Lucky...

The word, "privacy" is not written in the US Const, therefore the FF didn't want to protect that, right? There is no way any group of peopel could write a document of rules relevant for 200-300-400 years to the future, quyit acting as if they could. Trying to extrapolate rules based upon people that washed their clothes on a washing board to those who havee jets that fly 2100 MPH++++ and are so antiquated that they're retored is apples/oranges at its worse. SO I take it that you denouce the living const, AKA all appellatee decisions. Or do you just cherry-pick, like GWB? From an old-school Seahawks fan, I can't denouce stabbing a Raider's fan. You have a way with the ladies So, answer the question: Are you one of those guys who runs around yelling CONSTITUTION to everything? Of course as my attny, as my attny I would want you do everything possible to get the charges dropped, as a guy you're arguing with on the net, I want reality. Hopefully this is more educational than adversarial. They're not even citizens, w/o Obama's influence, they would be rotting there w/o hope. The SCOTUS, living or the orig has no real jurisdiction according to conservatives, they say they're under Geneva, which they shouldn't be subject to torture and permanent prisoner status either. That's not really a SCOTUS / US Const issue. Yep, so is Miranda, Mapp, Escobedo, Dickerson, and we could be here for hours listing all the great, relevant cases that the living const is supporting. I hate granny Smith; too tart. But I like a reference library of cases from which to establish law under, rather than a judge making differring arbitrary rulings on which to apply the law as he seees fit, regardless of a norm. Kinda funny you dislike the living const, yet you cited a case. However I'm sure you cheered the reconcilliation of GWB's to pass his tax cuts, yet snarled as this congress and pres passed HC the same way. So we're kinda back to where we started. If nothing else, this conversation is far better than trading, "twisted" and "strawman" with Rush. Thx for rthe exchange.

Trial courts don't "overturn" anything, they refuse to adhere to it/apply it usually based upon differing jurisdiction. And appellate courts affirm or reverse a lot more than state trial cts refusing to acknowledge fed statute, they affirm or reject trial cts: - Evidence admissions - Jurisdiction issues of venue - Jurisdiction issues of case type - Limitation issues - And I could be here for hours typing out all what appellate cts decide/overturn/affirm all or in part. RNC then Chair Mehlman as I recall he was, said on Meet the Press that the Congressional D's had identical intel as the pres. Russert said the Washington Post had differing info, Mehlman said, "The D's had BASICALLY the same intel the pres had." I think we get it, Bush probably didn't lie by commission, just by omission. If you find that hard to believe, well, sorry for ya. I realize you're personally on this kick to discredit them both and then switch to your 0 tax, buy garbage trucks to sweep up granny off the streets cause she's a homeless no good whore - Libertarian fantasy. Bush withheld data, now, would that have made the D's vote against Iraq? We can only guess. Yep, those in power in: - The WH - The Senate - The House - The SCOTUS - Any position of power, even the people-loving (puke, barf) Libertarians. Where did I advocate it. See, counselor, unlike you I have the ability to be 3rd person objective. Take Heller for example, saying that, "well regulated" (with or w/o the hyphen; juries still out on that one) means well maintained is the fantasy of 5 of the current justices. Is that a FAR STRETCH? Of course, but subjectively I'm glad, just that objectively it's a farce, it has never been interpreted that way before. I can separate the cheerleader inside from the intellect, I don’t see that you can, which is why you bias your reasoning’s. SO I'm not saying rules don't count; where have I? As for ends justify means, I hope you're not so naive to think that the justices don't decide these cases based upon that practice, usually form 2 sides and get people to join, then have their clerk find flowery BS language to support it. 1) Oh, the 1787 version? My, you are a throwback guy. The original interpretation is only referred to as a lose guide in all cases I read. The justices ponder what the FF might have meant and then morph that to fit what they want. 2) Police Power? Couldn't that be so loosely used as to apply to ANY decision? And how is it a police action? Fuck me, could you get any more abstract? And teh 14h reserves it to the fed gov. by applying it to the states. Now see why I think very little of the US Const; they will do what they want anyway? Taking your word for it, this is why I say Heller could take a dirt nap any day. It was a 5-4 win with libs coming in. Again, my point is clear; the SCOTUS doesn't refer to the US Const in most cases, so it's just a power grab; you're pissed that the party you despise is in power, has zero to do with const violations, at least no more than any other group has done. And you claim not to be a Republican? (rolls eyes) Yea, those horrible progressives: - Ended slavery - Gave women rights - Ended segregation - Enacted HC for elderly - Is trying to gove gays rights - Etc, ....... Now they're trying to bring HC to everyone; what a bunch of bastards. BTW, how does it feel to be part of the group that does the opposite of the above? Black OR white Right OR wrong Left OR right Up OR down Meat and potaters, readin, ritin, and rithmatic..... what a fun throwback conversation this is. That's why I dislike conservatism = regression / tradition. SO what, they are also appointed for life and if you think that isn't a political position, you’re not watching. Virtually every politician is narcissistic. I don't, what was the quote and context? Make your own arg. As I wrote, all 3 branches want to trump history and grab power; make their changes regardless of anything present. How can the pres and congress trump the SCOTUS? They don't have executive powers and they must generally wait for a case/issue to come to them, but they win and outlast the other bastards. They are the true legislators, congress just makes statute. Under which case or aspect of the Commerce Clause is HC unConst? And if so, are there other issues/aspects of society that could well be applied to that as well? IOW's, is it so commonplace to ignore this hot piece of the CC that it is all around us and not exclusive to HC? Be more specific. I am, I'm waiting for your argument that HC is a violation of the US Const; I'm being very patient. No,no, I'll post your data for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn From what I read, it has to do with intrastate commerce and the HC Bill is federal. So the feds can't deny states like Mass from engaging in and controlling their own commerce, it doesn't work the other way and preclude the fed from allotting fed subsidies in HC, so I see your precedent as not applicable here, unless the feds tried to tell states how they were going to run their HC systems independent of fed subsidies. Since the feds are subsidizing this, Fillburn and United States v. Lopez (1995) have no relevance here.

Even tho they refused to have any input as they refused compromise, voting on anything, up or down, requires knowledge to so respopnsibly. You can rationalize all you want, but the R's voted down knowing little what was in them. Yep, that was Pelosi. I think what she meant was that we would have to wait to see how it plays out. It's true, no one knows how this willplay out, it will take application to find out. Either way, both are guilty of not knowing every aspect of it and voting up or down. So have I, I've read the essence of it paraphrased and I like a lot off it, esp the pre-existing condition part. This is what you read, this is what most congrresspeople read and yet you want to bury them for voting up, it's ok to vote down We get it. We get it, fuck those w/o access to continuous benefits; this is why we have this law, do to that attitude saying, "fuck em." This is where it becomes about me, while you know nothing about me. I am employed, in long-term temp jobs, that comprise a lot of aviation and have for a long time. No benefits. Again, fuck those w/o caoverage, with pre-existing conds, etc.....WE GET IT FROM YOUR SIDE AND YOU ARE AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS BILL/LAW AS ANYONE DUE TO YOUR APATHY/INDIFFERENCE TOWARD PEOPLE W/O COVERAGE - THANKS. Because it will change. Are we expecting overnight change on a law of this magnitude? Are you new to politics? Just as your heroes Overtime Law, nothing has hapened yet, but things may and not in a good way. And actually part of the law is applied immediatley, the part about kids staying on parent's HC plan until 26 I think was applied immed. But the measures apply in stages and willbe 2014 until it is on full affect. I don't get the rub for it not being applicable today.

Not everyone, just Republicans

Nonsense. If these guys were secure in their views to back their vote, they could contain their remarks and hold their ground with the "facts" and not be intimidated by the supposed "uninformed" opposition. Rep. Hare claims to have read the bill three times? Bull-f**king-sh!t! He read the bill three times in three days? The legislation wasn't even in the House pipeline and published until the Thursday or Friday before the vote... Let's be equally honest; neitehr side read the entire bill as individuals, they just had it paraphrased to them. But you want to excuse your side for proactively voting no, while chastise the other side for voting yes? To be completely fair, I haven't read it and I'm for it, you haven't read it and you're against it; I sense a huge sort of hypocrisy on your end, I've admitted I didn't read it and am for it which is irresponsible at worst, but not hypocritical as is your side.

Voting NO is an action. Abstaining = innaction. So only those who abstained have a defense, under your description. Or teh Republicans, "I say let's go, but chose not to use the brakes, that way we'll never know ifthey work or not," Where did I write or suggest that? I usually expect and get cogent discourse with you, counselor. I think your hate for this law kinda ruins your objectivity. Again, if you don't know, the responsible thing is to abstain, not a yes or a no. Soon we won't have to jusy eat asprin and fuck ourselves, at least those out of the elite circles, we'll actually have access to some kind of HC.

Appellate courts we should say, not trial courts. This is why I say there is an overlap, an indirect influence. The pres appoints fed judges, so thee's the executive branch working in the judicial branch, a small bit, who then influences the legislative branch. A very distant, removed one. As I said, thean all spending is at the point of a gun with that metaphor, so it's meaningless. Let's be real, at the very least they were given only the intel to create a picture of WMD's being fabricated as we spoke. It was politically popular to vote for revenge, if one didn't and I thin k only 1 senator didn't (Wisc) then they were demonized. But yea, the Dems were dismepowered by number and acted like pussies, unlike now. But I disagree with their participation. The const is vague, brief and today, irrelevant in all reasonable circles. It was a brilliant doc for its day, antiquated and out of context today, which is why it is constantly undergoing reinterpretation. OK, how do you apply the US COnst to the HC Bill? How is it's passage in violation with teh US Const? Agreed, as well the judicial branch doesn't like limits either and gets to rewrite the US Const. The executive branch is usually pretty power-hungry too. Heyu, it's all a power-grab in all 3 branches, agreed? I didn't hear of that but that proves my point that all 3 branches are constantly trying to trump both history and trump the other 2 branches, esp where there are ideological diffs between them. Besides, teh SCOTUS wins all battles, it just takes a while to get to them is all. How's that? You and I agree on the 3 branches motivation and workings, it's just that you want to throw out there that HC is unConstitutional and show no relevance to that. You gotta bring some beef; what part of the Preamble, Articles or Amendments and what has been decided upon that section since 1787? Are you one of those guys who disbelieves in the living constitution? I would think you would have already posted that. Are you one of those guys who runs around yelling CONSTITUTION to everything? As a lawyer I would hope you are not. And whatever you post, be sure it's resiliant to other examples.

I think that's great - when you get that 'contribution' up to 90% then I know you put your money where your politics are. I believe you are sincere in your politics, just incorrect - I won't demonize that. Me personally? I vote for candidates that commit to reduce the deficit. It's an honest difference in philosophy - I believe if I give Congress more money, they'll spend that and want even more. You beleive that if you give them all your money and mine, that they'll become responsible with it. We can see who's correct in the long term.... I vote for candidates that I feel will will actually reduce the deficit, not just the ones that give lip service. Of course I used to buy lip service too, it takes a while to see which party/candidates will likely do what. Put it this way and here's a hint, those politicians who raise taxes, or leave them high are the ones who have historically done + things for the deficit/debt. If you vote for tax cutters, you are voting for deficit/debt ammassers. - Eisenhower, Clinton were amongst the best - Reagan, GWB were the worst Any argument?

Agreed, just like the boobs who voted against it; they didn't read it either - your point?

The 3 branches of government: - Judicial - Executive - Legislative It is not the duty of the judicial branch to directly worry about the legislative branch and vice versa, maybe a newflash to you, but these powers are separated. They do overlap a few %, but mostly seperate. And, "at the point of a gun." How is passing a HC Bill at the point of a gun? And if it is, how is it diff than your hero sending 4300+ US soldiers to their deaths at the cost of >1 trillion dollars on cherry-picked intel? It all can be metaphorically versed as, "at the point of a gun" if you disagree with it. Basically the congressman said, "I don't worry about the constitution on this to be honest." He didn't say, 'fuck the constitution" or, 'we're gonna scrap the constitution.' BTW, for clarity: Congress makes laws all the time w/o consideration for the constitution; the SCOTUS as well as ALL appellate courts weigh those laws against the constitution to see if they are in accord, if not, they modify, limit or alltogether toss them. Me thinks you no get the 3 branches.

Yea, well his client's welfare is in jeopardy, so I would like to see admin action from the AMA or the state lic board. AAs well any legitimate civil suits should be given fair hearing.

Keep your strawman Misuse of word. Do you own a dictionary? So having the taxpayers pay for things YOU want is OK, but not for things others want. Yet another redirect you your part Keep you insults and your straw man arguments and take them somewhere else i dont need your shit No one does Your understanding of written English suggests that you did go to a public school. I think the word you used for others describes you: Pussy! And your disrespect for those with whom you disagree suggest you went to some snot ass private school Too good for public school Now that is a pussy No, I went to public school, public university, and I don't WHINE like right wing hypocrites about paying taxes to support others who do the same. Oh wow So the schools cant be blamed Your mom and dad must be so disappointed and ashamed They are long dead. I don't recall that they ever WHINED about taxes like you do, either. Oh great disrespectful one Show me where I have posted that I should not pay taxes??? We've been here before you know READING COMPREHENSION, Marc. I said you WHINE about taxes. You are close but I have never whined about taxes in general But you have to twist it to that or you have no point,... ..... .... which you dont Oh I see, you only whine about taxes that go to pay for things you don't like. Welcome to being like the rest of us then. So let's uit calling it whining and start calling it pure partisanship, which it is. Any you only whine when they are not spent where and at what levels YOU want Whats your point? WOW RUSH, you catch on fast. Read the very post you responded to: Welcome to being like the rest of us then. That is (obviously) my point; we all whine about spending not going where we would choose; it's not the spending, it's the destination. Do you need it spelled out any clearer?

Yes, shift all wealth off to the rich. And record levels of spending in peacetime and level record for debt accrual. Yea, he was a real record-setter. Reagan signed for the spending as well as he encouraged it, so I'm not sure what your pint is. As for the last 10 years, Clinton was part of that and he did not spend like your drunken sailors of FR and GWB; that's a joke. Obama's spending thus far is purely to bailout your hero's mess. Care to reply to fiduciary duty? You do recall the thread title, right? The doc who posted the sign and his duty to his clienst and his employees.

wow... so much time on your hands. and attacking the poster instead of the post... I seriously thought you were Lucky there when I hit reply. Raig; yet another guy who constantly fails to address issues or post any support. Good to know you're not alone eh? nice troll In this thread alone I posted a few, you = 0. Now you're in the school of Rush wiith PA's and in denial.

Keep your strawman Misuse of word. Do you own a dictionary? So having the taxpayers pay for things YOU want is OK, but not for things others want. Yet another redirect you your part Keep you insults and your straw man arguments and take them somewhere else i dont need your shit No one does Your understanding of written English suggests that you did go to a public school. I think the word you used for others describes you: Pussy! And your disrespect for those with whom you disagree suggest you went to some snot ass private school Too good for public school Now that is a pussy No, I went to public school, public university, and I don't WHINE like right wing hypocrites about paying taxes to support others who do the same. Oh wow So the schools cant be blamed Your mom and dad must be so disappointed and ashamed They are long dead. I don't recall that they ever WHINED about taxes like you do, either. Oh great disrespectful one Show me where I have posted that I should not pay taxes??? We've been here before you know READING COMPREHENSION, Marc. I said you WHINE about taxes. You are close but I have never whined about taxes in general But you have to twist it to that or you have no point,... ..... .... which you dont Oh I see, you only whine about taxes that go to pay for things you don't like. Welcome to being like the rest of us then. So let's uit calling it whining and start calling it pure partisanship, which it is.

I'd say you're up to a D+ right now. Well, there is a bright side, Rush could be enrolled in your class right now

Explain any twist. I didn't think so, it;'s easy to state, Twist when ya get stuck; we all see it. If there is a twust you need to, in detail explain the twist or acquiesce as you are known for. Nobady's runnin from you my friend You "twust" to re-direct. Learned from the kallend school of "twust" as is comments on spelling and gramar (opps) Come on baby Lets do the twist Come on baaaaaabbbbbby ............... Your pointing to one typo while making 2 or 3 in the same post is irony, but who cares about a typo? Anyway, read the above post of mine and you'll understand what people think of the substance of your posts. I make them all the time I am not the one who usually uses them to attack a poster But I am learning from kallend Well, I disagree, but who cares, let's talk fiduciary duty and how this civilization deals with it, not how you *wish* it would be.

So were white/black bathrooms, so was Rosa Parks not getting up for a white man, so are all the anti-gay, anti-semetic remarks made in public, etc. No biggie, right? Yep, nor do his clients or his employees. There are avenues by which to remake him into a human or at least demand he pretend he is one. That's to be seen, who's knows what fallout is left to be had.

Explain any twist. I didn't think so, it;'s easy to state, Twist when ya get stuck; we all see it. If there is a twust you need to, in detail explain the twist or acquiesce as you are known for. Nobady's runnin from you my friend You "twust" to re-direct. Learned from the kallend school of "twust" as is comments on spelling and gramar (opps) Come on baby Lets do the twist Come on baaaaaabbbbbby ............... Your pointing to one typo while making 2 or 3 in the same post is irony, but who cares about a typo? Anyway, read the above post of mine and you'll understand what people think of the substance of your posts.

Keep your strawman Misuse of word. Do you own a dictionary? So having the taxpayers pay for things YOU want is OK, but not for things others want. Yet another redirect you your part Keep you insults and your straw man arguments and take them somewhere else i dont need your shit No one does Your understanding of written English suggests that you did go to a public school. I think the word you used for others describes you: Pussy! And your disrespect for those with whom you disagree suggest you went to some snot ass private school Too good for public school Now that is a pussy Where's the disrespect? You calling everyone with whom you disagree a pussy umpteen times is disrespect. Rush, we try to get folks like ot respond to issues with supporting information, data, evidence as it enhances everyone's understanding. You get stuck and then run on a tyrade of calling everyone a pussy and now you call us disrespectful. Go back, there are a handful of issues to address, like the one about a fiduciary duty being owed a doctor's patient and how hanging a sign out front saying if you disagree with my politics, go elsewhere. Find a sunstantive issue and address it. What we expect from you to write is: - Twist - Misdirect - Redirect - pussy w/o any address of the issue, impeachment of any data provided, etc. Perhaps if you're unable to provide any, you might be wrong on the issue and just don't want to admit it. With teh doc, truth is, he has the right to his own thoughts, he no legal justification on many levels to reach this out to his clients and is flatly wrong, again, on many levels. The fact that you disagree is as imprtant as teh fact that I disagree with speed limits. If I want to live in a palce with fewer speed limits I need to move to Germany; if you want to live in a palce that tollerates doctors behaving like this you need to move to a lot of lovely places like that in the continent of Africa, perhaps parts of Asia and other lovely places with very little rule or enforcement.

You should at least wait a post or two before you contradict yourself-that without bringing up that "common defense" thing. And I do feel that the Federal govt has it's hands in a lot of pies it shouldn't-adding more doesn't correct that. If you have a point top make, make it. If not, be Rush and just say, "twist" and run off. >>>>>>>>>>>> And I do feel that the Federal govt has it's hands in a lot of pies it shouldn't-adding more doesn't correct that. Right, further supporting my point that the US Const is a real cool old piece of collectable paper that has almost nothign to do with the running of this country today. Now the living const, that's a different deal; it has relevance.

wow... so much time on your hands. and attacking the poster instead of the post... I seriously thought you were Lucky there when I hit reply. Raig; yet another guy who constantly fails to address issues or post any support.

Explain any twist. I didn't think so, it;'s easy to state, Twist when ya get stuck; we all see it. If there is a twust you need to, in detail explain the twist or acquiesce as you are known for.

Yep, because they want the gov to take care of them and fight their fights Pussy's = no self reliance in this instance Gee, I'm self-reliant and I'm the furthest from a Republican; there goes your theory. I can point out several other people who are Dems and very self-reliant as well I can point to R's who are welfare whores too, so that deduction is ridiculous. As for fighting fights, I went up against 2 law firms in a 5-year court battle, I was pro per, I'm a fighter, moreso than you I'm sure, so am I a pussy for using a state courtroom and state enforcement to collect? I guess if we hang our heads and walk walk away we're tough, if we fight we're pussies. In your definition, apathy = tough, activism = pussy. To that I say Actually then, tea baggers are pussies, according to you, they're fighting for their agenda rather than just laying down; pussies according to you. You are getting twist lessons from kallend now People like you want the gov to give them stuff that other earn Pussy's I receive nothing, my taxes give money to the Military Industrial Complex that I and others earn. You don't have an issue with that, but you do with HC, the bailouts, etc. So you don't have a problem with redistribution, something you label as pussy-like, you have a specific problem with redistribution to anything social. I am for the things that the Constitution outlines You want the help the pussy's get even more So then you are not for something if the US Const fails to outline it, right? Last I checked, the US Const didn't make reference to a standing Army, anything aviation, cars, etc. Hell, the US Const doesn't even mention the draft, yet they infer it does thru " but its authorization for the Congress to "raise and support Armies" allows for it. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_drft.html At the signing of the US Const, many FF owned slaves, yet they still referred to freedoms for all men. Women were chattle in some ways, yet freedoms for all men; I guess the US Const shows it's ugly head there. The word, "privacy" can't be found anywhere in the Preamble, Articles or Amendments, yet it is everywhere in case law, aka the living constitution. I could go on with multiple examples, but those who hang on to the very last thread of the original writing of the US Const as if that is all there is are people who tend not to understand it very well. The very people who run around pounding on the US Const tend to understand it as well as the same types who pound the bible, clammering all the craziness that they do.

I think we can assume yes on the latter, we know the answer to the former as well.