Judge Napalitano says no difference between Romney & Obama

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

This slips into the dangerous water of tyranny of the majority. One of the major things the founding fathers were trying to do with the Constitution was not only limit government to following the will of the people, but preventing the majority from taking away the freedoms of the minority (as often happens in a true democracy).

We have plenty of examples of that, especially in the history of the Church. But we also ascribe to the tenet of obeying the laws of the LAND. If a law is made law under the Constitution -- and almost anything can be -- is it in fact tyranny?

I'm starting to think it is not.

I don't see backlash in Massachusetts to repeal Romneycare, certainly not on the level with the passion against Obamacare.

I'm not defending Romneycare here, mind you. I'm just saying, it's the law of the land and it was lawfully enacted, whether there are those who opine that it is morally wrong or unconstitutional. We can say that about a number of laws. Abortion is immoral. It is also the law of the land. It seems that tyranny then is more defined by those who stand in defiance to the law and think to only change it in illegal ways....such as revolution. Slippery slope indeed.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Social security is tyranny also. At what point will the govt. quit forcing us to do things? The trend doen't seem to be reversing.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

This slips into the dangerous water of tyranny of the majority. One of the major things the founding fathers were trying to do with the Constitution was not only limit government to following the will of the people, but preventing the majority from taking away the freedoms of the minority (as often happens in a true democracy).

We have plenty of examples of that, especially in the history of the Church. But we also ascribe to the tenet of obeying the laws of the LAND. If a law is made law under the Constitution -- and almost anything can be -- is it in fact tyranny?

I'm starting to think it is not.

I don't see backlash in Massachusetts to repeal Romneycare, certainly not on the level with the passion against Obamacare.

I'm not defending Romneycare here, mind you. I'm just saying, it's the law of the land and it was lawfully enacted, whether there are those who opine that it is morally wrong or unconstitutional. We can say that about a number of laws. Abortion is immoral. It is also the law of the land. It seems that tyranny then is more defined by those who stand in defiance to the law and think to only change it in illegal ways....such as revolution. Slippery slope indeed.

At this point, the govt. is not forcing people to have abortions. At least we still have our free agency in this matter. The one not getting their free agency is the unborn child.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Social security is tyranny also. At what point will the govt. quit forcing us to do things? The trend doen't seem to be reversing.

The government doesn't force this. The people do. I've not seen an effort with any kind of majority clout to remove it and it is more than 70 years old. There is a precedent for mandates. But there is also a precedent for the people removing such mandates (prohibition, for example).

I just don't see it as tyranny if it is implemented legally. Romney's healthcare mandate was. So too, arguably, was Obama's....though the jury is still out on it.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Social security is tyranny also. At what point will the govt. quit forcing us to do things? The trend doen't seem to be reversing.

The government doesn't force this. The people do. I've not seen an effort with any kind of majority clout to remove it and it is more than 70 years old. There is a precedent for mandates. But there is also a precedent for the people removing such mandates (prohibition, for example).

I just don't see it as tyranny if it is implemented legally. Romney's healthcare mandate was. So too, arguably, was Obama's....though the jury is still out on it.

If you think the govt. does't force S.S., try not not paying it. Its a matter of, if you support free agency or not. Would it be tryanny if 51% of the people said the other 49% had to give them all their money? Majority approval doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's still using force to take someones money and give it to someone else.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

Social security is tyranny also. At what point will the govt. quit forcing us to do things? The trend doen't seem to be reversing.

The government doesn't force this. The people do. I've not seen an effort with any kind of majority clout to remove it and it is more than 70 years old. There is a precedent for mandates. But there is also a precedent for the people removing such mandates (prohibition, for example).

I just don't see it as tyranny if it is implemented legally. Romney's healthcare mandate was. So too, arguably, was Obama's....though the jury is still out on it.

Yes, it is absolutely tyrannical and you are right, the government does not force it....the IRS (work for the Federal Reserve as a private corporation registered in DE) forces it upon us. Do you have a choice in paying into SS? No, you must pay into it. Will you ever see it? No, because Congress spends the $ as soon as they get it. People have tried to pass laws in order to turn SS into a private retirement account (Dr. Paul and others) but it would take away a slush fund and the crooks in DC will have none of that. This has never come up for a vote with the people because it would be voted down by anyone under the age of 50. Common sense tells us it will kill itself eventually, but we are still paying into it against our will. You are right....the precedent for removing this starts with people who need to wake up to this theft, but most just figure its a done deal. Our job is to awaken people to our awful situation...and there are many more than just one to wake up to.

http://www.mind-trek.com/practicl/tl16a.htm (on the tax man) the corrupt courts wont hear cases on this anymore

[Obiwancaptain of 100]

Gentlemen -- please!!! Can we get back on topic, quoting myself here...

-- Can the government mandate healthcare. According to Napalitano, both Romney and Obama agree. Not true though. Romney has repeatedly said it is a state issue.

As if forcing someone to pay health insurance is better at the state level? Force is force, that is not a conservative position, and that is big reason I cannot support Romney.

That was NOT Romney's plan.... The 'force' part was added by the liberals in his state, he was over-ridden.
Perfect example of how a little truth is used to lie.

[TruthoverTraditionHi, I'm new.]

Romney gave us RomneyCare that preceded Obamacare based upon socialistic and controlling reform. Everyone has to get insurance or they'll be fined and Dr's have to do as ordered even if they know its not effective or be fined or jailed (YouTube presentation by a Doctor Congressman).
Romney also has the corruption of Bain behind him and he's known as a flip-flopper. Everyone deserves their opinions without being blasted by the bullies.
The Judge is known for calling it clean and calling it loud. He is a man of integrity because he tells the truth.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mandate

man·date
   [man-deyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -dat·ed, -dat·ing.
noun
1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.
2. a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.
3. an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.
4. (in the League of Nations) a commission given to a nation to administer the government and affairs of a former Turkish territory or German colony.
5. a mandated territory or colony.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

If you think the govt. does't force S.S., try not not paying it. Its a matter of, if you support free agency or not. Would it be tryanny if 51% of the people said the other 49% had to give them all their money? Majority approval doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's still using force to take someones money and give it to someone else.

It is was all passed constitutionally by the people. Tyranny is when something is forced on you when you have no voice in the matter. You (meaning anyone) who oppose such things need only follow the Constitution to change it. If that's what you (meaning anyone) should do if you really believe it.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mandate

Again, constitutionally passed means it's not tyranny. If you don't like it, great. Change it. It is that simple.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mandate

Again, constitutionally passed means it's not tyranny. If you don't like it, great. Change it. It is that simple.

I would guess that also applies to The NDAA? The Patriot Act? At least your concentration camp will have been voted on by congress and signed by the president, so it will not be tryanny.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I hear you. But we have other things that are mandated. Social security is mandated. Is that not tyranny?

Yes, good conclusion EB.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mandate

Again, constitutionally passed means it's not tyranny. If you don't like it, great. Change it. It is that simple.

You can pass laws saying black people aren't humans, but wouldn't make it right. (There are plenty of unconstitutional laws passed every day). My point wasn't that it went through all the necessary channels before it was enacted. My point is that it shows that Mitt Romney is exercising unrighteous dominion.

Straight from MittRomneyCentral:
http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/

2 - Romney took time to build a consensus of approval in the state before passing the new law. Polls show that Romneycare still remains very popular in MA to this day. Again, Obama did no such thing. A consensus of approval is vital to the success of any major reform.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

If you think the govt. does't force S.S., try not not paying it. Its a matter of, if you support free agency or not. Would it be tryanny if 51% of the people said the other 49% had to give them all their money? Majority approval doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's still using force to take someones money and give it to someone else.

It is was all passed constitutionally by the people. Tyranny is when something is forced on you when you have no voice in the matter. You (meaning anyone) who oppose such things need only follow the Constitution to change it. If that's what you (meaning anyone) should do if you really believe it.

Just because any tyranny type of legislation gets passed into law does not then make it right or moral.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mandate

Again, constitutionally passed means it's not tyranny. If you don't like it, great. Change it. It is that simple.

I would guess that also applies to The NDAA? The Patriot Act? At least your concentration camp will have been voted on by congress and signed by the president, so it will not be tryanny.

The Patriot Act and NDAA were passed without the consent of the people. They are unconstitutional at their CORE. You should also look up Marbury vs. Madison.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

My point is that it shows that Mitt Romney is exercising unrighteous dominion.

Totally extreme view. So Romney single handedly imposed his will and stole from their people their agency by his mandate?

Friggin' unreal.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

The Patriot Act and NDAA were passed without the consent of the people. They are unconstitutional at their CORE. You should also look up Marbury vs. Madison.

And under the Constitution they can be changed. Or do you not believe in the Constitution?

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

The Patriot Act and NDAA were passed without the consent of the people. They are unconstitutional at their CORE. You should also look up Marbury vs. Madison.

And under the Constitution they can be changed. Or do you not believe in the Constitution?

I think you overestimate the influence people have over congress and the president. These laws were never the will of the people in the first place.

Why do you think so many on this forum support Ron Paul. He is the only one taking about changing these laws.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Obiwan, wow... looks like I brought out the worst in you with this thread. Let me guess... you probably also despise freedom, liberty, the Constitution, justice, ethics, morality, political literacy, goodness, decency and truth.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

The Patriot Act and NDAA were passed without the consent of the people. They are unconstitutional at their CORE. You should also look up Marbury vs. Madison.

And under the Constitution they can be changed. Or do you not believe in the Constitution?

I think you overestimate the influence people have over congress and the president. These laws were never the will of the people in the first place.

Why do you think so many on this forum support Ron Paul. He is the only one taking about changing these laws.

So, 200+ years of repetitive history with election cycle after election cycle hasn't convinced you that the Constitution works?

I'll certainly agree that as the world has grown more evil we've drifted from what the Constitution is all about. However, we still hold, as of today at least, the power to fundamentally change things...thanks to the Constitution.

I would hope we could find a way to bring people more together on it, though. I see the extreme way it is being done around here as divisive, angry, forceful and rude. I'm never known any of those to be real convincing in bringing people together.

On another note, I'm glad to see Ron Paul come in 2nd tonight and to see Rick Santorum fade away after his week in the sun. And I'll be glad to see the annoying Jon Huntsman fade next week in South Carolina (Drudge has a link to an article that has him behind Steven Colbert).

If it does come down to Romney versus Paul maybe we can see some honest debate...and progress.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Ebenezer, I believe in and love the constitution. I just see it slipping away ever faster. I am afriad it's really to late anyway. The Gadiations are close to having dictatoral powers. I appreciate your point of view but I believe it's about twenty years to late.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

The Patriot Act and NDAA were passed without the consent of the people. They are unconstitutional at their CORE. You should also look up Marbury vs. Madison.

And under the Constitution they can be changed. Or do you not believe in the Constitution?

EB, you sound like you might be catching on to the common theme here. The Constitution actually was set up to prevent laws like these from happening to begin with... there were never any powers enumerated to the Feds to create any abominations like the NDAA or the Patriot Act. Those are express violations of several amendments (primarily the 4th).

I would suggest listening to W Cleon Skousens talk called Gods Perfect Law. I also recommend the books The Majesty of Gods Law and the Making of America by him as well. I know if you read these you would understand where a lot of us are coming from...you are almost there my friend. You still believe that the Constitution is the same as what the Founding Fathers intended....its the same belief I had just two years ago. Once you understand what is going on, and HOW it is going on, you will understand why so many of us focus like a laser on candidates that understand the TRUE intent of what the Lord gave us to begin with.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Just because any tyranny type of legislation gets passed into law does not then make it right or moral.

Oh, I absolutely agree. But as long as we have the Constitution we have the power to right those wrongs.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Ebenezer, I believe in and love the constitution. I just see it slipping away ever faster. I am afriad it's really to late anyway. The Gadiations are close to having dictatoral powers. I appreciate your point of view but I believe it's about twenty years to late.

This indeed might be the first thing you've said so far that I can agree with. We are in dire straights constitutionally, I think. But I do believe the infrastructure still exists to change things. The bigger questions remains whether we have the moral imperative to do so. I fear that we're so overwrought with sin to get the people to see it or do anything about it.

I don't believe it is productive, however, to take good men and label them bad just because they don't go about it the way we would. And I mean that in context of people like Romney and Paul...and even Jim Mattheson (not sure about Harry Reid, 'fraid to say).

I do believe there are SOME good men and women still in government.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Just because any tyranny type of legislation gets passed into law does not then make it right or moral.

Oh, I absolutely agree. But as long as we have the Constitution we have the power to right those wrongs.

The constitution has one foot and four toes of the other foot in the grave.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

EB, you sound like you might be catching on to the common theme here. The Constitution actually was set up to prevent laws like these from happening to begin with...

I disagree. The Constitution was crafted by a generation of slave holders. The created the power to change anything...because they knew they weren't perfect and that "we", meaning the future, wouldn't be either.

Thanks for the recommendations. I've read A LOT of Skousen.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

The constitution has one foot and four toes of the other foot in the grave.

If Mr. Obama's most recent actions are to be believed, you may have that assessed correctly.

Look, I'm no less passionate about the Constitution as any of you. I'm just not convinced yet that Mr. Paul is the only answer. A lot of what I read here is over the top about him. And a lot of what of hear from others, like from Judge Napalitano, is unfair the other way.

That's all I've been trying to say.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

The Constitution was crafted by a generation of slave holders.

If you have read a lot of Skousen, you would know better than to say this.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

The constitution has one foot and four toes of the other foot in the grave.

If Mr. Obama's most recent actions are to be believed, you may have that assessed correctly.

Look, I'm no less passionate about the Constitution as any of you. I'm just not convinced yet that Mr. Paul is the only answer. A lot of what I read here is over the top about him. And a lot of what of hear from others, like from Judge Napalitano, is unfair the other way.

That's all I've been trying to say.

I appreciate what your saying. I don't know if Ron Paul is the answer either. I think many view him as a champion for liberty. Certainly, the public has been fooled before. Many see him this way because of the way the establishment treats him. The logic being , if the Gadiantions don't like him, than he must be good for us.

The way this election is heading, it may be Romney's time. Many people won't simply give him trust based on his LDS faith. We have been betrayed by our own before.

I believe we would like to see the same thing, America restored. That may not be in the cards but we will try to defend her anyway.