Andy

It's obviously not working. Romney is on the ropes, McCain lost, Bush won but his polices decimated our economy.

Please consider nominating a conservative next time.

...I would be prevented from voting?

For example: I need to wear clothes to vote. Clothes cost money; therefore forcing people to wear clothes while voting is a poll tax.

Hint: It's not traditionally considered a Southern state.

For your convenience:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:h.r.0...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/cnn-news-staffer...

If Obamacare had been ruled unconstitutional, Obama could have blamed the Supreme Court and still looked like the good guy. Poll after poll has shown that the program is still pretty unpopular, but nevertheless, Obama is still stuck selling it to the American people. Plus, Republicans are now able to tell everyone about Obama's massive new tax on everyone.

It was either lose and look like the good guy or win and still be on the defensive. I think if I were Obama I'd be even more nervous today than I was yesterday. Your thoughts?

(People on Y!A seem to be more immature today, so if you're going to act like a moron just go answer another question. Thanks.)

The law, as it was written, was not constitutional and the Court understood and admitted that. The individual mandate, as it was written, presented and argued wasn't a tax. The court agreed that it wasn't a tax, and that it was a penalty for not purchasing a product. So what they did was said, "it's not a tax, but if it were it would be constitutional, therefore we're going to call it a tax and rule it constitutional."

Essentially, the Supreme Court changed the law to make it constitutional, despite the fact that it wasn't.

So my question is, what specific part of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to change the wording of a law before ruling on it?

For example do Cherokee, Navajo and Kiowa all have a tendency to vote for the same political party?

(I saw a few comments that led me to believe that some people may be uninformed about this.)

Hopefully we can all agree that that was just a ridiculous idea to begin with.

...the Obama Administration, how do you handle this? Do you try to keep up the "partisan attack" claim or do you switch strategy?

Yes, the Bush Administration ran a similar program and it shouldn't have. Giving guns to bad guys is never a good idea. But that doesn't change the fact that Holder is being subpoenaed because there's reasonable suspicion that the Justice Department actively tried to cover it up.

Conservatives are wrong when they say Obama started Fast and Furious; the entire idea came from the Bush Administration.

Leftists are wrong when they say Holder is innocent because Bush started the program, but the fact that the Obama Administration covered it up has nothing to do with Bush.

Hopefully the red team and the blue team are now thoroughly informed. You're welcome.

Bush used it six times. The right never said a word while the left howled with anger. Now Obama uses it and the right howls with anger while the left defends him.

Why are some of you okay with a president covering up illegal activity as long as he's on your team?

Assuming that it can't be done away with altogether.

The use of executive privilege is one of the biggest things preventing transparency in government. Maybe something like a committee which can determine whether or not there actually is a compelling interest in withholding certain information.

What do you think can be done to reign in the executive privilege?

He keeps kicking his big ol' puppy paws.