:agree:

Pattern of behavior for one, he threatened to veto the NDAA and then signed it anyway, the 2012 NDAA is unconstitutional and was unpopular but he still signed it. Obamacare is unconstitutional, highly unpopular and he knows it, just does not care.Obama knows what CISPA will do for the government power wise, he is okay with it but knows it's unpopular and in this close election year, if he does veto it, it will be pure politics, pretty obvious as it would go against his pattern of giving the government more power and to hell with the rights of the citizens.The pattern of behavior shows almost a contempt for the constitution and the citizenry.Perhaps he will shock us and veto this.I would not be shocked if he vetoes it now and then signs upon reelection(if he is reelected).Another scenario would be the bill is never sent to him to be signed although passed, then he will sign it later.I was just saying if he signs it, it's politics and not conviction, his pattern of behavior and just being obama, believing what he believes etc, shows this.

I didn't ask why you formed the opinion you did. That is fine, you have your reasons and they are valid, and your summary is good.

I asked how you knew it as a fact. As a law student you should know the difference.

CISPA, ACTA, SOPA, etc.
Basically all the same: laws made by lobbyists, pushed through by politicians who put the monitor on a xerox machine to print out a screen.

If one law doesn't pass, the next bill will come, as sure as the next paycheck for the willing yae-sayers. So unless you kick out the lobbyists and their servants in Congress, we will see more attempts to attack the freedom of the web and internet privacy.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/002554.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ling-vcr.shtml

Maybe instead of trying to (lobby/bribe) legislate against progress, you adapt and conform.

Oh I forgot, people like the MPAA and RIAA are irrelivant in this day and age. People can use you-tube to do what they needed huge labels to do, and (the real leeches) need to protect themselves (thier fleecing of the artists is at stake.). Kinda like how they tried to kill the VCR. Kill it dead! For no good reason. (despite it saving the industry)

It only takes one minor internet banning to set off a chain reaction of rights losses.

I cite the patriot act as precidence to how easily we will give up our rights when the government succeeds in scaring the rubes.

GREAT FIREWALL OF AMERICA, HOME OF THE WIMPS, LAND OF THE CORPORATELY EMASCULATED

That is debatable until the Supreme Court rules. Don't count your chicken until they are hatched. :ping:

Evidence supports the facts as I stated them but I get what you're saying.

Really, it is not debatable.Obama and his clowns are well aware it's unconstitutional, they are just being intellectually dishonest.The old, say something that is not true until enough people think it's true idea at work, problem is most people understand it's not true and it one reason the law is so unpopular.Anyone with a legal education or who has read/studied the constitution in depth and is completely honest, knows the Federal government does not have the power to compel a citizen to purchase a product, especially from a private company.The very notion is so absurd, it is almost laughable, except that it will determine a large part of this nation's future.Again, the absurdity to argue the constitution permits the Federal government that type of power, it just goes against the very essence of our nationI would dare say that if the mandate is upheld, the rights we have known since our founding are dead which is why it got such a cold reception in the court, which is why the Solicitor General could not keep his argument straight, it's bunk.Really is sad and insulting, all the time and money these people have wasted on this, but they could care less.

I have not counted my chickens before they hatch because you never know with the court, but I will be shocked if they uphold the law.Just sad the people in power would rather try to uphold a law via smoke and mirrors instead of passing a constitutionally sound law that would help people, but then again their agenda would have to actually be about helping people and not gaining more control over things.

This law will not be overturned.

You have faith in our government, I do not.

This law is a give-me to the insurance companies, which (as you stated in previous post) is why the rates went up. They knew they can grease the taxpayer, for every poor slob that couldn't get insurance before, at inflated prices once it was mandatory.

Single payer, like a medicare system, while not pure utopia, would have put effective price controls on our spiralling healthcare costs. Highest in the world, thanks to (yeah I will do it again) Healthcare corps.

It needs to be overturned. It reeks of corporate welfare.

(see that? Libbies aint so silly?):O:

I do not have faith in the government, I have faith in the judiciary, the Supreme Court to be more specific.I have faith in the current court because even when I disagree with their decisions, they usually are in line with the constitution.Take the much criticized Citizens United ruling.I deplore the real world consequences(got us SUPERPACS) but their constitutional reasoning was spot on and they made the right decision, so like it or not, they made the right ruling because it would have been WRONG to ignore the constitution and rule based on their feelings and real world consequences as Obama and many others would have done, remember when he tried to shame them at the State of the Union that year? What a disgrace he is. SCOTUS's job is not to legislate from the bench and for the most this court has not done that.Of course, if the "liberal" wing werer running things, it would be terrible for us given the magnitude of decisions to come.This year we will have Obamacare and the Arizona immigration case next year they have agreed to hear a challenge to affirmative action and most likely overturn it since that wretch O Connor is no longer there.This court ruled police could not track suspects with GPS unless they obtain a warrant, which was a "duh" but the police ie the government, esp law enforcement will take an inch if you give them a mile, SCOTUS made the proper ruling.

Based on the propensity for going with the constitution in most cases, I can not fathom them upholding Obamacarte.Will it be a 5-4? most likely but will no doubt overturn it.The court is still pretty fair, they believe in rule of law, not mob rule or who is helping them get reelected, that is the system is beautiful my friend, checks and balances.