Some of the comments are so idiotic.

Jahmekan

Ruken: WTF is right.

I am so sick of people using Nazi references like it has zero meaning. One good thing about this country is that a president has one guaranteed term (baring anything bad happening) and if the people want him or her back, they get only one renewal and then we are done with them. This is by far one of the fairest system in the world. I know some people do not like the current president, but even if he gets a second term in November that is it. I only wish our congress was held to the same rule.
132 votes
#2.2 - Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:26 PM EDT
Your moonbat buddies use Nazi references all the time.

NotARightJustBecauseYouCan

Let us not forget that the pope at the time, made a deal with hitler, not to interfere with the nazi movement in exchange for not being targeted by the hate machine. There are plenty of pictures showing the pope and hitler together... more like poop pius the XII.
67 votes
#2.6 - Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:23 PM EDT
The Nazis planned to attack the Roman Catholic Church and hated them for having non-Aryans.

Jason-414300 Comment collapsed by the community

Scentor101 just wow wish I had your kind of brain power. Lets see

Actually, Hitler and Republicans are not to far apart.

Their rise to prowess was very similar, blame the econemy on someone else, i.e. the Jews or the Rich.

They both rose to power after an economic decline of a huge scale.

The both want to take something from another person. For Republicans taxing the poor, middle class For Republicans the Sudetenland, parts of Poland, the Rhineland, and Austria being only a few were not enough.

Both waged "warfare" against classes, undesirables for Hitler, the poor, middle class for Republicans.

But, their motives for power may or may not be the same, though Hitler did not commit many evils until after the invasion of Poland in 1939.
18 votes
#2.19 - Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:37 PM EDT
Huh?

Jack335

GOP repeal of The Obamacare.

Scotus VS The Obamacare & The Massachusetts Mandated Health Insurance Law.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both houses concurring), That the following article be proposed to the legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely: Article XIII. Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

1) Does the SCOTUS have the *authority* to overturn a constitutional amendment? No, for all the reasons as above .
2) Does the SCOTUS have the *power* to do so in practice? Yes. It can issue a ruling that eviscerates an amendment of any legal meaning, and that ruling will be final and unappealable. The example of this is the Slaughterhouse Cases opinion, which in practical terms read nearly all meaning out of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court has power.The Massachusetts Court has power either.
The U.S. Supreme Court has no power.The Massachusetts Court has no power either.
A part of the US Constitution would only be invalid if it is inconsistent with another part -- and if two parts are inconsistent like that, then one way of resolving the problem is to go with the part enacted later. So, if it were ever asked to do so, the SCOTUS could declare the Eighteenth Amendment now invalid, since it is inconsistent with the Twenty-First Amendment (which repealed it).
"No," the SCOTUS can't say an amendment is unconstitutional, but they can interpret the constitution in such a way that it renders the part of the constitution as ineffective. So in reality, yes they can do this.
This is the joint resolution adopting the Thirteenth Amendment and proposing it to the states for ratification. Like any other measure enacted by Congress, it is subject to the constitutional and other provisions for enactment -- and that is at least in principle reviewable by the Court. A proposed amendment not properly enacted by Congress or properly ratified is not an effective amendment, and no part (at least yet) of the Constitution.

The VERDICT must be: UPHELD by NO other means,under the Constitution, The Scotus can do much about it..

The President is right on this matter pertaining what I have refers above.
3 votes
#2.56 - Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:52 PM EDT
Obamacare is a law, not an amendment! Stupid is strong!

Kolchak72

Why are the Catholics freaking out about including contraceptives in health
insurance, just because it's available does not mean you have to use it.
8 votes
#2.62 - Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:59 PM EDT
The Catholic church does not have provide it. Birth control is readily available.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...itler#comments