He Thinks Obamacare Won't Be Ruled Against: He may be right, could be. We'll see. The farm subsidy argument was the first I heard. Made me lend an ear.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

He may be right, could be. We'll see. The farm subsidy argument was the first I heard. Made me lend an ear.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/06/20/five-reasons-scotus-wont-rule-against-obamacare/

rolse

UncleJesse wrote:

He may be right, could be. We'll see. The farm subsidy argument was the first I heard. Made me lend an ear.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/06/20/five-reasons-scotus-wont-rule-against-obamacare/

The supreme i***ts cannot rule against the so-called Affordable Care Act. If they did, the skeletons in their closets would be coming out. They don't need a reason beyond that. When the group is an integral part of a corporation that has no connection wh**ever to a lawful, constitutional republic, they have no choice but to do what their employer says.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

You're referring to the ruling that a "corporation is a person", thing?

rolse wrote:

The supreme i***ts cannot rule against the so-called Affordable Care Act. If they did, the skeletons in their closets would be coming out. They don't need a reason beyond that. When the group is an integral part of a corporation that has no connection wh**ever to a lawful, constitutional republic, they have no choice but to do what their employer says.

rolse

UncleJesse wrote:

You're referring to the ruling that a "corporation is a person", thing?

I am referring to the private municipal corporation that is the de facto government of the UNITED STATES, INC.; USA, INC.; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. all of which are often used without including the designation as a corporation, but are included in the definition in Sec. 28, p. 3000-3002, subsection 15, (a); (b); (c), of the UNITED STATES CODE that rules over us much like the ruler in a monarchy.