majority of people like it or dislike it is irrelevant to whether it’s permissible under the Commerce Clause.Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:44 PM

OK. Did you really say this yourself?!
Bcs if you mean this, you are EXACLTY what is wrong with this country.
It does not matter if the majority of Americans want to ignore & exploit parts of the Constitution.
Regardless of how the electorate feels about anything, the Const. is not something we can get rid of parts of just bcs the ‘majority’ wants to.
This is why we have the framework of the Const. in the first place.
Everyone has to operate under it, whether the ‘majority’ likes it or not.
This is why we are a Republic & not a mob rule Democracy.
What an insane thing to say.
The judicial branch should not be able to make rulings that go against the Const.
And yet they clearly have. We the People should not be putting up with it at all.
And this is where Congress has failed us all miserably, hence we have failed ourselves by letting all these schmucks line their pockets (& some of their constituents) at the expense of the Const.

So it doesn’t bother you that your fellow leftists have obligated taxpayers and health professionals to involuntary servitude?
Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

–Where does this require health professionals to participate?
Jimbo3 on August 3, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Shouldn’t the fact that there is a great deal of compulsion involved with Obamacare bother those that support the idea of ‘Liberty’?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

–Where does this require health professionals to participate?

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

I guess you don’t like that question. Am I right, Chip?
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Clearly you are attempting to use misdirection to steer the discussion away from an area that you are losing.
But since you keep on asking, maybe you should read the Constitution first and get back to me on that.

Aren’t you supposed to be a “Law Student” or something?

Shouldn’t you know those words?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Well now you’re just saying random stuff so I guess it’s time for me to leave.

It’s been fun Chip!

Merriam-Webster dictionary: involuntary

1 : done contrary to or without choice
2 : compulsory

Merriam-Webster dictionary: servitude a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one’s course of action or way of life.

Aren’t you supposed to be a “Law Student” or something?

Shouldn’t you know those words?

So it doesn’t bother you that your fellow leftists have obligated taxpayers and health professionals to involuntary servitude?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Well no, since we no one has done that.

What’s your definition of “involuntary servitude”, Chip?

Also, you seem to keep missing this:

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

I guess you don’t like that question. Am I right, Chip?

Yeah, I’m pretty sure the “power of taxation” has always been used as a justification for taking property (money), Chip. Nothing new there. And the Commerce clause has often been used to regulate property.
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:52 PM

So it doesn’t bother you that your fellow leftists have obligated taxpayers and health professionals to involuntary servitude?

In what sense did FDR “pack” SCOTUS? Is it in the sense that he replaced justices who retired or died – just like every other president has done when the opportunity arose, or in the sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about?

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Yeah, you’re right. Presidents appoint 8 Justices of their own picking to SCOTUS in a 4 year period all the time.

Okay, so now the story is that the ‘Commerce clause and Congress’s power of taxation’ effectively gives the government the justification to seize property and labor to provide healthcare, correct?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Yeah, I’m pretty sure the “power of taxation” has always been used as a justification for taking property (money), Chip. Nothing new there. And the Commerce clause has often been used to regulate property. It has even been used to force people to do business with others (like with the Civil Rights Act of 1964)! Looks like you’re getting all worked up for nothing!

Now that I’ve cleared that up for you, would you mind answering this:

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

Thanks, Chip.

I’m pretty sure Democrats are using the Commerce clause and Congress’s power of taxation as justification for passing healthcare reform, not a “right to healthcare”. Looks like you haven’t been keeping up with the news, Chip!
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Okay, so now the story is that the ‘Commerce clause and Congress’s power of taxation’ effectively gives the government the justification to seize property and labor to provide healthcare, correct?

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

Chip,

I think you missed this part of my post! Any thoughts?

Chip?

Okay try reading what I wrote – I didn’t specify ‘in the Constitution’

Well, where else would a “right to healthcare” be?

If you are agreeing that there is NO “Right to Healthcare”, then why were the Democrats using that as a justification for passing Obamacare?

I’m pretty sure Democrats are using the Commerce clause and Congress’s power of taxation as justification for passing healthcare reform, not a “right to healthcare”. Looks like you haven’t been keeping up with the news, Chip!