nomoreameo,

You are right! The Constitution is clear about what powers each branch of government but it does not prohibit each from voicing an opinion on each others actions. Obama voiced an opinion (right or wrong), not an edict. The reason that it is not an edict is because the executive branch does not have this power! Grassely is entitled to his opinion, too. Unfortunately, he was chose to make it a personal attack. But, here to, there is no legal requirement to make comments in good taste.

I remember a time when Americans respected the office. Times change I guess.

Well what else whould you expect from Senator Grassley or ANY other Senator or House member. Remember that as a group Congress has about an 11% positive approval rating for the performance of their duties and responsibilities to the American People. Talk abut stupid! I believe that figure speaks for itself about the intelligence of ALL of those political hacks!

^{Can't have it his way so there is no other way......... Waaaaaaaa! Takin my bll & goin hme.}

"Grassley was among 20 co-sponsors of a 1993 Senate bill that would have mandated health insurance for Americans. In 2009 and 2010, however, when President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party proposed a health reform bill featuring mandated health insurance, Grassley vocally opposed the health insurance mandate, saying that it was a deal breaker.^[23][24]"

I would consider the source on this one. I would also ask him to look in a mirror to see one of the problems in this country. Is he is 4th grade or something? Is that all he has left to say to the President? Don't like his policies? Fine...but really, look in the mirror.

Grassley at one time proposed a bill that mirrors this same bill he is now oppsed to for political gain. Go ahead and strike it down guys and piss off 50 million Americans who have no health insurance. This crap about the mandate is a red herring. Less than 1% of Ameicans will be affected by this and they have the right to help from the government to come into compliance. Grassley had to know that when he along with other repubs proposed this long ago along with Mitt.

My beef with the whole constitutional challenge is this: what's the point?

We obviously have had a longstanding cost and lack of coverage problem in healthcare. This was a compromise solution to keep private insurance in the game (no single payer--no real goverrnment takover), add tens of millions of uninsured into the fold of those covered by insurance, and eliminate (limit anyway) deadbeats who take emergency care and make us all pay for it. It allows children up to 26 to stay on their parent's plan, and eliminates the unfairness of the "pre-existing condition" problem that keeps people in jobs they hate. It prevents insurance companies from tossing sick people off. All of these things promote the "general welfare" so what's the big deal? The "mandate"?

The mandate? A tax penalty of a whopping $695 if you don't have insurance? Last I calculated, my family health insurance cost over $10K. $695 is a pittance. The only reason it's there is to provide the "stick" to make people buy. In the Bill negotiations, that was the gift to the insurance companies to "make sure" people actually bought insurance. Would the SCOTUS case be moot if they didn't add the penalty provision? What if they gave everyone who HAD insurance a tax credit and if you didn't have it, you didn't get the credit? Would that be an "unconstitutional" mandate too?

I dunno, I like most of the provisions of this bill. I already have insurance, so the mandate doesn't affect me--except that presumably I won't be paying for as many deadbeats. My kids will be in college soon, and if they have trouble getting jobs down the road, I sure would like to cover them through age 26 if I had to.

So many other things....I'd just like to understand what's so bad about this bill? Somebody who can explain it to me please do, because I don't understand the logic behind throwing the whole thing out. I understand the objection to the "unprecendented" mandate and supposed slippery slope, so don't waste time explaining that, but what's wrong with the rest of it?

In the circle of Political assesments:

Republican Chuck Grassley comments as to value of President Obama's judgement ... is equal to a listening to a Dung Beetle claiming, that Lions don't know what good food is.

To be kind, I will only say "you have to take into account what the Congressman is used to." ...

Roy Wilson,

My understanding is the law was designed (in part) to get all of the deadbeats in the Emergency Rooms paying for theri own health insurance, so they wouldn't be there crowding the ER. The mandate is what motivates that to happen. What's wrong with that?

Last weekend I was reading of a young lady who was arrested and taken out of an emergency room as they refused to listen to her and properly treat her so it isn't inconceivable to believe that emergency rooms do turn people away for whatever reasons.

Congress had in excess of 50 years to work on the healthcare bill in front of them the day of the vote. Many changes in the bill that people did not like were instituted by the republicans themselves so for any sitting congress to say afterwards that they had no idea what was in the bill whether it be republican, independent or democrat is ludicrous. The republicans simply renegged on their promise to yay vote it once their personal pay mandate was entered and public options taken out.

Once again, this republican has stated he is upset with the President because he is not instituting military aid in yet another country, Syria, and belittles the President for doing his constitutional job and working with the Unitd Nations as he is supposed to be doing. Had the President gotten involved the way the republicans chose to, we would be in several differant wars and invasions in addition to the two they put us in to begin with. The good news being that had Mr. Obama chose to follow the wishes of the republicans, the additional war costs would be hidden off the books as they did with the two wars they began in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the Republicans, it's desperate people taking desperate measures. Anything to deflect or take away from the real problems for which they have no answers. Keep it up until November fella's.

Grassley has every right to call Obama "stupid". Grassley has every right to act stupidly. And we have every right to call him anything we want and to vote his a$$ out of office. If this is about "rights", then Obama also had every right to his calling out of the Supreme Court for repeating idiotic "broccoli" arguments provided by right wing pundits. And we have every right to expect decent and fair health care. Along with every right for the Republicans to try to make things work... but try as we might... despite our "rights"... somethings will never be.

dslodge

Darthfrodo...Respect is earned...not given due to a title.

Sigh......... You can disagree with the policies of the person in the office all you want. Perhaps your own boss has done some things you don't like. But you respect the position.

I expect nothing less from a congress person who represents a party with the intelligence of a potato and I am insulting potatoes. I have seen the things Grassley has done and quite frankly the only person he should be seeing as stupid is the person in the mirror every morning.

american-2051576

What is not a given is that the POTUS shares this same capability. A potus does not, his responsability lies with being bipartisan and to effect a unity of purpose in moving America forward.

Obviously, The jr senator from illinios failed to understand this simple distinction when he was elected POTUS in 2008.

You mean the same way that George Bush and the republicans played bipartisan for their 8 year reign? They never once played bipartisan. All veto votes by George Bush came only after the democrats took the house majority away from the republicans. Any bipartisanship came from the democrats and not once from the republicans in the past 13 years anyways.

SmBusOwnerinNY "Roy Wilson, My understanding is the law was designed (in part) to get all of the deadbeats in the Emergency Rooms paying for theri own health insurance"

Yes, but it won't accomplish that goal - it will just make insurance more expensive for virtually everyone, and the illegal immigrants will still go to emergency rooms and get treatment for free. You don't REALLY think they will voluntarily pay for insurance they can't afford, and since most don't file tax returns, there will be no penalty for them.

What we REALLY need is universal health care, similar to what's available in France or Taiwan, where the care is excellent and the cost affordable - paid for with a combination of business and sales taxes - same coverage for everyone.

greg smith1

First, working at McDonalds pays minimum wage and minimum wage wouldn't begin to pay for their share of medical insurance if they paid their entire checks to the insurance companies.

I agreed with the public options part of the democrats healthcare bill before they took it out at the instructions of the republicans who promised the democrats they would vote yay on the bill if they followed the republican wishes.

I work. I do not need assistance and do not ask for it. Just because I do not take advantage of it does not for one moment mean that I am against helping those that do even if at least 50% of those people that need help assistance are republicans themselves.

I pay 598$ a month for health insurance. I probably make twice as much or more than most do and I'm not a greedy self server that only thinks of myself. If I am able to help others that need it, then I would rather help them much more than I would giving money to murder people in other countries for reasons I do not agree with to begin with.

Folks, if the passengers on an airliner were allowed to vote for their pilot and 31 out of 60 voted for the handsome pilot with the good looking smile without bothering to check out his credentials and when you get in midflight it becomes painfully obvious that the man has no idea what he is doing as you're heading for a crash, don't get angry when the other passengers point out to you his incompetence and question your lack of intelligence for putting him there, because both would be empiracally true.

To see a list of the Obama lies simply Google Obama lies.

Nah, I wanna hear it from you.

@mike dont care what you make or what you pay for health care...just read the last 2 sentences of my last post and i thank you

Thats where the GOP is failing. They think your Healthcare is a political game.

It is a political game! Why else would a Democratic congress have to pass such a 2700 page monstrosity at the 12 hour on Christmas Eve? If the document was about your well being, it would not be filled with fat & pork barrel bribes to get it passed.

Wake up, the health care portion is not the issue, the issue is this. If this bill is allowed to stand, we will have to worry about more than our health, we will be told what we have to have and what we can't and where we have to get it. One of the Justices made comment, if this stood the gov't could tell you where you had to buy a burial plot and what you must pay for it, silly analogy but true. What about that poor person that can't afford a burial plot? What happens when the Gov't says you must be creamated against your wishes or beliefs? What happens when you can't afford by buy the mandated health care and are fined and you don't pay the fines, do you get 4 walls and free health care then?

This intrepretation is very, very, important. The outcome will pave the way to what freedoms we will be allowed in the futher. Gypsy, I hope that you won't mind driving a pea green volt if you are told that is what you have buy.

Feisty I know that you don't like Fox News, but even you can not say that MSNBC has more educated readers or listeners.

MSNBC doesn't claim to be "Fair & Balanced"...

It's the "Place for Politics" & Lean Forward...

Fairleigh Dickinson University conducted a poll of about 700 New Jersey residents. They adjusted the results for partisanship and came to the following conclusion:

Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events, while some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.

But the real finding is that the results depend on what media sources people turn to for their news. For example, people who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all (after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors). Fox News watchers are also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news.

"Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News," said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind Poll. "Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."

http://crooksandliars.com/

There is still a reverance and respect for any President of the United States.

Bush has been hacked to death by others, and Obama has hacked others in public life.

Neither are appealing, both disrespectful.

Roy Wilson -- Perhaps you do not understand women very well. We sometimes point out things for a reason. You speak about the law that was enacted in 1987, requiring business (hospitals) to treat and pick up the tab for those unable to pay for their care. It was an unfunded mandate, but a mandate nonetheless. The costs are passed down to those with insurance or to those that pay in cash. Business has to recoup the losses somehow, this is how they do it. Depending on how SCOTUS rules on ACA/mandates it may leave an opening for a challenge to the above unfunded mandate. Now, granted, I could be wrong on both accounts. Just wanted to give my views on these things you talk about.

Momma told Forrest- " Stupid is as stupid does ".

If the shoe fits..

greg smith1

I read your last two sentences. You are one of the greedy self servers I was talking about. Your voice is you would rather not pay anything to the government or anyone else. You believe you should only worry about yourself period. I got that.

Now get this, the world isn't rosy. Myself is the last person I consider. I do care about my family, my friends and those people out there that would die without my help as society is and has let them down and destroyed our economy to the point that even the majority of the jobs that are left do not pay enough to even pay the bills let alone pay for health insurance that is bleeding this nation dry.

Bottom line is, I do care and I do want to make their lives better and hopefully the economy somewhere down the road so they can once again work and make a better life for them and themselves. I do not want nor will I let them simply be pushed away and left to die if they need help and can't afford it. I have a conscience and morals that I will not let the greedy self servers crush.

Paul, just a few of the many things President Bush did in his 8 years in office concerning the Supreme Court. The Bush administration had directly told the Supreme Court that it doesn’t believe citizens have standing to bring constitutional challenges to it, not even regarding the most basic violations of the Bill of Rights. Bush involving the SCOTUS on the Terry Schiavo case. Bush involving the SCOTUS in his election against Al Gore. The transformation of the Supreme Court being the lasting effect of Bush towards law for the good of Conservatives. 'I do not need to explain why I say things, maybe somebody needs to explain why THEY say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.' G.W. Bush. And the GOP are up in arms over President Obama's OPINION? Talk about needing to wake up...

Heads up, if you are collapsing comments because you simply don't like them, you're a f*cking tool, and I hope you never have a say in any important decisions in yours or my life. You've proven that you cannot handle dissent, or any opinion other than your own. There are multiple comments in the above posts, including the OP's, that have no legitimate reason for being collapsed. None of them happen to be mine and while I may not agree with some of them, you have no right to "shut them up", so to speak.

I'd love to see some of you man up with a reply letting us know who you were and why you abused the report option. I dare ya.

@Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

As the election heats up & the GNOP watch it all slipping away from them things will get very, very, fugly!

In other words you think they'll follow Obama's lead. After all that is ALL he's got, it's not like he can run on his record after all. Throwing stones and inciting his sheeple is his only option. But I think you forgot to include an "if" in there. Things aren't exactly looking all that great for the Pres, the GOP might not have to resort to "fugly". Obama's policies have provided them with all the "fugly" they're likely to need.

Again, relatism with the libs...about 8 yrs or so ago, I remember Sen Harry Reid calling President Bush a LOSER while talking to a bunch of school kids...how many of you libs were outraged at the lack of civility and respect when that happened! Nothing but frickin' liberal hypocrites!!!!!!

Roy Wilson: "Yes, but it won't accomplish that goal - it will just make insurance more expensive for virtually everyone, and the illegal immigrants will still go to emergency rooms and get treatment for free. You don't REALLY think they will voluntarily pay for insurance they can't afford, and since most don't file tax returns, there will be no penalty for them.

What we REALLY need is universal health care, similar to what's available in France or Taiwan, where the care is excellent and the cost affordable - paid for with a combination of business and sales taxes - same coverage for everyone."

HERE HERE! As a small business owner, I would MUCH rather not to have anything to do with healthcare. I think the country would be much more competitive in the world if business (large and small) didn't have to deal with it. I'd be happy to just pay a tax for the equivalent and be done with it.

Does anybody know how much a "Medicare for all" type universal system would cost? would the tax be 2%, 5%, 10%????

@boywilson...Most hospitals are now "for profit" institutions. These ER's have an obligation to "stabilize" a patient, not fix their problem. The few "non-profit" hospitals still in existence are required to treat a patient. I have heart failure. I have been to many ER's. Everyone of them require financial information before treating a patient, even during a heart-attack. 30 years ago the laws were changed to allow "for-profit" hospitals, before that, all hospitals were required to treat a patient despite his/her lack of insurance/money. When you enter the lobby of a hospital, they are required to display their profit status and also their obligations to their patients.

Approximately 2/3 of Americans want Universal Health Care. "They" cannot keep us down forever, eventually, the people will have their say. It may take a revolution but Americans are fed up with the current sadistic, wealthy-take-all situation. Hopefully, it will be a peaceful revolution. People like you (sociopaths), will try to make it violent. IDK if it is your ignorance, lack of empathy or perceived social status, but you are a disgusting human-being.

Mark-424....

Any bipartisanship came from the democrats and not once from the republicans in the past 13 years anyways

Really??? I suggest you try to support that argument by the congressional voting records during the bush2 administration and then the existing obama administration.

As for your reply post (1.76) to greg smith, LMAO! You should have no problem in just cashing you paycheck and giving all of it away or at least signing it all over to the government at regular intervals right?

md-414241

You are right. I also support universal healthcare. I did not like the healthcare bill once the changes had been instituted taking public options out but what I was hoping for wa that instead of taking the route the congress took, they would instead actually paly the bipartisan route and make the changes they can and should make to amend the bill. I saw the bill as an accomplishment in that healthcare has been on the table for almost 60 years now and they had nothing to show for it. The bill represented that something to show for it and the base in which to start making amendants that eventually would see universal healthcare for everyone. Should the courts side with the bill, I hope that it will be enough to drive all parties to finally sit down and do their jobs and make the amendments it sorely needs to make it work for all americans.

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy Wilson -- Perhaps you do not understand women very well. We sometimes point out things for a reason. "

I don't consider health to be a 'women's' issue, but something that affects everyone. While I applaud the attempt by Obamacare to find a way for 'deadbeats' to pay for their health care, I just think it's the wrong approach, and it will not force illegal immigrants to buy insurance - they will continue to get free medical care at hospital emergency rooms. It also gives unprecedented power over our lives (they would get to decide everything we must do that's 'good for us') if this precedent is allowed to stand.

My preference is to have Congress to simply set a minimum 'standard of care' and require every insurance company to offer that coverage (for competition), and then issue health care cards to every legal resident (universal care). Then the debate would shift to "How do we pay for it" - something Congress can legally address through taxes - preferably a combination of business taxes (equivalent to what businesses now pay to be cost neutral), with the balance paid through a National Sales Tax (my guess is aout 3%).

Everyone would be covered and have the same benefits, and we could move on to other matters.

P

This article about Grassley's tweet is another distraction of a larger and important issue. For myself, I question why a president claiming to have studied the constitution (professor?) would attempt to circumvent it. We all took notice of the extreme amount of arm-twisting it took for a pathetic 51% passage in a heavily democratic controled president, house and senate. All had taken an oath to uphold the constitution. What happened there? So, now I suppose the question lies with, can the supreme court be pressured to circumvent the constitution for any reason?

american-2051576

Must be one of those extremists on the right. I already do that with each and every pay check I receive and every purchase I make. I simply do not whine about using it to help actual, real life americans down on their luck like you do. You support giving it to other countries as destruction and nation building after the destruction instead. Your whine about helping other people, but um... weren't you the one I saw pushing that guy with the cane out of line just so you could get your new welfare application in a few minutes sooner? I never could understand why anyone would try to cut off the hand that helps them the most.

Men!!! Roy Wilson -- Of course healthcare pertains to EVERY man, woman and child.

You missed my point which is perhaps Sotomayor had reasons behind her questions.

I'm aware of your position in these matters already.

Have a wonderful day Roy.

@md-414241

Approximately 2/3 of Americans want Universal Health Care.

Really? That's interesting because only ONE third of Americans support Obamacare. Perhaps you aren't keeping up, or maybe you're just making sht up.

Backcountry, you can be for universal healthcare, but not for Obamacare. I swear, the stupidity of the comments I have read on MSN just strengthens my point that most peolpe who are vvoting republican, in this point of history, not only below average in intelligence, but are narcissistic, egotistical, selfish, hypocritical people. That goes double for those who proclaim that they are real republicans, but find it acceptable to inject christian rule upon a country that is supposed to be religion-free in government, especially since most of them are not real Christians, to begin with.

@StephAce

Backcountry, you can be for universal healthcare, but not for Obamacare

2/3 of people will be in favor of any abstract idea if they believe it will benefit them. Of course when it stops being an abstract and they see what it actually entails they quickly change their minds; as we clearly see is the case for universal health care. Stupid is people who believe whatever they want and back up their beliefs with any sort of BS they can come up with. So if you want to know what stupid is just take a look in the mirror, it's not something limited to republicans, you libs are heavily invested in the concept yourselves.

lmao Who's the one with the hair trigger collapsing the best comments?

For what reason???

The Senator does not reflect credit upon himself or the United States Senate. But...this is all they have...all they have.

Enjoy the Democratic landslide, y'all.

I know I will.

It doesn't matter if you're a republican or democrat, the mandate should concern you. In essence, Congress has now decided that their power to regulate trade includes the power to create trade by forcing people to purchase something. The absence of commerce is not commerce. Regardless of how much the penalty is, if there is a penalty and not buying a health insurance product under the health care act is considered breaking a federal law, then this is unconstitutional. I would hope anyone can see that it is a gross misuse of the powers of congress, and it is a precedent we shouldn't tolerate. Once Congress takes this power, you know they'll keep it and use it again; that's the way government works.

Even a single payer government plan is better than this (I consider myself conservative, and you know we don't like that idea.) A government-run single payer plan would be a direct tax for a direct benefit, something the government does have the power to do under the constitution.

Health care reform is important, and everyone should be willing to listen to any suggestions. Partisanship is getting us nowhere, and both parties disgust me. But regardless of which side of the aisle you think you find yourself on, when the government tries to go around the constitution and increase their power, we as the citizens of the U.S. should be vociferously concerned. I believe the Constitution is our only protection from complete government control of our lives, and the more we tolerate people in public office willing to ignore it or trying to push it aside, the thinner that protection become.

When I was growing up in the 50's-60's people who smarted off like the Senator did , did so with the knowledge that there was a consequence to being a smartmouth. He would get knocked on his ass. Bullies picked on other kids until someone stood up for them and gave the smart mouth bullies a taste of their own medicine. Pres Obama is quite the athelete if you get where I am going. Guys like him, Rush, Rove, all have the small penis envy of others going for them. Small men and minds in a world of grownups.

Backcountry,

What's the problem with expanding Medicare for all ages? Medicare recipients seem to like it. That's pretty tangible. That's what people think when they say "universal" coverage.

How sad it is that there is so much vileness and hatred towards the POTUS!! Did I mention lies?

When I read some of these hate dripping posts from the Republican hate mongers....I feel the need to scrape the bottom of my shoe...for it feels like I just stepped in chit!!!

I despised GWB but gave him the respect that any POTUS deserves. I guess being a black POTUS is different tho right???? Righties? Disgusting lot...the whole of you!!!!!!!!!

SmBusOwnerinNY

Backcountry,

What's the problem with expanding Medicare for all ages? Medicare recipients seem to like it. That's pretty tangible. That's what people think when they say "universal" coverage.

Of course Medicare recipients like it, people like pretty much anything that provides them with free stuff. We can't afford to cover those who are currently covered because the entire system is rife with waste and corruption so how on Earth are we supposed to expand it? If the system could be fixed it certainly could be a possibility but if anyone dares to suggest that the liberal fear mongers start running around like Chicken Little's with their heads cut of screaming about the how the other side is trying to make the sky fall.

No one who has attended law school does not know that the SCOTUS judges laws/legislation to determine if they are constitutional. And they all know that the SCOTUS has declared legislation unconstitutional on multiple occasions. Therefore, Obama had to know that saying it would be unprecedented for the court to declare Obamacare unconstitutional was not a true statement. Accordingly, he must have made a conscious decision to lie about it in order to manipulate the majority of the public which is ignorant of this reality. No other analysis makes sense.

@LMarcT

And we have every right to expect decent and fair health care. Along with every right for the Republicans to try to make things work... but try as we might... despite our "rights"... somethings will never be.

This is the problem with liberalism, as soon as they want something (or don't want someone else to have something, guns for example) it suddenly becomes a "right" that everyone is entitled to and if they don't get their way they whine and cry about their imaginary "rights" being denied to them.

backcountry can't come up with a single intelligent thing to say, so resorts to insults.

typical for a radical, so-called "christian" (in name only) rethuglican

People who are intelligent generally find something better to do with their time than go into politics. I think this is the central problem with government. The people you want to run the show don't want the job, while the ones who do want the job are precisely the ones you dare not allow to have it. I don't see a cure.

Spend some effort insulating yourselves from the worst effects of government. Look into securing some genuine privacy, offline and online.

what he should have said is "looks like the president needs to go back to college and get a degree in us Constitution before writing laws so he can prevent himself from looking stupid, not just to us but the American people and other countries as well". had he stated it this way he would have looked better by not just throwing out the raw insults without giving more detail but by elaborating what he did wrong in the first place. frankly every single person who works for the us government should be required to get a degree in us Constitution if they do anything involving laws whether it be a police officer or a judge, mayor, senator/higher-ups all the way to the president him/her self, if they all clearly understood our Constitution, bill of rights, etc. we wouldn't have all these new legal attempts at taking our freedom's away by people on a power trip, further more if they do try to pass laws deemed unconstitutional they should have a 3 strike law protecting the people by having said person replaced when they try to keep pulling a legal fast one as they obviously don't understand the laws they are governed by. nice doesn't get the job done when dealing with those who are power hungry or operate like an activist.

How sad it is that there is so much vileness and hatred towards the POTUS!! Did I mention lies?

When I read some of these hate dripping posts from the Republican hate mongers....I feel the need to scrape the bottom of my shoe...for it feels like I just stepped in chit!!!

I despised GWB but gave him the respect that any POTUS deserves. I guess being a black POTUS is different tho right???? Righties? Disgusting lot...the whole of you!!!!!!!!!

eggberta Are you paying attention, the posts against any republican especially Sarah Palin and President Bush are much worse than those on President Obama. Do you then despise those who wrote those posts or is your disgust just for those who do not like this President.

And before you say anything, I do not agree with President Obama on a wide range of issues but I always refer to him with the respect he deserves as the President and a father, and I give him due credit when warranted.

With such a display of ignorance and childish behavior it's hard to believe this man is a United States Senator. If Grassley would have listened to what the President actually said he would not have posted his insulting and inaccurate tweet. In his statement President Obama referenced the many times that Republicans have voiced their objections to “activist judges”. The President went on to say that he believed that the court would not overturn the affordable care act because it had passed a thorough legislative constitutional review …..…period.

The disrespect shown this president is unprecedented and the people that dismiss it as ‘business as usual’ are just not paying attention. Slowly the American people are beginning to wake up to the fact that the right wing elements in this country are not representative of the vast majority of us. I have heard the anger over and over again from Democrats, Republicans and Independents and believe me their not angry with the President but the way he has been unfairly attacked everyday since he’s been in office. The fact is the majority of Americans are angry with ‘The Party of No’ because they haven’t done a damn thing to help fix the economic mess they created.

In November I wouldn’t want to be a Republican politician running for office. A huge voter backlash is building up angainst of the lies and hatred Republicans have been so joyfully spreading around for the last three years. The Republican/Tea Party is so out of touch with the people and for that matter reality that they don’t even see it coming.

@danwill

backcountry can't come up with a single intelligent thing to say, so resorts to insults.

typical for a radical, so-called "christian" (in name only) rethuglican

ROTFLMAO!!! Well at least I'm not a friggin hypocrite bitching at people for doing the exact same thing I'm doing myself LOL!

fyi, not a Christian- agnostic and not a republican- libertarian. Anything else you'd like to pretend I am so that you can spew the standard liberal rhetoric? You did forget to accuse me of being a racist and an evil 1%'er. lol

I have painstakingly read most of the comments above at #1 on this issue.

There are so many varied opinions expressed in comments here, I do not need to add mine.

However, as a person who has much more time lately to do research, and also as a person who applauds LOGIC, based on obvious facts that have been with us for a few years and more...

...I will give my opinion on the comments that I was able to read that were the most logical, and were based on the most available information online.

They were found in: Numbers 1.19, 1.71 and 1.85.

(That is the conclusion I draw from reading most of the #1 comments... that's a lot of reading to have come to this logical conclusion). As I stated above, I have spent a great deal of time researching the issues from various sources...avoiding the obviously slanted ones easy for informed people to spot).

.

StephAce "I swear, the stupidity of the comments I have read on MSN just strengthens my point that most peolpe who are vvoting republican, in this point of history, not only below average in intelligence, but are narcissistic, egotistical, selfish, hypocritical people"

You might consider that one of the biggest voting blocks for Obama for President in 2008 was 'high school dropouts', who overwhelmingly voted for Obama over McCain by a 68% to 38% margin.

Disappeared there for Easter Dinner with the family....

Backcountry... So Medicare for all would be fine if we could pay for it?

Well, I'd like to know how much that would cost. ??? !!!

If that's a 5% payroll tax, then that's something we could all decide on rather than a 2700 page document that is such a mystery, and obviously constitutionally questionable. Why not treat us like adults and put that to the test. No lobbying, no fillibusters, just vote on it.

@SmBusOwnerinNY

Backcountry... So Medicare for all would be fine if we could pay for it?

I'm a libertarian so I don't actually believe the Federal government is capable of providing Medicare for all. Like most things "government" it starts out sounding like such a good deal but then it quickly turns to sht as each successive politician finds ways to expand and "fix" things. Medicare today is an utter joke, realistically there is no reason to expect anything more from government bureaucrats. Soon you have little more than mounds of red tape easily manipulated by those the red tape is suppose to hold in check. It is a story that repeats itself over and over and over with every government agency in existence but we just keep our heads in the sand pretending the next batch of rules will solve the problems. Take the SEC for a prime example, the rules and regs get more and more complicated every year but they somehow managed to miss Bernie Madoff despite literally dozens of people jumping up and down waving red flags for years. Eventually he was only busted because his children turned him in. That is the Federal Government in a nutshell, they are good at writing new regulations but then horrible at actually enforcing them to which they respond by simply writing more regulations.

Grassley doesn't deserve the privilege to serve as a Senator, with such disrespect for the Presidency. How soon we forget that former President Bush, did the same thing, but you did not hear anyone call him "stupid". Our public servants need to keep those kind of comments to themselves, they have a right to their opinion, but they are wrong in insulting the President. And this is not the first time someone has insulted the President Obama, remember the State of Union, when Congressman Joe Wilson(rep) called him a liar. This type of behavior is unacceptable, they should be held accountable, when this is done they should either be removed from Congress, they are resenting the people, and the people should demand his resignation, and anyone else(dem or rep) as well.

@sosickoftheGOP. . . . . Let me remind you, that by law Bush won the 2000 presidential election, and WITHOUT the Supreme Court. Al Gore and his lawyers chose to recount those Florida counties that were overwhelmingly won by Gore and if the Supreme Court stayed OUT Gore would have eventually counted all his chosen counties and LOST! That's what Gore decided to do and that was (is) the law! One thing about the Republicans, they aren't cry babies like Gore. One example, Nixon lost the 1960 election and then found out that he probably would have taken Illinois but simply decided not to contest it, hence lost the presidency. Just think, no Bay of Pigs, no Kennedy assassination, no Marylin Monroe scandal, BUT very possibly the Cuban Missile Crisis would have ended in a nuclear world war so all things counted it's probably a very good thing he didn't contest the state of Ill.

To clear up some misinformation or selective information posted above:

"According to the Chicago Sun-Times and the Assistant Dean for Communications at the University of Chicago School of Law, Obama is not now and never has been a "Constitutional Professor". He was a Lecturer, a position for which he was actually turned down until political pressure was brought to bear."

According to the University of Chicago: "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track."

Found here: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

Yes, Harry Reid did call GWB a loser, but also immediately called the WH and apologized. When can we expect Senator Grassley's apology? See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601814.html

Perhaps Grassley and Joe Wilson could go on the campaign trail together. Their motto could be "Rude and Ruder".

All you folks wanting universal health care need to spend a bit of time at a Veterans Administration hospital.

They are exactly what you will be getting and it ain't pretty.

Really? That's interesting because only ONE third of Americans support Obamacare. Perhaps you aren't keeping up, or maybe you're just making sht up.

Actually even FOX NEWS has said that the overwhelming majority of people that oppose Obamacare do so because it doesn't go far enough.

Why do Conservatives torture them selves by coming to MSNBC? Is it considered sane when you go looking for trouble? Of all the things a person can do to expand their knowledge - politics has to be the biggest waste of time one can choose.

drainbramage

Why? Because they don't let us rattle the bars of the monkey cage at the zoo anymore,lol, seriously though, if all You want to do is look for comfort and security in your beliefs by seeking out only those who agree with You,and fear to go beyond Your comfort zone to engage with those of differing views, You are neither comfortable nor secure,and probably need to take a long hard look at the reasons why.

smallbusowner -

My understanding is the law was designed (in part) to get all of the deadbeats in the Emergency Rooms paying for theri own health insurance, so they wouldn't be there crowding the ER. The mandate is what motivates that to happen. What's wrong with that?

So if he REALLY wants to follow that ideology through to it's logical conclusion, does this mean he intends to make all deadbeats everywhere pay their own way???? I think that's a fair question. ORRR...

Does he want to continue to have the Imperial Federal Government keep taking money from people who've earned it to give to those who have not - to use for various other wealth redistribution schemes in order to buy votes.

I mean, if his goal is to recognize and correct how wrong it is for others to be forced to pay for those who aren't paying.. it just seems like that concept would carry through all the way across the board.

Grassley's response doesn't even make sense as an answer to the question he was asked.

according to the senator ..it is ok for the Judiciary to say the congress is wrong... ok for congress to say the president is wrong .. but not ok for the president to say the judiciary is wrong .. it all makes sense now ..

the leader of the free world .. elected by a majority of the American people ... should have no comment on anything that ...the unelected Judiciary does and no comment on what a senator elected by a slim margin of one states voters does .. that sounds stupid to me

Wake up, the health care portion is not the issue, the issue is this. If this bill is allowed to stand, we will have to worry about more than our health, we will be told what we have to have and what we can't and where we have to get it.

This is an utterly ridicules argument. That's what's happening right now. The insurance companies tell you IF they will insure you; how much they will pay; if they will continue your coverage and where you will be covered. You people are so worried about the mythical government "death panels" and don't even consider that you have them NOW!...only the consideration with the insurance "death panels" is profit.

Saw a post earlier saying that Obama is the smartest president since Clinton. Who's in 5th grade now (to reference another post), calling Bush stupid?

Even so, lets compare-

Bush's transcripts from college show a really excellent grade point average.

Obama's transcripts from college show...?

I'm not a big fan of Pres. G.W. Bush. He was very progressive, just like Obama is. I really don't like the direction our country is headed. But Bush isn't president anymore. Get over it. We need to be paying attention to the future. People say Pres. Obama is smart. Okay, I believe he is, but why won't he release his college transcripts? Why can't we see what he published (and I'm not talking about his books, which are very telling)? Was he worried that he got worse grades than Bush and didn't want to look stupid? Was it that he studied certain subjects and espoused views that he doesn't want people to know about?

...And speaking of Clinton, why wouldn't he release his medical records?

Look, if you're really that smart, why would you even run for public office? (Yes, I'm talking about everyone!) This is a duty that should be viewed as dreary and annoying as jury duty. Term limits should be in place and enforced for all public officials. The only reason people get into positions of power in government, and stay there for extended amounts of time, is for exactly that-THE POSITION OF POWER!

So, let's prove my senator wrong (yes, I live in Iowa). Release the transcripts!

I don't think the Obama is stupid comment is accurate. He knows what he is doing. I think a more accurate assessment is Arrogant! Obama thinks he is such a rock star that he can over rule the Constitution. A president who thinks he is above the law scares me, Especially when about half of the population agrees with him!

For every one that thinks the Gov cant force you to buy a product .. Drive around with out Auto Insurance and see what the fine is .. or dont get medicare part d for a few years and tell the Gov they cant penalize you.

Opinions are like backsides--everyone has one. Including Chuck Grassley.

Chuck Grassley represents the filth the far right has become. He - of all people - should not stoop to calling someone stupid. Our President can walk circles around this buffoon all day long as far as intelligence is concerned.

Grassley didn't call Obama stupid; he said that the American people aren't as stupid as him. That is simply a relative comparison, of which Grassley thinks Obama is below the majority of, at least, thinking Americans. So that may exclude a lot of Democrats.

Grassley calling Obama stupid is the height of arrogance. Let's all remember his party - the party of Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Joe Walsh, Christine O'Donnell, Larry Craig, etc. He probably should think long and hard before calling ANY DEMOCRAT stupid!

For every one that thinks the Gov cant force you to buy a product .. Drive around with out Auto Insurance and see what the fine is .. or dont get medicare part d for a few years and tell the Gov they cant penalize you.

They can't force you to buy auto insurance if you don't have a car. Entirely different premise altogether

In the circle of Political assesments:

Republican Chuck Grassley comments as to value of President Obama's judgement ... is equal to a listening to a Dung Beetle claiming, that Lions don't know what good food is.

To be kind, I will only say "you have to take into account what the Congressman is used to." ...

Bravo, Beo, you got the message down in a nutshell. Your avatar perfectly expresses what I do every time I think of a TP/GOP no thought machine saying they prefer, "freedom," over, "better health care."

Just as an aside, the vote totals in this seed say the ayes have it: Grassly was looking in the mirror when he made his tweet.

I would expect better from a representative of Iowa, but I know Grassly's weasely reputation, so I'm sad for the state, but not surprised by the comment.

Iowans unite! Get this awful blot off your record. Please, put someone else up there to represent you. This one flip-flops as bad as Mitt.

Backcountry164,

We The Corporation is right when he is refering,as what President Obama mean , no constitution right that grants SCOTUS the power to overturn dully passed legislation?

Articles I and II enumerate the powers of Congress and the President, respectively. Whatever powers are granted to the Legislative and Executive branches are not extended to the Judicial branch, so it is reasonable to infer that the first two Articles place more limits on the Supreme Court than anything in Article III.

You correct about on Article III,but I'm wondering how could you missed on the section II,While Section 2 has been interpreted to limit the Court's original jurisdiction,as does the Eleventh Amendment, it should not be broadly defined as "stating the limits of the US Supreme Court."

The Judicial branch is also subject to limitations imposed by the government's system of checks and balances.

Checks and Balances
The President nominates Supreme Court justices
Senate has the power to approve or reject these nominations
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Power to initiate constitutional amendments (to undo supreme court decisions)
Power to write new legislation
Authority to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court
Authority to set jurisdiction of courts (limiting the Court's ability to hear certain types of cases)
Authority to alter the size of the Supreme Court (may change the balance of power within the Court).

The Supreme Court is also bound by practical considerations not set forth in the Constitution.

General limitations include the Court's inability to enforce its rulings, or to initiate judicial review of legislation. The Court is required to wait until a party who has been directly and significantly injured by the legislation challenges its constitutionality.

HEY MODERATOR WHY DON"T YOU BAN FEISTY REDHEAD FOR CALLING A FELLOW COMMENTATOR ON NEWSVINE A DUMB FUK ?????? She has about as much class as Obama and his pal Holder , ZERO !!!

I don't think the Obama is stupid comment is accurate. He knows what he is doing. I think a more accurate assessment is Arrogant!

I hear this a lot and to me this translates to "uppity ni**er". There couldn't be anyone in Obama's position who was more humble and civil.

Now Geo W was a pompous a**. When I think of the dumb charades the press let him get away with because he threatened access... His silly landing on the carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner, his absurd smirking commentary on the economy and his arrogant admission that he didn't read the news...

You have to be kidding about Obama. Obama is intelligent. He's well educated, cogent and represents the United States well. He's more intelligent than anyone the right has proposed since Nixon.

Sadly he is too pro-big business for me.

but not ok for the president to say the judiciary is wrong .. it all makes sense now ..

according to sen gruntley, only conservatives can complain about "judicial activism". and only conservative wingnuts can be rude and obnoxious towards the president

bunch of pathetic losers in the far right senate these days, no class at all

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 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 proprly ratified is not an effective amendment, and no part (at least yet) of the Constitution.

Barack Obama is the President of the United States - like it or not, agree with him or not, . . . for a senator of the United States to refer to him as "stupid" is representative of society's loss of respect in general - for one's self, other people, institutions. Senator, have you no better argument or vocabulary to use that might set a better example for those watching and learning from you? Mr. Obama is your president and he has carried himself with dignity - even in the face of a congressman calling him a "liar" on national television. Now "stupid"? Are you proud of yourself? Would your mamma be proud of you?

I hear this a lot and to me this translates to "uppity ni**er". There couldn't be anyone in Obama's position who was more humble and civil.

Really?? - Then I suppose you could take this statement and just translate it into anything you wanted it to mean.

Words mean things - and NOWHERE in that post were either of the words that you mentioned used.

What a sad method of supposedly intelligent debate... Simply change the premise or only answer the comment you WISH had been made.

"Senate Democrats React to Supreme Court Arguments On ACA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1FtHkvdcqA

Citations, please?

Obama said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly".

The Cambridge police and Gates before he knew the full events of the incident,

"acted stupidly."

Sadly, this comment by RALPH is the new normal for politics. It's why I no longer consider myself a Republican. One side does something, and when called on it says, 'Well you did this.' It's childish actually.

ralph.......... oh really? please post any Obama wuote when Obama called anyone stupid!

Just because you aren't saying it directly, doesn't mean you aren't doing it all the time.

http://libertymaven.com/2010/01/20/new-strategy-obama-calls-the-american-people-stupid/8672/

Those who are on his side don't see it because they believe he isn't talking to them.

Here is one of the many stupid things Obama has said that shows he is the one one that doesn't know what he is talking about.

people need to check the inflation of their tires (true) and get their cars tuned up more frequently (FALSE).

A tune-up in 85-90% of the vehicles today is 60,000 - 100,000 miles. He has and a Ford Escape. The tune-up on an Escape is 100,000 miles, meaning he repeated what he was told and has never read his owners manual, or listened to the Sales person who sold him the Escape.

Frequent tune-ups, usually quarterly, were required for cars before the 90's. Rigid ideology makes idiots out of people and makes them sheep to people who skillfully sway them with their words.

Video of Obama calling the Cambridge police stupid, @ 2:00. No pathetic parsing over stupid versus stupidly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LucTPdK8VTc

Go Grassley.

Obama said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly"...

The fact is, a man in his own home could reasonably expect to be treated as the home owner, not as a criminal.

Now the police officer could and did disagree. However, after all the bluster and show, The professor went back to his home - knowing that the Police officer was an A55. Regardless of what the officers intentions were.

Were it you, in your home - no doubt you might feel the same.

The intrinsic difference is that ignorance simply implies lack of awareness about something, while stupidity denotes the inability of a person to understand something due to insufficient intelligence, thus leading to the misinterpretation of a fact.

For instance, a person who has never seen an automobile would not know how to drive it, because of no exposure to such a thing. A stupid person, on the other hand, might have seen automobiles, but would still not be able to drive one, because he imagines that in order to move it you have to speak to it and ask it to move!

@LizzieFromBoston - Right on!

who cares what senator mouthpiece for the rich thinks.can you imagine what we the people think everytime he takes a bribe to betray us.we need to get rid of these people in the worst way.dont reelect anyone

Lizzie (post 2.10), there is little difference between the two as a stupid act still implies that the one doing the act was stupid for even doing it.

BTW - Other than in making an effort to be politically correct you still essentially called floyd, spike and thetrust stupid with your example.

Interesting comments. I remember a few years ago at this comment site - the statements about Bush were not as nice.

You don't have to use the actual word,"stupid", to call someone stupid, as when Obama spoke of the American as ,"clinging to their guns and religion",the meaning of which was crystal clear.

J.D.Still, I don't think that means stupid, but it was certainly accurate.

Let me guess who Grassley's benchmarks are - SARAH PALIN, GEORGE W & ANNE COULTER? Enough said.

Citations, please?

To get those citations Barry you may want to call in expert cavity searchers who specialize in retrieving things from a person's behind......

Jock

I agree, but in certain circles of of political thought it is used derisively.

We know who the stupid are:

Let's see, who is the party of climate change and evolution denial?

Which party gets the majority of its support from states with the lowest education rankings?

Which political party finds it necessary to broadcast misinformation 24/7 to their gullible, easily misled, "low information" constituents?

Which political party considers a higher education a disadvantage, labeling those with respected college degrees "elitist"?

There's no question, among those in the know, who the stupid and uninformed are in this country.

IF the Studity is the subject today !!! GOP

If Evolution is Just a Theory, Religion is Just an Opinion.

Can I Teach Evolution In Your Church, GOP ?

Education Cures Religious Terrorism. Let's face it ,now the Evangelical Christianity Taliban is responsible for more wars and murders than just about any other cause.... except perhaps oil.

I felt that evangelical Christianity had been "HIJACKED" by GOP tea-party. When did it become anti-feminist? When did evangelical Christianity become Anti-Gay? When did it become supportive of Capital Punishment? Pro-war? Pro-Killing.?Religion Hatred?Race Hatred? When did evangelical Christianity become so negative towards other religious groups?

But not to be call prejudice,I do believes,

There are a also group of evangelicals who would say, "Wait a minute. We're evangelicals but we want to respect other religions. We don't want to call its prophet evil. We don't want to call the religion evil. We believe that we have got to learn to live in the same world with our brothers and sisters and we want to be friends. We do not want to be in some kind of a holy war."

But sadly ,it become so rare and few.

Occasionally, though, we are stunned, sometimes traumatized, when people we have known for many years, and for whom we have entertained the highest regard, do outrageous things that seem so terribly out of character for them. What has happened? We thumb through the pages of our minds trying to make sense of seemingly senseless deeds.

It's simply not right to say things online about a person you know that you would never say to their face. This isn't some blogger who never leaves their living room, this is a US Senator who is well familiar with the President. If one high school student posted this about another, it would be considered bullying.

Senator Grassely should of kept his mouth shut.

Obama is a compassionate, and intellectually sophisticated President, unlike his persona. What disrespect.

Vote him out, Iowa.

It is sad that the state of our polictics is so filled with animosity that it has started to reflect very badly upon the U.S. in the international scene. This will deminish our international standing. That you, Republicans, for doing our great Country such great harm! I used to be a Republican, even worked for Reagan! Now, I will vote against the Republican every which way I can! My strongest request is to the young people of the U.S. is: Build a new Party, one that will represent the Middle. It is your future, we older ones have screwed it up very badly, now you take charge by building your own, PLEASE!

I didn't read it that way, personally.

What I got from the message "Constituents askd why i am not outraged at PresO attack on supreme court independence. Bcause Am ppl r not stupid as this x prof of con law" was that he wasn't extremely upset at President Obama's action with the Supreme Court because the American People are not as stupid as this ex-professor of Constitutional Law seems to think they are.

I'm acquainted with Senator Grassley, have been following his doings in the Senate for a number of years since I'm one of his constituents, and I find it to be out of character for him to just say that the president it 'stupid'. Unfortunately, when Twitter only gives you 140 characters to work with, it can be very tough to say what you mean. It looks like he had to go back and revise it a time or three to get it all fit in so he could 'Tweet' it.

I'm thinking that this is one thought he should have shared via some other means than Twitter, and I've got a sneaky feeling he's probably thinking the very same thing right now. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight!

Bill T - that was not voter fraud, it was voter registration fraud. It's almost impossible to avoid when you pay people by the number of people they registered. Just ask your buddy, Newt - same thing happened to him in Virginia.

Doesn't mean that the false registrants actually voted. If you can't descern the difference then it's you that is the stupid one.

Referee

Hallelujah!! Preach it Brother! Why, I myself used to be a radical,rabid, foaming at the mouth, left wing, follower of Marx and Saul Alinsky, willing to tell any lie or mislead in anyway, the ignorant, naive, and gullible, long enough to seize power, then I would forget about the poor suckers until the next election, just as long as my side won, but I too have seen the light and come to regret my dispicable past ,so I would also advise Young voters not to believe everything You hear from those who obviously have an agenda of their own, but to check out every candidate thoroughly, and then, and only then, make an informed decision for whom to cast Your vote, so You will never have to live in shame and regret as Referee and I must,(sob,sniffle, whimper).

@LizzieFromBoston

thetrust, spike & floyd - a little grammar lesson on the difference between "stupid" and "stupidly."

It was said in a dumbassed friggin tweet. Since when does ANYONE use anything remotely resembling proper grammar in a tweet? It's amazing he even bothered to spell out the word stupid.

Seriously, if you're using proper grammer as a benchmark to determine someone intent in a tweet, well ,as the saying goes, "stupid is as stupid does".

@backcountry - my post was in response to a particular thread: someone said that (and I'm paraphrasing) Obama had called people stupid. Another poster asked for citation. In response to that, someone else posted that Obama said the Cambridge cops acted stupidly. And that's not the same as calling someone stupid. That's what I was referencing. I never referred to Grassley's tweet at all.

But if I was referring to Grassley's tweet, then I suggest you read his tweet again. It's right in the article, and his words were pretty friggin clear. No sentence parsing needed to get his message. And his aide pretty much confirmed it.

Seriously, if you can't bother to follow the posts and responses, and comprehend what's in response to what, or what Grassley said, well, then should I say you're stupid, or that you spoke stupidly? Hmmmm. . .

@LizzieFromBoston

But if I was referring to Grassley's tweet, then I suggest you read his tweet again. It's right in the article, and his words were pretty friggin clear. No sentence parsing needed to get his message. And his aide pretty much confirmed it.

Seriously, if you can't bother to follow the posts and responses, and comprehend what's in response to what, or what Grassley said, well, then should I say you're stupid, or that you spoke stupidly? Hmmmm.

Oh I've followed the whole conversation and read the article lizzy. Anytime your argument is based around something that has been "pretty much" confirmed you should realize you're not on real solid ground. The tweet was nearly incomprehensible as most tweets are. "People are not stupid"; is he actually trying to say that the President is stupid or that people are not as stupid as the President thinks they are? His representative "pretty much" suggested both. Aside from that I'll stand by my point. Trying to pick grammatical nuances out of a tweet to infer intent is utterly pointless.

I also think that the difference between calling someone stupid and saying they acted stupidly is picking nits to some extent. One is cras and rude the other is PC but if you are the person in question I doubt you'd see much of a difference.

@backcountry - if you followed the conversation, then I can only conclude that you're deliberately mischaracterizing what I said. I addressed my comment to specific people in reference to what they said. End of that story.

You may think it's nitpicking to differentiate between stupid and stupidly. For my money, it's not PC - it's about saying what you really mean and not being rude to someone. Say your spouse was in a bad mood and said something rude to your boss. Are you going to tell your spouse s/he is stupid and create an even bigger issue? Or are you going to say that it was a dumb/stupid thing to say? Smart people can do or say dumb things. I'd bet even you can see the difference there.

Wow, Obama and Democratic Party of blame is upset over a twitter of truth. It is always okay when the left spews hatred, ignorance, and hypocrisy. But turnaround is not fair play to the liberals. This is what happens when the most unqualified candidate actually gets elected. Who is Obama going to blame for the tone in Washington, when he is the one responsible for it.

Grammar 101: To call someone "stupid" vs they acted "stupidly" are two very different things. The first one is directed to a person, the second one is directed to the actions, not the individual.

Civilty, manners, respect, et al are but a memory on Capitol Hill. Again, the GOP continues to provide us with the gaffes and insults which they think may entertain the masses wherein reality, the masses are getting fed up.

So I guess it is safe to assume it could have been said that Obama acted stupidly when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly. Or does anything other than hail to our savior in chief fail the liberal test of what is allowed?

Obama ushered in class warfare, race warfare, and partisan politics as a means of dividing this nation. Obama knows that united we stand and divided we fall. The more divided the nation, the more power to the politicians and in particular, Obama.

Rick-3416939 - as usual, you lie and lie. President Obama did not bring in class warfare - the far right claims that ribbon. As usual, you cannot tell the truth no matter what but we expect no less from the GOP>

Bill T from the USA - voter fraud did NOT get Obama elected. The lack of intelligent candidates from the GOP did (McCain (there is no economic problem/Palin, really?????) and will again - Romney - are you frickin kidding me? He has no plans, no platform, no intelligence and certainly no intelligence. If you voted for McCain/Palin it is clearly because you are racist. If you vote for Romney it is because you are stupid AND racist!

And just to stop the inevitable onslaught - I'm a white, intelligent (IQ over 170) female!

I just wish these republican't trolls would think up some New lies to sprew about Obama instead of the same old, same old. But then if they were more intelligent and had a better grasp on reality they wouldn't be Repubs. Go back under your rocks. You have as much credibility as a @!$%#house rat.

It is always okay when the left spews hatred, ignorance, and hypocrisy.

Please site someone on the left who has done this. I hear this all the time from the conservatives and they never come up with an instance of when or if they do it's like the cock-eyed reasoning that fundamentalists come up with when told they can't put their religious symbols in public places.

Your understanding of the liberal cause is completely flawed. The LEFT as you call it doesn't do any such thing. In fact the left simply says, go play in the road. It's your life.

They do say:

I don't want you shooting my children with your guns.

I don't want you teaching my children your religion.

I don't want you spewing your crazy sexual hang-ups on my children.

I don't want you to harm yourself by sucking on the tail pipe of a car

I'd be happy to help you if you need a hand

and oh by the way, stop s**ting on OUR planet. I have to live here too.

Yeah we liberals are a vile lot. We want to help you when you are down. We want you to be able to breathe the air and drink the water. And we want you to be able to do anything you want in your own home or temple.

I can see why you righties hate us so much.

Terry,

The Individual mandate is a regulation of commerce and constitutional, never mind that there really isn't anything in the actual constitution that gives the power to overturn laws to the SCOTUS, they assumed that power by precedent, not right. The VETO was the original overturned of laws. What I find funny is that you people don't know that and think Obama is stupid because he does...

BUT, the really hilarious thing is the Individual mandates was GRASSLY' IDEA to begin with in 1994.

President Obama is not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. His one big fault is that he is very manipulative in his negotiations of issues he wants to win. Sometimes this obnoxious behavior makes him come across as stupid. No matter. He was wrong in his attack on the Judicial branch and should be ashamed of himself.

Terry: I assume you have a law degree from a law school better than Harvard Law? You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. It is doubtful you even went beyond high school. The President can be described in a lot of ways but stupid is not one of them. The President position can be summarized as follows on the Individual Mandate: The constitution’s commerce clause authorises Congress to regulate health care, an industry that accounts for nearly 18% of America’s GDP. The health law seeks to expand insurance coverage and lower the cost of care. The individual mandate is a necessary, proper way to meet the law’s goals. The law does not regulate inactivity, as the states contend. Not buying insurance is an economic decision to pay for your own health care. Given that millions of Americans buy more health care than they can pay for, the decision to self-insure has a substantive effect on interstate commerce. Furthermore, the mandate’s penalty falls within Congress’s power to tax. On "Severability": Should the mandate be overturned, only two other provisions should fall with it. The reform requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions and bars them from hiking fees for the ill. Mr Obama’s lawyers concede that the mandate is necessary for these requirements to work—without the mandate, individuals would simply wait until they got sick to buy insurance. This would prove disastrous for insurers. However the rest of the law should stand. The states may not fight provisions of the health law that do not apply to them. "on Medicaid": This is not the first time that the federal government has expanded eligibility for Medicaid. The government may attach requirements to the aid that it provides. Strike down this expansion as coercive and other federal requirements would be similarly vulnerable. Besides, the federal government will pay for most of the expansion—100% in 2014, tapering to 90% by 2020. Terry, the President is exceptionally smart both in constitutional law and economics. He anticipated these contrarian arguments beforehand. There are legal precedents in place that support his position. Thats what smart lawyers do.

He was wrong in his attack on the Judicial branch and should be ashamed of himself.

Seriously? Why?

If the branch is behaving as an activist legislative branch why is wrong to call them on it? Or do you prefer unaccountable oligarchies?

Uh, We the Corporations? The Supreme Court absolutely has the power to overturn laws. It's whole point is to deem the constitutionality of the law, nothing more. (Granted, every president tries to make it a little more partisan, so you have to wonder... heck, people are almost positive four of the judges will vote to uphold it, just because they're liberal. And three will strike it down. Really, where's the justice in that?) The Court cannot create new laws, it certainly is not a legislative branch. It simply exists to uphold the constitution and keep the other branches in check.

As for the individual mandate, it's not necessarily constitutional. At least, not as far as I'm concerned; I guess we'll find out in June. Congress may have the right to regulate commerce, but it may not have the power to require people participate in the industry in order to regulate them. I'm a young college student, nice and healthy, with little extra cash for health insurance. I'd probably pass on it for at least a few years. But does Congress have the right to force me to buy it under penalty of law? The federal government has never stretched the commerce clause this far before; so naturally, the SC has to be very careful about giving in to power grabs by the other branch simply because of one plausible issue.

You're right Terry. Everyone assumes that because someone has an education, they're smart. Usually it's the opposite, obama is a perfect example.

Noryc,

Quote the article of the constitution that grants SCOTUS the power to overturn dully passed legislation, please?

Gotta love Republicans that walk around talking about the constitution and know nothing about it.

Also, love that they invented the mandate and weren't against it until Obama was for it.

I guess Republicans think Americans are too stupid to remember that.

All the needs to be done is to make health care a tax and you have the same thing as a mandate.

Other countries that have universal health care do it better and cheaper than America (whose health care is rated 37th in the world) does.

We the Corporations:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

I can see where the Founding Fathers buried the authority of the Supreme Court deep within the Constitution, They cleverly hid it in the FIRST SENTENCE of Article 3, Section 2.

Don't know where you went to school, but a VETO whether a "Pocket Veto" or outright veto, by the president prevents a bill from becoming law. It does not overturn a law.

This President not only wants to circumvent the authority of the Supreme Court, but he also wants to bypass the authority of the US Congress. Read the Executive Order signed on March 16 where he grants the "Authority" to restart the Draft to the Sec. of Defense. Restarting the Draft is under the authority of the Congress, not the President. His Name is on the bottom of the Order, no other It is his EO.

If the president had the opportunity to have nominated 1 more Justice, he would have been very happy to have the Court review the ACA. But there is uncertainty so he tried to threaten the court with "Serious Political Harm. Unfortunately for the President, the Supreme Court is LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY beyond his reach. Supreme Court Justices cannot be impeached or removed once they have been confirmed by the Senate and seated.

The House and Senate does not have the authority to mandate that the individual citizens purchase a specific product. That is not the intent or letter of the Commerce Clause. Regulating commerce between the various states does not imply that you can mandate a specific product for purchase. They cannot even mandate that only AMERICAN MADE products are used for AMERICAN PROJECTS. They can only suggest.

Senator Grassely should of kept his mouth shut.

Obama is a compassionate, and intellectually sophisticated President, unlike his persona. What disrespect.

Vote him out, Iowa.

DWC,

Seriously you read that as authority to overrule the other Branches of dully elected government. No wonder you guys think Obama is wrong, you can't even read.

That's a reference to cases arising between parties, i.e. interpreting how existing laws effect certain parties, NOT the fundamental constitutionality. The enforcement and decision of constitutionality lies in the executive branch, as It can't pass legislation It can only overturn passed legislation.

The SCOTUS should be deciding if since the Mandate is for individuals, and corporations are now defined as individuals, should corporations now be included in the requirement that all people (corporations too) should provide healthcare for their dependent, NOT if the mandate is constitutional, according to the constitutionally defined enforcer (president) it is. See how that was supposed to work?

It wasn't till later that a precedent set up Judicial review, keep up.

DWC, the house and senate have no right to authorize a mandate to force people to buy something?

Assuage your ignorance by reading about the Militia Acts of 1792, "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen" in 1798, etc.

@We the corporations?

Seriously? Why?

If the branch is behaving as an activist legislative branch why is wrong to call them on it? Or do you prefer unaccountable oligarchies?

Why? I'll tell you why. Because every time the republicans make that claim the liberals freak out. Aside from the the Constitutionality of this law has always been in question ever since they rushed in through the Senate before republican Senator Brown could take office costly the dems their 60 vote super-majority.

And lets just be honest shall we? The ones who are still using the Court as an "activist legislative branch" in this instance are the dems. The arguments in favor of the law were literally laughable, they literally laughed at Verrilli going back and forth between calling the mandate a tax and insisting it is not a tax. The Solicitor General looked and sounded like a fool trying to defend this law but the liberal justices will likely vote for it anyway thus making fools of themselves. THAT is the very definition of an "activist legislative" judge.

And of course Obama knows this quite well; despite Senator Grassly's opinion the President is not stupid. He knows he's likely to lose his signature legislation so he will do what he always does when one of his many failures comes to light. He points his finger at someone else and blames them.

It would be very strange for the court to overturn the ACA and 80 years of precedent along with it. That is what Obama was saying, and it is absolutely true. The judiciary is bound by precedent except for the few very rare situations where they overrule a case, and I'm sure the conservative justices will distinguish the hell out of the ACA to weasel out from under precedent. That is called judicial activism, and Obama was right to call them out.

@plb618

It would be very strange for the court to overturn the ACA and 80 years of precedent along with it. That is what Obama was saying, and it is absolutely true.

Of course that is what Obama is saying, you expect him to admit it when he's wrong? 80 years of precedent? What the hell are you talking about. One of the primary purposes of the Supreme Court is to determine the Constitutionality of a law. You are really gullible enough to believe that doing their jobs is somehow unprecedented just because the Campaigner in Chief says so? For Christ's sake even HE has backed off on that comment but here you are still parroting it. Polly want a cracker?

The only reason there is 80 yrs. of precedent (of not overturning laws) is because the other branches made damn sure (as their sworn oath holds them to) that the law was absolutely CONSTITUTIONAL..... unlike this current rabble we have all been subjected to.......All parties included....... not just one party to blame here...a large number of them would be glad to throw out our constitution as they see fit in order to further their agendas and garner the bought and paid for votes.......... it has become truly disgusting to see so many Americans become so lax in their insistence that the Constitution be upheld without condition... after all....millions have shed their blood to see just that.....and Americans today seem to look at it so nonchalantly......

@What's The Fuss?

The only reason there is 80 yrs. of precedent (of not overturning laws)

There is no such precedent. What the President was referring to is that there has not been an economic law overturned in that time. They are trying to make the health care debate an economic issue covered by the Commerce Clause because it's the only chance in hell they have of pushing it through. His use of the word "unprecedented" was utterly ridiculous and he almost immediately backed down from it but it had the intended goal. People now actually believe there is something unusual about what is happening allowing him a convenient excuse if the law is struck down.

What do you expect from a Stupid Tea Party Republican.....

that originated the Individual Mandate in 1994 when personal responsibility was a republican platform, you know before they became against anything Obama is for, own their own ideas.

OH Guy...we expect the call it as they see it. As the President, a self-proclaimed constitutional schollar, endorsed a law that has to go to the Supreme Court to be studied...well we can believe that he was either willfully ignorant or just ignorant choosing not to read the law until it was passed....Getting really tired of watching this President backpeddle because he just can't handle the job...One and done Obama....in the future we should pay attention to the lessons of history...don't elect a man based on rhetoric elect him because he is in fact intellegent with the best interest of the country at hand...

endorsed a law that has to go to the Supreme Court to be studied...well we can believe that he was either willfully ignorant or just ignorant choosing not to read the law until it was passed.

It didn't HAVE to go to the supreme court, teabaggers who don't understand the constitution or the role of the SCOTUS took it there.

Also, he may be neither type of ignorant, it is possible he may know WAY more about constitutional law than you, me or the Supreme...but you'd have to get over your hate to accept that.

We the corporations said-------that originated the Individual Mandate in 1994 when personal responsibility was a republican platform, you know before they became against anything Obama is for, own their own ideas.------------------------- And if you remember right PBO was against the mandate during his election process against Hillary,but sighns the bill anyway.hmmm

PBO was against the mandate during his election process against Hillary,but sighns the bill anyway.hmmm

I know right?

Another example of Obama being the adult in the room and understanding compromise and how to GOVERN, instead of endless campaigning like republicans.

Whats your point? Just wanted to remind everyone Obama knows how to govern instead of obstruct?

Grassley's comments are as bad as Dick Durbin's. Durbin proclaimed to the news media at a tornado site that the extreme weather (tornadoes, etc) would disappear if we drove hybrids. Idiot. These are members of the exclusive leaders club of 100 (senate) for this entire nation? Your leaders at work for you!

Doesn't say much for Americans who elect them.

self-proclaimed? vs. Degreed!

Learn the difference ... or are all degrees self-proclaimed?... Iam a Doctor, Lawyer, Police officer, Judge ... because I say I am.

Steve,

Thanks for the info, teabagger. But as usual you are wrong, just like your teabagging buddies.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/05/07/nro-admmits-wing-coined-teabaggers/

So have a good day teabagger, I hear ignorance is bliss

Who cares if he called Obama stupid. Most of the US has pry called him that at one time or another..... must be a slow news day

we the corporations....

It didn't HAVE to go to the supreme court, teabaggers who don't understand the constitution or the role of the SCOTUS took it there.

Of course it did....any law that is as overreaching as this...regardless of who were to support it....would need to go to the Supreme Court...This law mandates and punishes those who do not wish to support a specific private enterprise...

What is terribly sad is that the President....a slef-proclaimed constitutional scholar...is so threatened by the Justices that he has to take cheap shots at his political equals. If they follow the Constitution they will have to proclaim the law void...at least those portions that violate the rights and liberties of the American People.

Beowolf...fair enough perhaps Obama will support his personal claims by releasing all of his University records including the sources of economic support he received.

Apparently the job of SCOTUS is to screw the American people over as of late. With Citizens United and the latest strip search ruling... it's quite obvious that money can buy judges as well as senators and representatives. If Obama comes out and says he will aim to help pass an amendment to over turn citizens united, I'll be voting for him. And, mind you, I am a registered Republican.

Txmom,

Read the Constitution and get back to me when you find the part where judges can overturn laws?

We the corporations? - See post #6.8

We the corporations...the judges, can certainly overturn unconstutional acts of Congress and the President....This is why we have three branches of Government...it is called a check and balance system...

Brokinarrow,

I did and responded. So again, show me in the CONSTITUTION, not federalist papers, or citing precedent based on power grabs, where it gives the power to ENFORCE the Constitution to the courts?

Here is a hint, it doesn't. That power was given to the President as enforcer and with the Veto.

OMG Txmom....READ the constitution and CITE it for your basis of balance of powers? The balance of unconstitutional legislation is the President with the VETO, not the courts. The role of the courts according to the constitution is to interpret the laws that exist and settle disputes between the other branches or governments. Judicial review is a precedent not a right. Here is a link to the actual text of our founding document, read it...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

If the Supreme Court didn't have the judicial review ability, the President and congress could pass unconstitutional laws and there wouldn't be much anyone could do about it.

Now, when the supreme court makes an unconstitutional decision (citizens united for example), then congress is able to overturn that with an Amendment to the constitution. Like txmom32 said, checks and balances.

We the corporations, actually the saying goes more like this... Ignorance can be cured, stupid is forever. I do like how you consider yourself to be more stupid than ignorant.

Regardless obama still has the thought patterns of a congressman rather than a POTUS.

We the corporations - Are you trying to say that checks and balances is unconstitutional? Even if it somehow were unconstitutional, why would you EVER think checks and balances is a BAD idea??

We the corporations - Are you trying to say that checks and balances is unconstitutional?

No not at all.

I am saying that the check to a laws constitutionality according to the actual document is the Presidential Veto, not unelected activist power hungry courts who grab power (however long ago) not given to them by the people (i.e. the Constitution)

The Supreme court was never meant to overrule the democratic process, only interpret the results, until, as you mentioned, Marbury v. Madison some 2 years after the ratification, it was always the President and the voters who determined constitutionality.

And to your earlier comment about Citizens United, granted they may have made the wrong decision (surprise) BUT that was an interpretation of the constitution and within their defined realm, this is about overturning LAWS passed legally by congress and signed by the President, I consider this an overreach based on the actual Constitution, not precedent.

Obama was wrong, but the word stupid should still not be used, especially when referring to a person rather than an act. And especially about someone who is obviously not stupid.

The Tea Party is comprised of people that are HONEST and DECENT

Thats HILARIOUS, thanks for the joke. It was getting a bit serious around here...hahahaha good stuff, honest teabaggers too funny....

Sen. Grassley is a lowlife dirtbag from the tea retarded party of Clowns, if anyone is stupid its this a$$hole !

So we the corporations....

I am saying that the check to a laws constitutionality according to the actual document is the Presidential Veto, not unelected activist power hungry courts who grab power (however long ago) not given to them by the people (i.e. the Constitution)

Your interpretation is certainly interesting...so you are saying that the only way a law can be overturned...since when did the Constitution give the President the same power as a King, Dictator or Omnipotent Despot?

Perhaps you studied law under the tutilage of Obama the Scholar?

Oh my God the liberals are multiplying. Soon the US will be completely stupid. There is no hope.

Corey...but the progressives voted in "Hope" and "Change"....Obama campaigned under the premise that he was "smart"...he actually hoped to change the country so he could continue in the footsteps of his heroes Castro and Chavez. First make promises that will create a two class system if they come true, then control the media followed by controlling major industries like domestic petroleum production, invalidate states rights and make the FEDERAL Government all controlling.

Unfortunately for Obama, Grassley is correct...the American public is considerably smarter than Obama and it will become evident when he is one and done...the only other priority to displacing Obama is for our Legislators to define exactly what limited powers the President is all owed to exercise moving forward because regardless of the party in power there must be limitations.

txmom32 - sorry, but with the sad state of the republican candidates today, Obama's victory in the next election is pretty much assured.

We the corporations?

Brokinarrow,

I did and responded. So again, show me in the CONSTITUTION, not federalist papers, or citing precedent based on power grabs, where it gives the power to ENFORCE the Constitution to the courts?

Here is a hint, it doesn't. That power was given to the President as enforcer and with the Veto.

Article 3, section 2- The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,...

What you seem to be forgetting, or are just ignorant of, is the fact that there are 18 states that have filed suit challenging the Constitutionality of the law. Who exactly do you suppose should decide the fate of such a lawsuit? The President? Was that really the argument you were trying to make?

Back country---Yes the president and congress should decide...And they already have when they passed it...The SCOTUS should have refused the CASE...They should only take up a case having to do with interpreting the Law....Is what he is trying to say I guess...

In my opinion if this Mandate is unconstitional then alot of others are also..Remember the SCOTUS decided that a corporation was a person so how about all of those mandates forcing corporations to buy things I am not gonna site specific examples if you don't know any you just need to research yourself...

@sw philly

Back country---Yes the president and congress should decide...

It's called checks and balances, why don't YOU research that yourself.

I don't know what your political affiliation is but you can bet all of the liberals in favor of this will change their minds right quick the next time republicans have the majority of power. Weren't they just bitching about all of the unconstitutional things the republicans did under Bush but now all of a sudden it's the President and Congress that gets to decide Constitutionality? How convenient for them.

txmom32 - sorry, but with the sad state of the republican candidates today, Obama's victory in the next election is pretty much assured.

Brokin Arrow...I suppose if that happens and "Pres O" is re-elected, without the aid of voter fraud, then we can all say that Sen Grassley was wrong and that the American Public is in fact more Stupid than the self-adorned con scholar BO.

To Grassley:

"Senate Democrats React to Supreme Court Arguments On Affordable Care Act":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1FtHkvdcqA

Grassleys ....

""...he actually hoped to change the country so he could continue in the footsteps of his heroes Castro and Chavez. First make promises that will create a two class system if they come true, then control the media followed by controlling major industries like domestic petroleum production, invalidate states rights and make the FEDERAL Government all controlling."

Could you please demonstrate with credible sources where Obama states that these dictators are his "heroes" and also where he has taken control of the media, major industries, and states rights? Thanks.

hey txmom read it in an e-mail, so it MUST be true. ROFLMAO

jeeze, some people will believe anything they get in an e-mail. isn't that right txmom?

don't forget fact check and snopes are all "communist plots" too, LOL

Yeah, but can you name the last time a sitting senator did it? Regardless of which party is in the White House, it's disrespectful. You can agree with that, right?

Osama is dead

Obama killed him? really? Because here I was SURE that it was the AMerican military that did it....the same military that would have been there to kill him under any other president we could have had...

Floyd,

Wasn't that the whole reason behind staging the revolution in the Middle East?

the only thing i dont understand is PBO is against waterboarding terrorist but not killing them.

the only thing i dont understand is PBO is against waterboarding terrorist but not killing them.

Only people within the spectrum of sociopaths wouldn't understand the difference between torturing a dog that bit someone and putting down a dog that bit someone.

Hey the Inquisition is calling, they want their small mind back.

the only thing i dont understand is PBO is against waterboarding terrorist but not killing them.

Torture does not guarantee they are going to provide accurate info. Eventually they'll say anything to make the pain stop.

lola007,

"Obama killed him? really? Because here I was SURE that it was the AMerican military that did it....the same military that would have been there to kill him under any other president we could have had..."

For years we have heard from rightwing mouthpieces that G. W. Bush kept our country safe from terrorists during the remainder of his presidency (You know, the part after they attacked during his administration). Not that he gave the orders but that he kept us safe. Why is this so different? President Obama himself gave all the credit for the action itself to the military.

Transcript of his announcement-

"Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

It's o.k. for the average American to call the president stupid. It is not o.k. for a stupid Senator to do so.

The T-Pig Tards are destroying the GOP and our Country !

that grassley is such a doodoo head.

Stupid is a pretty lame term. Obviously our president is not stupid. Rather I would use the word devious. When it comes to economics it is clear he skipped class!

foolishness abounds, as an ex republican now left leaning independent I'd like to see you say that to my face. Come around these parts punk, and I'll make you my Bit%h.

Yeah, Grassley is a Scolar.

Disgusting!! Did Grassley call Bush stupid when he said, almost word for word, the same thing about the court? I bet Grassley will be apologizing soon for his stupid comment.

""Obama killed him? really? Because here I was SURE that it was the AMerican military that did it....the same military that would have been there to kill him under any other president we could have had..."

Yes indeed Obama did have him killed. The U.S. Military serves at the pleasure of the President. So in fact, Obama is to be given credit for killing him. G.W. Bush certainly didn't... some 8 yrs after 9-11, did he?

Sure Amy but at what cost? We collectively cannot afford his 'change'. Time for a new occupant of the taxpayer's residence.

I see a lot of your right-wingers are still apt to laying everything at Obama's feet, that your own GOP Congress and GOP-Dumbya Bush actualy left him.

It's amazing to me how many of the past mistakes you guys wish to make by telling lies and skewing facts, just in order to get your own back in power and drive your ridiculous, hateful social agendas.

Dumbya and the GOP have done more damage to this country than anyone ever thought possible. It took them the better part of 10 years to destroy our economy with horrendously bad policy. And, even a moron knows it takes much longer to rebuild than it does to destroy. Yet, you demanded that Obama reverse all that damage in a few months -- you people were whining about Obama 6 months into his term, for not healing the wounds of Bush-43 in that short time...

It's just amazing -- how much you hate America and Americans, that you want to drive your crazy, whackdoo social agendas, regardless the cost to everything else...

Noryc - I have an interesting question for you on the taking out of bin laden.

If our heelo hadn't of crashed in the compound would obama still have admitted to taking him out?

Seems that the left has always skirted this question. Since you appear to be an independent and you seem to have the ability to reason, got any insight? You can even couch it in terms of foreign diplomacy.

Being called stupid by Grassley is akin to being called stupid by fungus. Who cares other than Yanks who praise a hamburger flipper and plumbers who are not. America has two love affairs ... stupid and guns.

Rob in ma..I believe the president was trying to help millions of Americans keep their jobs...which he achieved by the way by helping keep GM afloat.

The President also realized that he had a small window to get through probably the most difficult legislation of our lifetime, especially with an extremely polarized GOP.

Also, even if this Supreme Court plays politics with this law ( which is supported by previous law) and strikes it down, 5 members of this court have rewritten decades of established law already. They should remember that their decisions will also be overturned at some point. Many experts are quite shocked by many of the decisions of the Robert's supreme court.

Lola007--Didn't we have a different president for 8 years before Obama? That's right, that moron named Bush was the commander in chief and yet he couldn't get the job done.

and Noryc, you say a large percentage of people call Obama stupid when it comes to the economy and I think you're right. Unfortunately that same large percentage is most likely the same group of idiots that put GW in the white house for 8 miserable years and thought he did a good job. By the way, while I'm no economy wizard I have to think that gaining 200,000 jobs a month is better than losing 750,000 jobs a month like we did under bush jr.

3 cheers for Mr Grassley, who spoke his mind, instead of brainlessly blithering an unconscious stream of political correctness, which has destroyed the credibility of the congress and the system of law along with it.

The President is also human. Perhaps if the public would stop poking their negative comments/poison in his ears, and let him feel appreciated, he would be able to achieve even more than he has already done.

But then, many of them know exactly what they are doing, because they definitely did not want him there in the first place. I commend him for being able to hold his head high and continue to deliver despite the obvious efforts to stymie his productivity.

May you continue to even greater things, Mr. President!

Bernitch - I see you are clueless on what obama campaigned on. Does "hope and change" ring a bell? Cutting the deficit? Creating shovel ready jobs?

We didn't expect a V shaped recovery but obama sure lost focus on the economy after signing the stimulas bill 1st quarter 2009. Whatever a leader inherits doesn't give him an excuse for failure.

--------------------------------------

Pansi - We are not talking about adding to an already overinflated ego, but rather politics. By your logic obama and company should have been more encouraging to the right for not wanting to increase taxes across the board.

3 cheers for Grassley, who spoke his mind -- which, in this case, was the same as brainlessly blithering an unconscious stream of words.

Cheers!

american -- i see you are simply clueless about what brought us to this point, and who.

i feel sorry for you. some things in life can only be cured by education. sorry you missed out on that.

Cheers!

Gee Robin of Steel ... hope ya got enough ammo to fend off those phantom socialists ... don't bother to aim, you are surrounded.

So he's a "prolific Tweeter", huh? I'd say he's just another prolific GOP gasbag with a phone. Big whoop.

The question is: What would Victor Newman have to say about all this?

A person who is supposed to represent the people of the United States but bows to AIPAC and acts like a leader of the United States of Israel calls another person who bows to AIPAC and is the leader of the United States of Israel "STUPID". Let's bomb Iran like the international banksters want ASAP, tomorrow, how about this afternoon? We are the sheeple and we want WWIII to start now, we want endless war, murder of women and children leading to a final judgment day of extinction. On second thought please leave me out of it. Stupid is as stupid says and does Chuckie Boy...

Ideo - interesting that your conclusion on Americans are...

America has two love affairs ... stupid and guns.

Since obama has no love affair for guns beyond military actions he must have a love affair with stupid and his constituents, or at least he wants to heavily promote it.

Bernitch - nice try. Making excuses doesn't get us moving forward.

american-2051576 ... excuse me, I left out the 'n'.

ideo, no you didn't, but nice attempt at a save.

Perhaps if the public would stop poking their negative comments/poison in his ears, and let him feel appreciated, he would be able to achieve even more than he has already done.

And perhaps if we all Clap... Tinkerbell will come back to life.

Pansi, this isn't some fairy tale.. This was a person who ran on certain claims.. In essence, saying "Vote for me instead of the other guy.. because I can get the job done."

Leadership leads regardless of 'appreciation'. This administration is a colossal disaster, and by the time the blind supporters wake up to how horrifically they've been duped it will be too late.

Perhaps if we all just gave him a hug he could do better - ha ha ha ha ha ......priceless

No, I am ok with their lifetime appointments, removes alot of politicking to get nominated.

But, I do agree we should return them to the power they were granted under the Constitution, to interpret laws not determine their constitutionality...thats actually the Presidents job.

I am sorry, but this is totally politicking. Who do you think appoints them anyway? Okay for example the most despicable justice, Clarence Thomas, appointed by HW Bush. Thomas hasn't asked a question in 5 years and votes totally by party lines. His wife is a Tea party idiot who leads a group opposing the Affordable Healthcare Act. He of course does not recuse himself from the case. There is no Supreme Court Justice that isn't a political appointee.

President Obama is anything but stupid. Everything he does is a calm, reasoned, decision. We bloggers sit at out computers and rant on and complain as much as our limited viewpoint allows. But as President of the United States, the person holding that office is the only one in the country who has the "big picture". Think about this: Abraham Lincoln is regarded as one of the greatest presidents the country has ever known. Yet when he was in office, much of the country absolutely hated him. I trust President Obama to do his very best for the country everyday. His vision is for the common good of the country and every American. May all Americans give him the respect the office of President of the United States deserves.

The President's job is to enforce the law, not interpret it. " we the corporations" you haven't read the constitution have you? You have it backwards.

The president is not a stupid person. He cares about this country and wants the best for it. I disagree with his philosophy on what is best for the people and their country.

He knew what he was saying. It was a politicized comment calculated to make him look good if the bill was upheld. If not, he knows he is gone anyway so there was nothing to lose, only an improved image of him to win.

Respect the office, not the person. The person will be gone at some point to revel in attention (Clinton) or not (Carter).

The US Supreme Court did scar the Constitution. They did it under liberals starting in the late 1940s and continuing through the late 1970s. The names of the men who did the most damage are Douglas, Warren, and Brennan.

The President's job is to enforce the law, not interpret it. " we the corporations" you haven't read the constitution have you? You have it backwards

Mary,

Then by all means show me in the constitution where the SCOTUS can overturn laws? Only the president has that power to VETO a law, he deems Unconstitutional, i.e. enforce the Constitution.

Read it sometime, its really interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Institutional_powers_and_constraints

The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of this Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional inMarbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances. This power allows judges to have the last word on allocation of authority among the three branches of the federal government, which grants them the ability to set bounds to their own authority, as well as to their immunity from outside checks and balances.

In summary, judicial review has been a well established practice for over 200 years. Please note that this does not mean I think our current Supreme Court is in anyway correct in it's decisions lately...

Judicial Review

So you agree that it is based on precedent and thus a GRAB of power, NOT a right granted by the Constitution?

That would make Obama correct and show his fuller understanding of the Constitution that you huh?

I like that you didn't even try and quote the actual Constitution, but instead Federalist Papers, remind me again which this country is founded on?

Beginning of Article III Section 2 (judicial power)

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

As with a lot of the constitution, I'd guess this part was interpreted to grant he Supreme Court the ability of judicial review. Whether or not that is truly constitutional.... well, either way it's been going on for 200 years now and isn't likely to change.

One thing I learned while browsing through this; there is an impeachment process for the Supreme Court justices... I can certainly think of four or five current justices this could be leveled at. Really though, it'd probably be safest to just ditch the whole lot and start fresh...

Many would argue ( and do) that that section is a reference to their interpretation powers, not their enforcement of the Constitutionality of legally passed and signed laws. Like you quoted, it wasn't until the federalist lost elections and concentrated their power in the courts that the Supreme court could without a check, overturn legislation that was legally passed by the branch assigned with passing legislation and signed by the branch assigned with enforcing the constitutionality of legislation.

One thing I learned while browsing through this; there is an impeachment process for the Supreme Court justices... I can certainly think of four or five current justices this could be leveled at. Really though, it'd probably be safest to just ditch the whole lot and start fresh...

But we totally agree with that part....

Well grassley, when your'e right your'e right!!!!!! The little wannabe dictator seems to think he can do whatever he wants. The checks and balances system is there to prevent a tyrannical gov't. Only problem is that they can't keep up with all the laws obama has broken because holder keeps protecting him. Both of them should be impeached!!!

Senator Grassely should of kept his mouth shut.

Obama is a compassionate, and intellectually sophicated President, unlike his persona. What disrespect.

Vote him out, Iowa.

Obama is wrong. The Courts strike down as invalid laws all the time. Liberals say nothing when the appointed courts struck down Arizona's immigration law that was passed by elected members of the State senate and Reps. How about anti-gay marriage laws voted on and passed then struck down by appointed courts? Liberals cheer. Can't have it both way.

Grasseley doesn't know his place. And it is low in the food chain of government. He thinks he can bad mouth a President because he happens to be black and people will let him get away with it. Guess what! Grasseley needs to be kicked out of any position of power in the Senate, if he has any committee responsibilities. The President must be shown respect by everyone in government. What he does in return is his business. Though this President shows much more restraint when speaking than W. or his side kick President Cheney ever did. Take your double standard over to Fox.

Liberals say nothing when the appointed courts struck down Arizona's immigration law that was passed by elected members of the State senate and Reps

RIGHT, because we liberals UNDERSTAND the Constitution, and the role of the SCOTUS is to interpret the differences between state laws and federal laws. Man...talk about classic right wing false equivalencies.

I wonder if it was a white man in the White House would Grassley have had the balls to say that!!! I think not!!

Ringo: are you really that simpleminded? Did you ever hear of a slippery slope? How about TX trying to force women to have ultrasounds that they must pay for? Isn't that the same principle? Oh, that's different???? That would be OK with you?

I agree on the supreme court and the constitution. It was fine when it was conceived. When altered it is always to pander to some special interest group at the expense of the nation in general.

The amazing thing is that people still vote for these lowlife clowns like Sen. Grassley from Iowa. Iowans said Grassley was a big mistake.

"TEA RETARDED WISDOM"

OBAMA/2012, "Guaranteed" Obama Rules !

joe1022joe: The US Supreme Court did scar the Constitution. They did it under liberals starting in the late 1940s and continuing through the late 1970s. The names of the men who did the most damage are Douglas, Warren, and Brennan.

Haha... Ah joe. You show up again. I recall when you were arguing on here IN FAVOR of the old Ban on interracial marriage. I thought all the old, hateful, bigoted Archie Bunkers had all passed on by now. But there are a few of you still left...

Fortunately (for you) you can still openly bash gay people while still clutching your BuyBull. In mainstream christianity, it's not so vogue anymore to be racist and a christian (unless you're in the south) -- but you can still hate on gays pretty much anywhere in many christian groups, and find many shoulders to lean on for agreement.

Of course, i just realized that you kinda sound like a white guy from Allybammy, so maybe you can still get away with your racism, too, and still find yourself among a lot of BuyBull-clutching friends.

Cheers!

that is no joke. This November's election is critical to the future of our country. Do we want to return to the days of George W Bush, whenever corporations ran this country and everything was geared toward Wall St and it's tycoons making money? When the economy was entrenched and wholly based upon the huge military contracts granted to those with direct ties to the White House. When outsourcing was the American way of doing business, while everything within the federal reaches of power was done to keep American labor cheap and job benefits were a thing of the past. Remember ol Georgy praising that single parent woman who had 3 jobs just to feed/clothe and shelter her kids? Oh yes... those were great times to be an American citizen. People wake up and get off your asses to vote and spread the word to do so amongst your peers. It is high time to get the Tea Bagging, corporate ass-kissing republicans out of our business and send a signal to Congress and the Senate that we are fed up and we're not taking it anymore. Obama/Biden 2012 is really the only logical choice!

With Romney supporting the ... radioactive waste dump on top of one of the largest aquifers ... radioactive waste from 36 states at the WCS site

Stupid ... No

Conniving snake bent on growing a centralized all powerful federal government with no limits on his authority ... Yes.

Unwilling to use full range of energy options to make US truely energy independent ... Yes. How's that $4.00 gas working for you?

Anybody but Obama in 2012!

Who is John Gault?

Goddess, you do not know the US Constitution very well or you would not say that (unless you are one of the paid Obama people who get 50 "names" on one account to post as "different" profiles), so let me help you to understand.

America is a Constitutional Republic: The sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner -- We the People.

While a Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that LIMITS the powers of the government. It is the blueprint for the structure of the government; creates checks on its power, plus balancing that limited power between three different branches. Each branch has specified duties that they cannot give away or assign to another branch, individual, office, or entity.

The structure of the Constitution itself emphasizes the principle of separation of powers. Article I established the legislative branch with the power to make laws; Article II, the executive branch with the authority to enforce the laws; and Article III, the judicial branch with jurisdiction over legal disputes (The 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison granted the federal courts the power of judicial review).

Within the separation of powers, each branch of government specializes in its particular area of expertise with NO one branch having ultimate power over the whole.

Another part of this separation of powers is the principle of federalism. Federalism is a legal and political system where the national or federal government shares power with the state governments while each maintains some degree of sovereignty.

The Constitution determines the roles of the federal government by spelling out its limited powers within the first three Articles. Section 10 of Article I also places specific, limited restrictions on the states; however, these restrictions actually emphasize the powers reserved exclusively to the federal government.

Article IV describes the fundamental requirements required by state governments, as well as guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government. Other than that small guidance given to the states, the Constitution does not tell the states how to establish and run the state governments.

Some Americans believe that the Constitution gives us certain rights, which is incorrect. It actually protects those rights our forefathers thought were natural rights from those who might serve within our government and illegally take them away. The Bill of Rights sets limits on those who might serve within the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or to limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury.

The Constitution grants our government certain limited, specified powers. It makes clear those certain government limitations to protect the liberties of the People. The preamble to the Bill of Rights helps to clarify those limits.

The first 8 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specify rights and privileges that our government may not in any way take away. It puts into writing the protections of life, liberty, and property (rights each of us naturally possess; plus the specific privileges in the judicial system already accepted in Anglo-American law. All of our naturally held rights are not listed in the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment makes clear: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The framers wanted to make sure that everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers. Who possesses all other powers? The states and the people possesses all other powers as made clear by the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People".

Take for example the 1st Amendment, what limits does it put upon those who serve within the three branches of our government? (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”)

The six protections against government encroachment are:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion

3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech

4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press

5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to assemble

6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance.

Or the 4th Amendment, what limits does it put on those who serve within our government? (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”)

There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.

1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.

2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause. (This, however, is only as valid as the judge is honest. There have been numerous cases in which judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant).

This amendment, nor the others, are not a grant of right, but are a limitation on the government to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their constitutional powers.

Hope this helps you to understand how our government works. Yes there have been some domestic enemy action within it like the Federal Reserve, but that is actually (as the framers put it) "void" (not legal). The thing about the Constitution that many do not realize is that time does not change an illegal and "void" law, amendment, executive order, bill from being illegal. No matter what, unless we change our type of government to a dictatorship or monarchy, etc; it is still "void" (illegal).

We the corporations - Ok, I think I see what you are saying. Really, when you think about it... the only way we can reverse a supreme court ruling is with a constitutional amendment, which are pretty difficult to get passed. And the way the court has been acting lately, I would agree that it's time to stop the judicial review practice.

Asstonished,

"Conniving snake bent on growing a centralized all powerful federal government with no limits on his authority ... Yes.. ... $4.00 a galon..."

What a fkcuin retard you are, all this occurred under Bush and all you can do is project on our current President? Do us all a favor, cut down on greenhouse emissions and shut your trap. We've all had to here you lying, whiney, pathetic, blame-shifting, guilt ridden, moronic Retardlikkkan'ts repeat the same old crap for way too long.

YOU'RE THE ONLY ONES IN THE WORLD THAT BELIEVE IT. LOL

DB17,

So, if Obama was white, he would be smarter?? Is that what your saying??

I think the President knows better. So it is not mere ignorance. It amounts to sheer stupidity, and it has nothing to do with race.

Joseph - you really missed the boat on DB - he is feigning the left version on of republican mantra, not believing it!

Joseph please google Poe's Law.

I think the President knows better

I agree that the president knows better than republicans too.

See here is the perfect example of Stupid

"I agree that the president knows better than republicans too.

Not even "Firecracker" scientists!!!! ~ LOL!!!!

At first I thought oh no another one of those bain dead righ wingers but the more I read the more I liked you.

Fred-- the problem is not these opponents of this president, any more than it was the other opponents for the last 8 year presidency. Bush was torched by those now whining about Obama getting torched by those who whined Bush got torched. The problem is a lack of civility, and a massive amount of hypocrisy. Only way to correct that is inward, and through our children--