Go BIG or go home Texas is bigger than Senator Edward “Ted” Cruz. It is so BIG it is of rightful federalism prudence and balancing and the current seating of The Supreme Court of the United States of America. #SCOTUS has a conundrum to beat out as though it isn’t supposed to have one or more decisions undermine earlier decisions. It is that Senator Ted Cruz has legs to stand on as long as President Obama’s “Obamacare” is unresolved of the contradicting jurisprudence of the D.O.M.A. & Same Sex Marriage rulings. #SCOTUS isn’t supposed to have one ruling undermine another and yet for now the Affordable Care Act is fundamentally undermined by the more recent D.O.M.A. & Same Sex Marriage rulings per states’ moral juridiction.
“Obamacare” has only face a couple limited Constitutional challenges. “Obamacare” has hardly been deemed Constitutional in its entirety. “Obamacare” has only been deemed to be passable yet for the limited challenges to it had special considerations more to what is or is not an Executive power to wage war and to tax to fund war. It seems the national right to proceed forward with some implementation of the Affordable Care Act is only as it can be said to be “A Tax” and like a USE TAX though currently more of a Bully Right of the President to wage a national/nationwide war on health.
It is secured in out #SCOTUS records that however a jester Justice Scalia was being he never the less implied that the Affordable Care Act in its entirety was not Constitutional for it would violate his Eight Amendment protections from cruel and unusual punishment if he or the other justices were ask to read through the whole law and pass specific judgements as to Constitutionality of the whole as a sum of all of its specific parts.
Words can hurt. Words matter.
The justices have a deadline with destiny, whether these currently seated, or those to follow, as per our Constitution and much that is also of the undermining of the Affordable Care Act by the rendered “legal” ruling interpretations effected for the D.O.M.A. & Same Sex Marriage opinions. It is considerate that related to the specifics that undermine one by the other the constructs of the fundamental common sense humanity historic pertinent to all is also embedded in the Twenty Second Amendment. It is of critical relativity that for now the Twenty Second Amendment of such reasoning and history for and of term limits of the most powerful in American establishments is yet set for a destiny for Justice as the politics of the day have us all to a deadline to re-figure what Posterity is in our Law & of our “common sense.” The Twenty Second Amendment is still (for now) undecided law — we have a deadline maybe a wet dream for Republicans of a trinity of #SCOTUS Corinthian pillar’d wisdom standing as a reconciliation is due that pulses the issues of the Constitutionality of The Affordable Care Act with the undermining Federalism rulings of D.O.M.A. & Same Sex Marriage per states of the moral juridictions and while the Twenty Second Amendment as per “spousal” “two-fer” Power limiting necessary prescient at least as to if a new Hillary For President can itself not also be illegal.
Words can hurt. Words matter.
What possible Justice can now make Texans happiest? How now can #SCOTUS render Texans all more gay? Is there a merriness for the ages of “marriage” shared gayness? If it not just those opposite and attracting as of the body electric of reproductive instincts pulsing since “Adam” to be of said “miserable” for the ages but in a gay of “marriage” is it in the lexicon of modern jurisprudence that “gay” again will be defined more generally as “happy”? If those of singing the body electric as once kept more as if just of “temptations” are to be legally rendered as united for the ages in as much establishment for sharing of “merry” or “misery” will the words of the revolution pass from “gay”? Of Austin Powers secured as more for states’ moral jurisdiction by #SCOTUS, however one dreams BIG, hasn’t “gay” been of protestations more than a lexicon of a merriness for the ages celebration?
The Twenty Second Amendment grew from protestations as to how long Franklin and Eleanor held power spousally as the First Couple of The United States of America. It was drafted and passed as to be a Constitutional Amendment by the Eightieth Congress which Richard Nixon was seated in. The Affordable Care act to be Constitutional as of the desired Right to healthcare as whipped up by modern Democrats should too have been conceived & processed as well by the writ processes and procedures for a Constitutional Amendment. The language of the Twenty Second Amendment is similar in functionality to the enduring common sense as per the oaths of marriage unions in common wedding vows. The Twenty Second Amendment though drafted and passed in the late forties wasn’t sufficiently ratified by the states until the Year of the Founders’ Lord one thousand ninety and Fifty and one. It keeps the original intent of the founders of setting the Constitution by its preamble as the “key” or “legend” as so set as ordained and then subscribed unanimously by all then in that Year of the Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eight seven.
It is yet of the deadline with destiny for The Supreme Court of the United States of America to better explain states’ moral jurisdiction in the Trinity of the above, at least. It is that for two of the earthly political concerns to be reconciled and yet without the still undecided law of the Twenty Second Amendment the holiness of the jurisprudence would be undermined. It seems that “Hillary For President” has never been legal by the term limits amendment - it seems all three can and should be reconciled now, even if more a wet dream of Texas and its seated Texan Republicans.
However it may be that “Hillary” is “maiden gay” or “Bill” is “maiden gay” the purview of the Peoples’ Law of the prudence of the Twenty Second Amendment has them inseparable in an actual merriness for the ages as of “marriage” so established. The two circles of “Hillary” and “Bill” can never be separated enough to not be a considerate “union” of the barred by the limiting of Power as for the Executive Branch. It seems “it is criminal” applies to the Clintons ambitions at least. If one of them is then by election of an established “union” then the other, regardless of their sex, then is also considerate as to be being returned “by election” to the unique 24-7 “holding” of the Constitutional concerns to check and balance protections from a new reigning as if again as by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his First Lady “two-fered” intimate Power partner Eleanor Roosevelt.
Words can hurt.
Yes Hillary For President may already have been “criminal” enough for this “Trinity” to together be a most stirring destiny for the currently seated Justices of The Supreme Court of the United States of America. However gayly the establishment of marriage may have preserved the Clintons is hardly the matter but for how the equal protections sought by the protestations recently about #SCOTUS in D.O.M.A. & Same Sex Marriage seem compromised by the Clintons as to how for them (politically) they posture still that a marriage isn’t really a marriage. To be “gay” and “married” has been rendered recently to be however based on sex to be Constitutionally protected by it writ large that states have the moral jurisdiction and that by the First Amendment Congress may make now Law respecting religion and its tenets such so that Congress has no right to assume a superior right to interpret what is moral.
Words can hurt.
Congress is barred from having an authority over the states as to what is Moral and as so recently re-established as relating to “marriage” unions. The Clintons are married, however gayly - - - it may be “criminal” much that they have plotted and conspired to undermine the Constitution and per its “common sense” as relates to unions. An election of one inseparable in a marriage union does by election, regardless of their sex, therefore affect an “electing” of the other to what is the “holding” of the office - the unique office - of - of the Office of the President. Otherwise all the laws of marriage would be undermined if the Clintons’ (convenient) negations were to reign - - - As for the “holding” of “office” as uniquely set and consummated for the Executive Branch of The United States of America it is that a spouse cannot be barred from a right to spousal “holding” as yet entertained creatively by the Clintons’ machinations and as it is common sense that a return of one would simply be to a by election return of some or all “holding” of office too.
Words do matter.
And SCOTUS has a deadline with destiny as long as it seems prudent to delay “Obamacare” until the justices of the Supreme Court effect a clarification of the contradictory that shouldn’t be that has their more recent rulings undermining their earlier albeit limited review of The Affordable Care Act. One law is not supposed to be so to undermining another law - - - as per “ACA” it seems it cannot at least become a permanent establishment of Federal jurisdiction though temporarily permitted as a Tax in keeping with a necessary short term providence that a President must have the power to wage war (on health) and have funding able to be raised appropriate for it.