http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0..._wins.html

Quote:The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson’s shouting out “You Lie!” at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn’t benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. “We really thought we’d resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President’s speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again,” said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

hmmm, so the Democrats via their actions confirm that Obama lied while calling his Opponents Liars the other night.


Actions say more than words, Illegals clearly were covered.

Illegals are necessarily covered in any plan that attempts to be universal. That's well settled constitutional case law, which twice survived recent challenges in California.

If a program is intended for all citizens, then illegal aliens have to be covered too. You can exclude illegal aliens only if you specifially exclude certain citizens or groups of citizens.

So when the right argues, "Illegal aliens would be covered," and the left responds, "No, there's nothing in the bill about illegal aliens," it's the left that's being disingenuous. Having "nothing in the bill" means that illegal aliens are covered, not that they aren't.

Further, putting explicit language in the bill excluding illegal aliens from coverage would not necessarily be sufficient to mean that they wouldn't be covered. It's very likely that any federal court would apply the case law to hold the exclusionary language to be unconstitutional. That language would effectively be stricken from the bill and the remainder would continue in effect.

owl- cite the two cases if you don't mind. Not to say I don't believe you, but I don't believe the court of 5 would decide twice in illegal alien's favor.

(09-11-2009 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Illegals are necessarily covered in any plan that attempts to be universal.

The health care plan does not take effect until 2013. The Democrats clearly plan to pass an amnesty plan before then. Hence no illegals. Hence no illegals will be available to be covered. Hence no lie. JUST A BIG GIANT MISREPRESENTATION AND ATTEMPT TO FOOL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

(09-11-2009 04:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  owl- cite the two cases if you don't mind. Not to say I don't believe you, but I don't believe the court of 5 would decide twice in illegal alien's favor.

Don't have the cites handy but will look for them. The doctrine originated with Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), in which Burger, White, Rehnquist, and O'Connor (3 republican appointees) dissented. There is some basis for a belief that the current US supreme court might reverse, although that is not certain. There is also a case pending at the California supreme court regarding in-state tuition for illegal aliens that could have some implications going the other way.

They may not yet be published, which will make citing them difficult. I believe one case is 9th Circuit (Federal) and the other is California Court of Appeals, so I don't bleieve either has gone to the Supreme Court yet. If my post implied that they were Supreme Court cases, I apologize for the confusion.

(09-11-2009 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Illegals are necessarily covered in any plan that attempts to be universal. That's well settled constitutional case law, which twice survived recent challenges in California.

If a program is intended for all citizens, then illegal aliens have to be covered too. You can exclude illegal aliens only if you specifially exclude certain citizens or groups of citizens.

So does that mean the courts interpret "citizen" as "resident"?

Seems that shouldn't be hard to distinguish.

.

I think Wilson did just fine with his "Shout Out".

At least Wilson told the Truth braced against Lie after Lie after Lie that Father Barack was spewing out of his mouth with every sentence and word.

And Wilson apologized where I wouldn't have and they still want his head on a platter.

This is just Play Game Acting Bullsh't from the Lefty's to try to eek some traction out of it in hopes it will get them a .00001th of a point upward in Approval.

Looks like it is going to be a very Dry Liberal Congress come 2010 my friends.

.

(09-11-2009 03:13 PM)GGniner Wrote:  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0..._wins.html

Quote:The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson’s shouting out “You Lie!” at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn’t benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. “We really thought we’d resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President’s speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again,” said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

hmmm, so the Democrats via their actions confirm that Obama lied while calling his Opponents Liars the other night.


Actions say more than words, Illegals clearly were covered.

Wrong. Fool. Learn to read and comprehend what you read.

Once again Robert, you are the one lacking comprehension. Read it again. Have your mommy explain it to you.

You really should move away from commenting and start asking questions instead.

(09-12-2009 06:26 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Once again Robert, you are the one lacking comprehension. Read it again. Have your mommy explain it to you.

You really should move away from commenting and start asking questions instead.

Ok dipshit. I will go over this slowly so even a mentally disabled man like you can understand.

“We really thought we’d resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President’s speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again,”

The part in bold. Resolved this question. Meaning they DID have something in there.

Italicized part: Going back, it didn't seem like it was strong enough so we went back to make the wording stronger.

Comprende?

.

Paul, aren't you getting fed the f*k up with this little terd ball always calling us "Mentally Ill" ????

I am coming to believe that it is "Robert" who is Mentally Challenged to a great degree and is trying to shave some of that burden off his shoulders by calling us the same as he is.

I know I have had enough of it from his Father Barack Toe Sucking ignorant self.

AND WILSON WAS RIGHT IN WHAT HE DID !!!!!!

OBAMA WAS THE ONE LYING THRU EVERY TOOTH and ORIFICE ON HIS BODY and he needed to be called Down On It !!!!!!! And HE WAS .....

Nuff' Said ......

.

(09-12-2009 10:38 AM)Tripster Wrote:  .

Paul, aren't you getting fed the f*k up with this little terd ball always calling us "Mentally Ill" ????

I am coming to believe that it is "Robert" who is Mentally Challenged to a great degree and is trying to shave some of that burden off his shoulders by calling us the same as he is.

I know I have had enough of it from his Father Barack Toe Sucking ignorant self.

AND WILSON WAS RIGHT IN WHAT HE DID !!!!!!

OBAMA WAS THE ONE LYING THRU EVERY TOOTH and ORIFICE ON HIS BODY and he needed to be called Down On It !!!!!!! And HE WAS .....

Nuff' Said ......

.

No. You don't understand. I say you have problems because you have PTSD and I said he is retarded(but just tried to say it nicely because I know how upset you guys get when the word "retarded" is used").

(09-12-2009 09:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-12-2009 06:26 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Once again Robert, you are the one lacking comprehension. Read it again. Have your mommy explain it to you.

You really should move away from commenting and start asking questions instead.

Ok *******. I will go over this slowly so even a mentally disabled man like you can understand.

“We really thought we’d resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President’s speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again,”

The part in bold. Resolved this question. Meaning they DID have something in there.

Italicized part: Going back, it didn't seem like it was strong enough so we went back to make the wording stronger.

Comprende?

The part in bold DOES NOT resolve jackshit you fuckingretardeddumbasssonofabitch. You have to be the stupidest person on the entire planet. And Obama lives here too, so that is saying a lot.

They did have something in there? You and them have failed to show anyone. The Republicans repeatedly asked to REALLY put something in and the demons repeatedly said NO.

How in the hell, in any universe, do you not understand, FINALLY agreeing to put something in answers the question of whether or not that there was anything in there. Again, there was not.

So, to recap, lets go over who is and isn't slow here. I understand that there is not anything in any of the bills to exclude illegals. You don't understand that even after having it explained to you ad nauseam.

Me- not the one who is slow.
You- the certified flamingcocksuckingretard.

(09-12-2009 05:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-12-2009 10:38 AM)Tripster Wrote:  .

Paul, aren't you getting fed the f*k up with this little terd ball always calling us "Mentally Ill" ????

I am coming to believe that it is "Robert" who is Mentally Challenged to a great degree and is trying to shave some of that burden off his shoulders by calling us the same as he is.

I know I have had enough of it from his Father Barack Toe Sucking ignorant self.

AND WILSON WAS RIGHT IN WHAT HE DID !!!!!!

OBAMA WAS THE ONE LYING THRU EVERY TOOTH and ORIFICE ON HIS BODY and he needed to be called Down On It !!!!!!! And HE WAS .....

Nuff' Said ......

.

No. You don't understand. I say you have problems because you have PTSD and I said he is retarded(but just tried to say it nicely because I know how upset you guys get when the word "retarded" is used").

You don't bother me, and no need to pretend you are trying to be nice. I'm not. You pieceofshitmotherfucker.

I think there's a fair chance we won't be able to exclude illegal aliens in any event, given the constitutional precedents.

Even if there is specific exclusionary language, I don't know that it survives a court challenge.

A friend who (unlike Obama) really IS a constitutional scholar has explained to me that any attempt to be universal means that illegal aliens have to be included. You can only exclude illegal aliens if you also exclude certain citizens.