SkidmarkD wrote:
Example being Obama's health care reform.
heh. 'cause it was entirely "constitutional" for insurance companies to deny coverage to people because they had a pre-existing condition.
my mum has chronic myelogenous leukemia and Obama's healthcare reform is the only reason my family can afford to pay for the medication that keeps her from dying, thanks.
you don't happen to have an extra 100k you can throw around every year, do ya? :P didn't think so.
EDIT: On topic
as a bisexual woman, I am happy DOMA was repealed.
It actually was constitutional that insurance companies denied people for per-existing health coverage
In regards to your mom and family, it may work for you, but for the vast majority of americans their health insurance premiums increase on a monthly basis.
in regards to skidmarkD - the only way Obamacare is constitutional is for it to exist as a tax. Because it is being implemented as a tax the court has ruled it constitutional (although its still questionable)
I'll respond to DOMA later, have to go to class
In regards to your mom and family, it may work for you, but for the vast majority of americans their health insurance premiums increase on a monthly basis.
in regards to skidmarkD - the only way Obamacare is constitutional is for it to exist as a tax. Because it is being implemented as a tax the court has ruled it constitutional (although its still questionable)
I'll respond to DOMA later, have to go to class
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
throatslasher wrote:
I really hope they don't make abortion a state issue.
Why?
Also, I still need those life tips you're supposed to give. I'm lost without your infinite wisdom.
"Blizzard spoke thus; Thou shalt not BM. And the players replied Nay, I shall Play my hand with Lethal already on the board. And so Blizzard sent unto them this Brawl of Yogg, As a lesson for their sins of Pride and Greed, for he is the Prophet of Madness and RNG. On that day, the tavern descended into an era of chaos and darkness, until the weekend passed and everyone forgot all about it. Amen. Book of SMOrc, Verse 20, Chapter 4." - Feam T
Searz wrote:
Why?
Also, I still need those life tips you're supposed to give. I'm lost without your infinite wisdom.
Because if states outlawed abortion, all it would do is make back-alley abortions prevalent again. It's a womens' health issue, women are going to abort whether it's legal or not. Providing clinics allows them to do so safely without the risk of damaging their reproductive organs or killing themselves.
If it's a state issue, every state run by christians (TX, UT, LA, AL, MI, TN, OK, KS, MT, ND, SD, etc, bible belt) states will outlaw abortion. Then women will be carving their uteruses up with clothes hangers again and either sterilizing themselves or killing themselves.
also pm me
BOW DOWNBOW DOWN
BOW DOWN
Abortion actually is a state issue, states have a vested interest in the health and well-being of the public. This basically applies to marriages, abortions, as well as mental health and education. States are all in control of these things.
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
There's the dissent from Chief Justice Rehnquist in Roe v. Wade. Its a pretty good piece that explains why states have control to regulate abortions
Quoted:
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
There's the dissent from Chief Justice Rehnquist in Roe v. Wade. Its a pretty good piece that explains why states have control to regulate abortions
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
throatslasher wrote:
also pm me
Hell no.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/forum/off-topic/league-need-a-life-coach-23251?page=2
"Well, basically you should treat me like a prostitute." - TotalBiscuit
lifebaka wrote:
My brother has already put this far more succinctly than I ever could, so I'm just going to quote him here.
Lifebaka's awesome brother says:
Alright, we've had our fun, but there are some reasons to curb our enthusiasm re:same-sex marriage.
1) The portion of DOMA struck down was the "definition of marriage" section. Other parts of the law, including the one that explicitly allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages, still stand.
2) Proposition 8 still stands. There is an injunction from a lower court that has been interpreted to mean that Proposition 8 cannot be enforced, but that injunction came from a court that can only bind litigants of the case with such an injunction. This leaves open the possibility that the law can still be enforced by other folks, though.
1) The portion of DOMA struck down was the "definition of marriage" section. Other parts of the law, including the one that explicitly allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages, still stand.
2) Proposition 8 still stands. There is an injunction from a lower court that has been interpreted to mean that Proposition 8 cannot be enforced, but that injunction came from a court that can only bind litigants of the case with such an injunction. This leaves open the possibility that the law can still be enforced by other folks, though.
well said.
Toshabi wrote:
Gayest thread on MOBAfail.
holy **** tosh makes an appearance. haven't seen him on this for like 4-5 months.
on a side note...not surprising this was struck down...the US government has been slowly moving away from its' religious roots for quite some time now...this just adds to it.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
You need to log in before commenting.
Except if the laws are in conflict with the Constitution.
Example being Obama's health care reform.
shots fired. what's unconstitutional about universal healthcare?
"1) The portion of DOMA struck down was the "definition of marriage" section. Other parts of the law, including the one that explicitly allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages, still stand."
I'm glad that they made it a states issue. I think anytime power is moved from the federal gov't to the states, it's cause for celebration. I hope they make drugs a state issue next. I really hope they don't make abortion a state issue.