The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Archie Moses]

I think you should say "could" rather than "would".
Can the wall not be ascended or dug under? Is it indestructible and impenetrable? Is the wall magical?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Sure.
But a wall would make it one step harder and prevent more illegal immigration.

Again, I'm not for a wall, but I do think it would prevent a good amount of illegal immigration. There are probably better ways though

 

[colton]

Sure.
But a wall would make it one step harder and prevent more illegal immigration.

Again, I'm not for a wall, but I do think it would prevent a good amount of illegal immigration. There are probably better ways though

That's one of my main problems with building a wall--the money could be much better spent on other avenues towards reducing illegal immigration.

 

[fishonjazz]

Sure.
But a wall would make it one step harder and prevent more illegal immigration.

Again, I'm not for a wall, but I do think it would prevent a good amount of illegal immigration. There are probably better ways though

A moat would probably be cheaper.
Or a cargo net! Those things are a pain in the *** to climb.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[JazzyFresh]

Lol
So Obama didn't actually do anything unconstitutional with Obama Care but there is someone who thinks he did. Thinking something doesn't actually mean anything concrete though.

You should have read more than the first paragraph of the article you posted the link to.

Check it: However, the law has not been invalidated yet, and the White House, Healthcare.gov, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have said that 2019 enrollment will proceed as planned. Most legal experts agree that the law will likely stand, at least until it is reviewed by the Supreme Court. The high court is unlikely to hear the case until 2020, the Associated Press reported.

Abbe Gluck, a Yale Law School professor who specializes in health law, tells TIME that the federal judge in the case, Reed O’Connor, has overstepped by attempting to reshape the law.


Now the law could change in the future making what Obama did unconstitutional for future presidents.

Just like I could go buy an AR-15 today and wouldn't be breaking any laws. They could then pass a law making the purchase of an AR-15 illegal in the future but that still wouldn't mean I broke the law when I purchased my AR-15.
Do you understand?


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Yes. You are saying something is unconstitutional once a court finds it that way. In other words you're not giving the same treatment to Trump. My point......

 

[Archie Moses]

A moat would probably be cheaper.
Or a cargo net! Those things are a pain in the *** to climb.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Even better

 

[fishonjazz]

Yes. You are saying something is unconstitutional once a court finds it that way. In other words you're not giving the same treatment to Trump. My point......

I'm saying what Trump is doing is unconstitutional.
What Obama did with Obamacare wasn't.
Pretty simple.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

Even better

Those are the worst

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[NAOS]

Lol
So Obama didn't actually do anything unconstitutional with Obama Care but there is someone who thinks he did. Thinking something doesn't actually mean anything concrete though.

You should have read more than the first paragraph of the article you posted the link to.

Check it: However, the law has not been invalidated yet, and the White House, Healthcare.gov, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have said that 2019 enrollment will proceed as planned. Most legal experts agree that the law will likely stand, at least until it is reviewed by the Supreme Court. The high court is unlikely to hear the case until 2020, the Associated Press reported.

Abbe Gluck, a Yale Law School professor who specializes in health law, tells TIME that the federal judge in the case, Reed O’Connor, has overstepped by attempting to reshape the law.


Now the law could change in the future making what Obama did unconstitutional for future presidents.

Just like I could go buy an AR-15 today and wouldn't be breaking any laws. They could then pass a law making the purchase of an AR-15 illegal in the future but that still wouldn't mean I broke the law when I purchased my AR-15.
Do you understand?


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Addressing new challenges frequently means bending and adapting laws that were established to address other problems. Obama did the bending and adapting he needed to for Obamacare. It had the air of responsibility and accountability, if you ask me.

Trump is taking a hammer to the system. Braking off the levers of constitutionality rather than bending or adapting.

(@JazzyFresh )

 

[NAOS]

Yes. You are saying something is unconstitutional once a court finds it that way. In other words you're not giving the same treatment to Trump. My point......

There are things that Trump is doing which are flagrantly against the constitution and the established precedent of laws. We don’t need to wait to see how or if the Supreme Court will wade into these waters and make some declarations. With Obama, it was very different.

.... So your “point” sucks. It’s incredibly facile. It’s built on a false equivalence.

 

[JazzyFresh]

I'm saying what Trump is doing is unconstitutional.
What Obama did with Obamacare wasn't.
Pretty simple.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Justice Department Says It Agrees With Judge Who Ruled Obamacare Unconstitutional


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...dge-who-ruled-obamacare-unconstitutional/amp/

Looks to me like it's you willing to look past your own party's bad doings not me. I'm not sticking up for unconstitutional things like you, I'm saying it doesn't surprise me.

 

[Zombie]

Justice Department Says It Agrees With Judge Who Ruled Obamacare Unconstitutional


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...dge-who-ruled-obamacare-unconstitutional/amp/

Looks to me like it's you willing to look past your own party's bad doings not me. I'm not sticking up for unconstitutional things like you, I'm saying it doesn't surprise me.

Jesus Christ. Did you even read the article?

The partial repeal (by Republicans) changed the law enough to render it unconstitutional in that judges opinion, by removing the part of the law that ruling was based on.

The case against the ACA, also known as Obamacare, was brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors, as well as two individuals. It revolves around Congress effectively eliminating the individual mandate penalty by reducing it to $0 as part of the 2017 tax cut bill.

The Republican coalition is arguing that the change rendered the mandate itself unconstitutional. They say that the voiding of the penalty, which takes effect next year, removes the legal underpinning the Supreme Court relied upon when it upheld the law in 2012 under Congress’ tax power. The mandate requires nearly all Americans to get health insurance or pay a penalty.

 

[fishonjazz]

Justice Department Says It Agrees With Judge Who Ruled Obamacare Unconstitutional


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...dge-who-ruled-obamacare-unconstitutional/amp/

Looks to me like it's you willing to look past your own party's bad doings not me. I'm not sticking up for unconstitutional things like you, I'm saying it doesn't surprise me.

Ya. You will never understand your article apparently.
It's a shame really.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app