# If universal health care is so great...



## Liberty (Jun 28, 2010)

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

The "living rules" doctrine means that you can use whatever cheap excuse you can (i.e. general welfare and the commerce clause), to just make it up on the fly and ignore niggling trifles like prescribed constitutional process.


----------



## Liberty (Jun 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> The "living rules" doctrine means that you can use whatever cheap excuse you can (i.e. general welfare and the commerce clause), to just make it up on the fly and ignore niggling trifles like prescribed constitutional process.



anyone who cites the preamble as law has no base for argument, as if the preamble to the constitution was intended to be legally binding, there would be no need for the 10th amendment, so although I know you yourself are not making that argument, those who do project that argument are easily defeated in debate.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

That's not the one they cite...It's the one in the first sentence of Article 1, Section 8.

Basically the same BS arguments, though.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2010)

Liberty said:


> ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.



Doesn't need to amend.  Next question.


----------



## Liberty (Jun 28, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.
> ...



wow, great argument! 

.

..

...

....
.....


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 28, 2010)

Liberty said:


> ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people."



What would be the purpose of such an amendment?



> I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal.



You're going to have to be significantly more specific. You don't think the government has discretion over the tax treatment of health benefits (either in the individual market or benefits provided by an employer)? Or do you not think it can regulate industries? Or are you _only_ talking about the individual mandate?

What are you using "universal health care" to mean?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

Read Article 1, section 8.

Where in there can it be construed that congress has the power to run the medical services sector of the economy (or any other for that matter) or compel anyone to buy anything?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 28, 2010)

It's already there under the 'Good n' Plenty' clause?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 28, 2010)

Liberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...


Don't bother with Joke, Liberty.  He's an expert at libberish all day long every day, we never close (our mouth) bullshit.  If an ounce of truth gets within a mile of this conversation he'll run away till it's gone.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Read Article 1, section 8.
> 
> Where in there can it be construed that congress has the power to run the medical services sector of the economy



Read Public Law No: 111-148. Where in there does Congress "run the medical services sector of the economy"?



> or compel anyone to buy anything?



I've outlined the relevant bits of the Constitution in other posts:


*Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.*"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
*Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.* "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" (See United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association for the relevance here)
*Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.* "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (See McCulloch v. Maryland for the significance here)


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

IOW, the usual stalking horses that the central planners like to toss out there, in order to claim that they have the power to lord over just about everyone and everything.

How about reading through  *Federalist #41* and stacking original intent, as elaborated upon by the Constitution's primary author, against your usurper "interpretations" of those vagaries?



> Read Public Law No: 111-148. Where in there does Congress "run the medical services sector of the economy"?


That's the end game, and anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows it....Public Law No: 111-148 is just a means to an end.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2010)

Dud and his bud(s) are wrong as usual.  The Articles clearly empower Congress, and you guys are standing in a firing squad circle blasting away at each other.  Funny!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 28, 2010)

> Article I, Section 8, Clause 1."The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"



Umm nowhere does that give power for compulsory consumption.  Please look up the definition of Taxes, Duties, Imposts, Exicises.  The Debt being talked about is a debt rung up by the government created by providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.  Note... clearly this is not the general welfare of the CITIZENS, but the welfare of the national government meaning the ability to function.

If you stretch the general welfare clause out of shape to mean the government can do anything it feels to accomplish what they feel is in the best interest of the General Welfare you effectively INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION AND CREATE A TYRANNY, *INSTANTLY*!



> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"



No.  This is not a 'one size fits all' power.  This is talking about trade treaties allowing industry to trade between other nations, states or Indian Tribes.  This does not provide for a compulsion to an individual citizen to consume anything.



> Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (See McCulloch v. Maryland for the significance here)



Nope.  No power for universal health care here.

But thank you for playing.  The lovely Odette has some lovely parting gifts for you like a cruise to Cuba so you can experience real universal health care that is Michael Moore approved, as well as live out your lives in the result of your ideals.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 28, 2010)

Liberty,

You really are an idiot. But I will continue to pray for you at Mass.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> The "living rules" doctrine means that you can use whatever cheap excuse you can (i.e. general welfare and the commerce clause), to just make it up on the fly and ignore niggling trifles like prescribed constitutional process.



You mean like spending massive amounts of money nation building across the pond and south of the border? Or a couple of decades in non-defense space exploration? Where in the Constitution does is it specifically prescribed that the U.S. has an obligation to commit to foreign aid, except by conditions of treaty? Or get involved in new technology _at all_?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes


"Regulate" as in to make regular.

For example, states could not set up railroads which changed gauges at the state line, which would impede interstate commerce....Ironically, Obunglercare further empowers the in-state insurance quasi-monopolies that the interstate commerce clause was meant to protect against. 

Welcome to the rabbit hole, Alice.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> IOW, the usual stalking horses that the central planners like to toss out there, in order to claim that they have the power to lord over just about everyone and everything.
> 
> How about reading through  *Federalist #41* and stacking original intent, as elaborated upon by the Constitution's primary author, against your usurper "interpretations" of those vagaries?
> 
> ...



The Federalist Papers, nor the Declaration of Independence (which others claim as precedent) are what the USSC relies upon in ruling. Nice try.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The "living rules" doctrine means that you can use whatever cheap excuse you can (i.e. general welfare and the commerce clause), to just make it up on the fly and ignore niggling trifles like prescribed constitutional process.
> ...


Yeah, kinda like that.

But you've never heard me support those things, have you?

Nope...Didn't think so.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > IOW, the usual stalking horses that the central planners like to toss out there, in order to claim that they have the power to lord over just about everyone and everything.
> ...


Well, they're conveniently ignored by out-of-control politicians and a judicial oligarchy that want to make up the rules as they go along...But that's kinda the point.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Article I, Section 8, Clause 1."The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your clever and smug remarks aside, if the Constitution is to be abided solely on its word, then why was it also a requirement therein that a United States Supreme Court would be tasked to rule on all of its stated provisions as required? Do you honestly think the framers were stupid enough to believe that time would stand still and that events would take place necessitating broader definitions?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Your clever and smug remarks aside, if the Constitution is to be abided solely on its word, then why was it also a requirement therein that a United States Supreme Court would be tasked to rule on all of its stated provisions as required? Do you honestly think the framers were stupid enough to believe that time would stand still and that events would take place necessitating broader definitions?


Which part of Article 3 is that?


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 28, 2010)

Egads - over two centuries ago some bright people created a document that the wingnuts now use whenever they disagree with anything that moves the nation forward. How boring.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

There is lots not in the constitution that is the law of the land today.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

Nice try at deflection.

Care to address the topic of where socializing medical services can be found as a federal matter, rather than pointing to a smoke-blowing list of irrelevant non sequiturs, red herrings and instances of "well we got away with it, so it must be constitutional"?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> That's the end game, and anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows it....Public Law No: 111-148 is just a means to an end.



Ah, so the law doesn't do that at all. Noted.



Big Fitz said:


> > Article I, Section 8, Clause 1."The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
> 
> 
> 
> Umm nowhere does that give power for compulsory consumption.  Please look up the definition of Taxes, Duties, Imposts, Exicises.



That bit, along with the clarifications in the Sixteen Amendment, allows a tax to be levied on income.



> No.  This is not a 'one size fits all' power.  This is talking about trade treaties allowing industry to trade between other nations, states or Indian Tribes.  This does not provide for a compulsion to an individual citizen to consume anything.



The relevance of the commerce clause is to the regulatory apparatus in the law. The Court suggested in South-eastern Underwriters ithat the relevant power here includes insurance regulation:

Any enactment by Congress either of partial or of comprehensive regulations of the insurance business would come to us with the most forceful presumption of constitutional validity. The fiction that insurance is not commerce could not be sustained against such a presumption, for resort to the facts would support the presumption in favor of the congressional action. The faction therefore must yield to congressional action and continues only at the sufferance of Congress.​


> Nope.  No power for universal health care here.



In McCulloch, the Court discusses at length the appropriate usage of the necessary and proper clause, concluding that powers necessary for carrying out powers explicitly granted to Congress (in our case, regulating insurance under the Commerce Clause as sanctioned in South-eastern Underwriters) may be exercised by Congress when not expressly forbidden in the Constitution. In this instance, we loop back up to the first point, since the power being exercised is one of taxation. The circle is complete.



> Care to address the topic of where socializing medical services can be found as a federal matter



If Congress ever debates a bill socializing medical services, I would encourage you to ask such questions.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 28, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> Liberty,
> 
> You really are an idiot. But I will continue to pray for you at Mass.


The prayers of a practicing Catholic... who needs much more practice if he's pro abortion.  Huh... bet that carries a LOT of weight with the Saints.  Good luck with all that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2010)

It will take some time, but eventually Universal Health Care will be the law of the land here as it is in advanced democratic nations on this little planet.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 28, 2010)

> if the Constitution is to be abided solely on its word, then why was it also a requirement therein that a United States Supreme Court would be tasked to rule on all of its stated provisions as required?  Do you honestly think the framers were stupid enough to believe that time would stand still and that events would take place necessitating broader definitions?



It was understood, quite logically, that from time to time, matters between the states would arise where appeals on the meanings of law an its repercussions would need to be discussed, defined and clarified.  Alexander Hamilton viewed the Supreme Court as the weakest branch.  None of the founding fathers could have ever dreamed that one day we would have 9 black robed tyrannts who would usurp the power of the legislature and use the power of the judiciary to write law from whole cloth, discover heretofore unknown 'rights' in the constitution and twist or degenerate the meanings of minute clauses like the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare clause to include anything and everything at any time for the sake of a NATIONAL government, not a strictly defined and enumerated federal government tasked with ONLY law between the states, nations and other foreign powers.

The constitution was made flexible so it could, over the course of time, be amended to cover situations and advances in society that they could not have conceived at the time.  They did not, however, believe that a day would come where society would be so morally bankrupt that the very meanings of the words would be twisted to achieve tyranny over free men.  James Madison himself vetoed the first charitable spending bill and sent a veto with an admonishment back to congress reminding them that it is not the place of government to be caretakers for the people regardless of their need, but to defend their rights to be free and help themselves and others as they saw fit.



> That bit, along with the clarifications in the Sixteen Amendment, allows a tax to be levied on income.



A tax is not a good or service to be purchased by compulsion.  Therefore, no power to do this.



> The relevance of the commerce clause is to the regulatory apparatus in the law. Which the Court suggested in South-eastern Underwriters includes insurance regulation:



It seems we have a law student.  Would this be the 1944 case with the activist packed FDR supreme court?  Technically (in a sane world), since insurance now can't be sold across state lines, this would no longer be interstate commerce and therefore free of federal regulation. But since the activist court abused the Interstate Commerce Clause to push through New Deal radicalism, the ruling stood.  I found this little tidbit on the courts between 1930 and 1953 kind of interesting...



> _During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930&#8211;1953), the court gained its own accommodation in 1935[24]  and changed its interpretation of the Constitution in order to facilitate Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal  (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,[25]  Wickard v. Filburn),[26]  giving a broader reading to the powers of the Federal Government.[27]_



I knew that the supreme court was deliberately packed with progressive judicial activists by FDR because he wanted to push through previously unconstitutional legislation.  Once the jurists were in place, all they had to do was modify the definitions of terminology and the rest was a fait accompli.  Much like the left's beloved president asking... what the definition of 'is' is?    So you may correctly point out that the national government gained the right to regulate insurance legally... it did so by deceit and trickery making it, at best, a good example of illegitimate law that will stand till a court arrives with the intestinal fortitude to purge such rulings as this.

Legal does not make right... only legal.



> In McCulloch, the Court discusses at length the appropriate usage of the necessary and proper clause, concluding that powers necessary for carrying out powers explicitly granted to Congress (in our case, regulating insurance under the Commerce Clause as sanctioned in South-eastern Underwriters) may be exercised by Congress when not expressly forbidden in the Constitution. In this instance, we loop back up to the first point, since the power being exercised is one of taxation. The circle is complete.



Ah yes.  The "good n' plenty" rears it's ugly head.  So the necessary and proper clause takes precedent over the enumerated powers doctrine?  Sounds to me, like Jim Crow, bad law was made in the Supreme Court out of whole cloth again.  Yes, they are equivalent.  Both enslaved people to artificial and unconstitutional constructs.  Till you can show why the necessary and proper clause has supremacy over enumerated powers... 

...your circle is shattered.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> It will take some time, but eventually Universal Health Care will be the law of the land here as it is in advanced democratic nations on this little planet.


Why is it that people think the natural progression of man is to enslavement under socialism?

Personally I think national bankruptcy will purge this fantasy from the public zeitgeist.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2010)

Big Fitz, you will survive just well.  Don't sweat it that you don't understand.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > That's the end game, and anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows it....Public Law No: 111-148 is just a means to an end.
> ...


So, it seems evident that either the concept of Fabianism is clear over your head, you're in blissful denial or a willing accomplice...Duly noted.




Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Umm nowhere does that give power for compulsory consumption.  Please look up the definition of Taxes, Duties, Imposts, Exicises.
> ...


Like I said...It's not original intent of strict and defined limitation of federal authority, but what the oligarchy has told us what we can get away with.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Alexander Hamilton viewed the Supreme Court as the weakest branch.  None of the founding fathers could have ever dreamed that one day we would have 9 black robed tyrannts who would usurp the power of the legislature and use the power of the judiciary to write law from whole cloth, discover heretofore unknown 'rights' in the constitution and twist or degenerate the meanings of minute clauses like the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare clause to include anything and everything at any time for the sake of a NATIONAL government, not a strictly defined and enumerated federal government tasked with ONLY law between the states, nations and other foreign powers.



U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters actually directly quotes Hamilton in footnote 9.

Alexander Hamilton, in 1791, stating his opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, declared that it would 'admit of little if any question' that the federal power to regulate foreign commerce included 'the regulation of policies of insurance.' 3 Works of Alexander Hamilton (Fed. Ed., N.Y.1904) pp. 445, 469-470.​
He was down with a federal role in insurance regulation.



> A tax is not a good or service to be purchased by compulsion.



Correct, a tax is...a tax.



> Technically (in a sane world), since insurance now can't be sold across state lines, this would no longer be interstate commerce and therefore free of federal regulation.



The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarran&#8211;Ferguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various state legislatures over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.

In other words, the absence of federal regulation is the reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines.

However, consider Justice Scalia's concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich 5 years ago:

And the category of &#8220;activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,&#8221; Lopez, supra, at 559, is incomplete because the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.​


> Ah yes.  The "good n' plenty" rears it's ugly head.  So the necessary and proper clause takes precedent over the enumerated powers doctrine?



No. That's actually explicitly the opposite of what I wrote. The necessary and proper clause exists only to facilitate the execution of the enumerated powers.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarran&#8211;Ferguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various states over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.
> 
> In other words, the absence of federal regulation is the reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines.



The absence of  federal regulation is abrogation of their responsibility, no matter what case or relatively obscure piece of legislation you dredge up.

Turning around and saying that the abandonment of that responsibility is somehow a good enough rationale, so that they need to force everyone to use the product of that dereliction of duty is bloody insane....And making excuses for such actions is borderline evil.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 28, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Alexander Hamilton viewed the Supreme Court as the weakest branch.  None of the founding fathers could have ever dreamed that one day we would have 9 black robed tyrannts who would usurp the power of the legislature and use the power of the judiciary to write law from whole cloth, discover heretofore unknown 'rights' in the constitution and twist or degenerate the meanings of minute clauses like the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare clause to include anything and everything at any time for the sake of a NATIONAL government, not a strictly defined and enumerated federal government tasked with ONLY law between the states, nations and other foreign powers.
> ...


I now remember why I hate arguing legal precedent.  It's like arguing advanced theology and hermaneutics where the discussion is based on centuries of rabbis and priests talking to theologians over well warn arguments till all they do is refer to them in shorthand losing sight of the original intent of the argument.



> U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters actually directly quote Hamilton in footnote 9.
> 
> Alexander Hamilton, in 1791, stating his opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, declared that it would 'admit of little if any question' that the federal power to regulate foreign commerce included 'the regulation of policies of insurance.' 3 Works of Alexander Hamilton (Fed. Ed., N.Y.1904) pp. 445, 469-470.
> 
> He was down with a federal role in insurance regulation.



I disagree with the validity of this argument specifically because it was written by an activist court known to deliberately misinterpret original intent of founding documents to support a popular president and radical leftist political philosophy.  Therefore, it's use is highly suspect and carries little weight.

Secondly, this looks like a deliberate misinterpretation of Hamilton's words which were spoken specifically to INTERNATIONAL trade. I do not deny that insurance is a commodity and could be regulated under interstate commerce, if it WAS being sold interstate.  But since it is legally blocked from doing so, that eliminates all legal right of the federal government to do so abdicating it, correctly to the hands of the state to monitor and regulate.  Once again, stretching to fit something that was not meant to stretch... meaning applying the power to control international commerce no way implies right to control intrastate commerce regardless of product.  This of course goes back and proves my point.

But we're talking an activist court so all bets are off.



> Correct, a tax is...a tax.



Meaning it is irrelevant to this whole conversation and in no way implies a tie to forcing compulsory purchase of a product or service, particularly one sold intrastate only.



> The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarran&#8211;Ferguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various states over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.
> 
> In other words, the absence of federal regulation is the reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines.



Okay... proved my point as to why it's unconstitutional and illegal for the feds to do this....



> However, consider Justice Scalia's concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich 5 years ago:
> 
> And the category of &#8220;activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,&#8221; Lopez, supra, at 559, is incomplete because the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.



You're going to use a medicinal marijuana case in which the DEA destroyed 6 pot plants after the defendants had been caught essentially supplying 'medical marijuana'?  In this mess you're going to use a single line out of a Scalia concurrence supporting the right of the DEA and CSA to do what they are supposed to do?  Oh come ON!

First off, the federal war on drugs is unconstitutional and it should be immediately remanded to the states to declare what drugs are legal and illegal, except for when they are transported across the boarder of the states.  In that the feds have authority.

Second, taking that snivvlet out of the concurrence seems a bit like searching the Bible for a random phrase that supports an opinion regardless of what it really means in context.

So, really?  This is what you have to go on to legalize another illegal act by the Federal government?



> No. That's actually explicitly the opposite of what I wrote. The necessary and proper clause exists only to facilitate the execution of the enumerated powers.



Oh good.  Then we're agreed.  There is no authority for the federal government to provide health care or insurance as a universal, or single payer or mandated system of care and must be left for the states individually to decide what is the best system in which to use.  Once we allow interstate selling of insurance, then I believe the government has a case to be involved in regulating said insurance commerce.

That was a long way to go to finally agree with me, but you managed.  Interesting arguments though.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2010)

Big Meow, in fact, your understanding of the Constitution and legal precedent is highly suspect and carries little weight.  The weight of argument is against you, so the argument is wrong not you.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Oh good.  Then we're agreed.  There is no authority for the federal government to provide health care or insurance as a universal, or single payer or mandated system of care and must be left for the states individually to decide what is the best system in which to use.  Once we allow interstate selling of insurance, then I believe the government has a case to be involved in regulating said insurance commerce.
> 
> That was a long way to go to finally agree with me, but you managed.  Interesting arguments though.



According to the legislation he cited, they abdicated their responsibility in the area of regulating interstate commerce, to the point that they're willfully causing the "problem" that they're now claiming to fix....And it would seem that "fix" is the operative word here.


----------



## hortysir (Jun 28, 2010)

If it's anything like my Universal Remote, it'll suck ass.
1/2 the buttons don't work...sleep timer is dyslexic, and I have to keep pressing the volume to turn it up/down


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Oh good.  Then we're agreed.  There is no authority for the federal government to provide health care or insurance as a universal, or single payer or mandated system of care and must be left for the states individually to decide what is the best system in which to use.  Once we allow interstate selling of insurance, then I believe the government has a case to be involved in regulating said insurance commerce.
> ...


Ohhhh the Fabians want the "fix" in all right.

Joke, child.  Take lessons from Greenbeard.  He articulately stated his argument, followed logic pretty darn well (after a small bout of circular reasoning), did some critical thinking, but was a little off on his fundamental argument and in the end, agreed with me.  Sign of growth and intelligence.

And no... I can't see what you said Joke you're on ignore, I just know you're reading.  I'm going to let you mature a little before I bother listening to your drivel again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2010)

Big Meow can't handle being intelligently refuted and then instructed.  But he will!


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 28, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The "living rules" doctrine means that you can use whatever cheap excuse you can (i.e. general welfare and the commerce clause), to just make it up on the fly and ignore niggling trifles like prescribed constitutional process.
> ...



If it isn't legal why write it. And you may want to re-read the preamble as it actually provides the most compelling argument AGAINST UHC.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> I do not deny that insurance is a commodity and could be regulated under interstate commerce, if it WAS being sold interstate.  But since it is legally blocked from doing so, that eliminates all legal right of the federal government to do so abdicating it, correctly to the hands of the state to monitor and regulate.



Again, you've got the causality wrong: compartmentalization is a product of state regulation, not the other way around.

That said, the standard for using the Commerce Clause is that the activity in question "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." And of course health-related issues do. Insurers operate on a multi-state basis, many insurers will pay (reduced) out-of-state out-of-network rates for clients getting care in a different state, the necessary movement of medical goods and services across state lines has been used to uphold anti-trust laws on providers, the South-Eastern Underwriters precedent has already been set, the current move toward interstate health information exchange and the construction of a Nationwide Health Information Network extends the reach of health plans across state lines, and so on.



> You're going to use a medicinal marijuana case in which the DEA destroyed 6 pot plants after the defendants had been caught essentially supplying 'medical marijuana'?  In this mess you're going to use a single line out of a Scalia concurrence supporting the right of the DEA and CSA to do what they are supposed to do?  Oh come ON!



That "medicinal marijuana case" was a Commerce Clause case, meaning it's relevant to this discussion.



> Once we allow interstate selling of insurance, then I believe the government has a case to be involved in regulating said insurance commerce.



The new health insurance exchanges are required to contain multiple multi-state plans (in fact, exchanges themselves may span multiple states). That fact, in and of itself, should be enough (by your own admission) to give the federal government authority to regulate the rules by which the exchanges operate.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jun 28, 2010)

Come on, be real.  You don't honestly think any of the people in Washington give a rat's ass about anything the Constitution says do you?  You can't be serious...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

Count D obviously does not care and does not understand the Constitution.


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2010)

We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.

We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia

But we cannot afford HC for Americans.

What's wrong with that picture?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 29, 2010)

Why, if we had UHC, the poor insurance CEOs could not make ten of millions annually denying the citizens of this nation the health care they had paid insurance for.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 29, 2010)

editec said:


> We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.
> 
> We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia
> 
> ...



It isn't about whether we can pay for it. Because we can afford to pay people's rent or mortgage should we do that too? One could argue shelter is a more essential need than health care. A little perspective please people.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2010)

editec said:


> We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.
> 
> We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia
> 
> ...


What's wrong is that picture is you've thrown out the old standardized false dichotomy.

Neither are affordable nor are they what the feds should be involved in.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I do not deny that insurance is a commodity and could be regulated under interstate commerce, if it WAS being sold interstate.  But since it is legally blocked from doing so, that eliminates all legal right of the federal government to do so abdicating it, correctly to the hands of the state to monitor and regulate.
> ...


Yet you've pointed out that they've abdicated that responsibility, to the point that they've created the very situation which anti-trust laws were ostensibly meant to combat. In turn, you're rationalizing massive federal intervention as a "solution" to the problem that they created. 

I was right...You're a willing accomplice.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

> Again, you've got the causality wrong: compartmentalization is a product of state regulation, not the other way around.



Please show why compartmentalization is a bad thing.  The USA was founded on the concepts of checks and balances and compartmentalization.  Remember, the states are still sovereign entities and could in theory secede from the union if they wanted to.  Lincoln stopped it once, making it harder yes, but not impossible again.  



> That said, the standard for using the Commerce Clause is that the activity in question "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce."



Which is the core of the MISTRANSLATION of the whole commerce clause.  This started when SCOTUS 'found' that a farmer growing crops for his own personal use affected trade between the states because he no longer consumed what was produced elsewhere.  This effectively made self-sufficiency defacto illegal and consumerism the law of the land.  This is a wrong interpretation designed for more power to be wrested from the individual and the states to the national government where it does not belong.



> And of course health-related issues do. Insurers operate on a multi-state basis, many insurers will pay (reduced) out-of-state out-of-network rates for clients getting care in a different state, the necessary movement of medical goods and services across state lines has been used to uphold anti-trust laws on providers, the South-Eastern Underwriters precedent has already been set, the current move toward interstate health information exchange and the construction of a Nationwide Health Information Network extends the reach of health plans across state lines, and so on.



As we have seen, precedent is not set in stone.  Secondly, this is based on a wrong interpretation of original intent.  Third, you're reaching at straws.  The government does not have the right to force compulsory participation in a market.  Don't even try the car insurance riff.  That fraud has been burst long since.



> That "medicinal marijuana case" was a Commerce Clause case, meaning it's relevant to this discussion.



No.  It isn't.  It is an attempt at equivalency that does not exist.



> The new health insurance exchanges are required to contain multiple multi-state plans (in fact, exchanges themselves may span multiple states).



We won't know how it really works till after they finish modifying the laws behind our backs.  This legislation should never have been passed as it never fully existed.  They will exist in an environment of taxpayer subsidized unfair competition that probably is a violation of anti-trust ordinances.  But thats just me looking at what they claim it will do, not what it REALLY will do.  



> That fact, in and of itself, should be enough (by your own admission) to give the federal government authority to regulate the rules by which the exchanges operate.



Only companies that participate in the exchange, yes, as long as the product is sold across state lines.  It still is not right, and based on both bad precedent that requires removal and what is technically illegal use of power by the federal government.  But when has that ever stopped do-gooder social busybodies from doing what they ought not?

You're trying to play exceptions and mistranslations as if they are mainstream understandings and methodology.  This may or may not work, but none the less, it is never right.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

Count Dracula said:


> Come on, be real.  You don't honestly think any of the people in Washington give a rat's ass about anything the Constitution says do you?  You can't be serious...


No this current crop.. well maybe 5% or so.  Just wait till they go lame duck. We're going to see so much shit try to get shoved through.  Thank God Byrd died.  That possibly saved this nation from true disaster.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

> We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.



As seems to be the theme here, this nation and our federal government are doing thousands of things that we can't afford to do and hoping to push the cost off till after they're safe and retired.  They're reverting roads in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to gravel because they can't afford to keep them properly paved and it's cheaper.  We can't afford to do this shit in Afgahnistan either.



> But we cannot afford HC for Americans.



We cannot afford the following:

Medicare
Medicaid
Welfare
Social Security
School Lunch
Public Schools
Public Sector Union Pensions
Amtrak
The NEA
Public TV and Radio....
The 'war on drugs'
We also can't afford to keep our bases open in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, England and many other places.  What's our exit strategy from there?

The nation does a lot of things right now it can't afford.  It needs to pare back to what it is constitutionally mandated to do, dump the rest on the states and let them cut programs they don't want and start saving money and force the indigent deadbeats to go to work and earn a living instead of coddling them with bullshit gubmint checks.  Let them take work from illegals by doing the jobs "no American will do".  Trust me.  The gubmint money dries up, they'll work their asses off to stay alive.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

Medicare and Medicaid deny more cases than private insurance.  Look it up.  Was a very interesting admission by the government about 4 months ago.


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2010)

Dude said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.
> ...


 
Neither are affordable?

We're on the same page, there, Dude.

But of the two, which best serves the American people?

Bribing Afghan warlords so we can build their roads _for them_, or helping Americans in need of HC?

You do realize, don't you, that I have been bitching about the stupid way we've been doing HC, and the foolish way Obama has restructured HC since day, one, right?

There's no dichotomy because these tow events are BOTH perfect examples of how incompetent (or corrupt, you decide) BOTH parties are and have been for at least the last 30 years.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Yukon. said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty,
> ...




Big Fitz,

My son I have never stated in word or in writing that I am pro-abortion. What i am is PRO-CHOICE, it is a womans decision not mine. I would not think of telling a woman she can't have an abortion anymore than would I tell people they can't divorce - by the way both acts are mortal sins in the Catholic Church. PRO_CHOICE my son that is my position on abortion. Those involved will be judged by GOD for only He can judge .


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2010)

editec said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


I won't buy into the dichotomy for exactly that reason; they're both corrupt and operating _*FAR*_ outside their constitutional box.

And forcing Americans to buy anything, under threatened sanction of law, does nothing to serve anyone...In fact it makes _*them*_ the servants and the gubmint their master.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon. said:
> ...


My Son?  Trying to imply authority by using a "priestly" prhase?  FAIL.

If you ARE a priest or lay-leader in the church, you are doubly condemned according to scripture.  Just a friendly reminder from a non-catholic who's studied to a catholic who may be ignorant.

As for divorce and abortion being mortal sins, you're right.  Just like rape, murder and theft.  But if you are going to call yourself a catholic then pick and choose what you like out of it, should not God pick and choose out of your salvation what He likes?  It seems to me that if you are going to devote yourself to a religion, you should embrace all of it, instead of playing theological buffet... otherwise, why bother claiming to be one?  You aren't really, you're only an admirer or groupie that clings on to the sides in hopes of blessings spilling over onto you.  This is particularly poignant if you cling to the mantle of authority like you have here.  



> Bribing Afghan warlords so we can build their roads for them, or helping Americans in need of HC?



Neither.  Invest in something that will yield dividends to the national economy like work training programs or closing the boarders with troops and minefields.  We don't need to spend, we need to save and PAY DOWN DEBT.  We need Dave Ramsey in charge of the Treasury and give him veto rights over the budget.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Your clever and smug remarks aside, if the Constitution is to be abided solely on its word, then why was it also a requirement therein that a United States Supreme Court would be tasked to rule on all of its stated provisions as required? Do you honestly think the framers were stupid enough to believe that time would stand still and that events would take place necessitating broader definitions?
> ...


_
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects._


----------



## Liberty (Jun 29, 2010)

Wow, it is so simple.

Let's assume the welfare clause and "regulate" bullshit the federal politicians like to use to backup their tyrannical crap was true....

then what the hell would be the point of the 10th amendment if the congress was intended to do ANYTHING IT WANTED???

The people who support federal tyranny and are arguing for it in this thread, your argument does not work simply because the 10th amendment exists. It is that fucking simple.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> Egads - over two centuries ago some bright people created a document that the wingnuts now use whenever they disagree with anything that moves the nation forward. How boring.
> 
> Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> There is lots not in the constitution that is the law of the land today.



It's _inyourface_ obvious. GREAT LINK!!


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

Dude said:


> Nice try at deflection.
> 
> Care to address the topic of where socializing medical services can be found as a federal matter, rather than pointing to a smoke-blowing list of irrelevant non sequiturs, red herrings and instances of "well we got away with it, so it must be constitutional"?



Were you one of those annoying children who tag along behind the mother asking WHY?  WHY?  WHY? when she had already exhausted every plausible answer?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > if the Constitution is to be abided solely on its word, then why was it also a requirement therein that a United States Supreme Court would be tasked to rule on all of its stated provisions as required?  Do you honestly think the framers were stupid enough to believe that time would stand still and that events would take place necessitating broader definitions?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How interesting that you agree with the flexibility of the Constitution in the first part of your response(s), then try to blame any of the USSC decisions you might happen to dislike as exclusively the fault of liberal activists on the court. The only thing that I see coming full circle here is the simple fact that you are a politial hack who will refuse to take even a middle of the road rationale if it has a whisper of damaging your political stand.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:
			
		

> The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarranFerguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various state legislatures over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.



That's the best example of the conservative right that yammers that states should have more power over the federal government, but when states HAVE certain rights over federal, when that presents a problem, they want that power reversed. It's hard to keep up sometimes. I do believe the conservatives want their own Constitution. Perhaps Texas is now working on that.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

Dude said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarranFerguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various states over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.
> ...



I think you string words together that make absolutely no sense just hoping someone will buy into your jibberish as being intellectually superior. What???


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

hortysir said:


> If it's anything like my Universal Remote, it'll suck ass.
> 1/2 the buttons don't work...sleep timer is dyslexic, and I have to keep pressing the volume to turn it up/down



Well "universal health care" would suck too if each state wasn't programmed to the central contol. You do know you need to do that for your universal remote to communicate with all your peripheral equipment, I hope.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

editec said:


> We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.
> 
> We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia
> 
> ...



You've forgotten money to rebuild hospitals and clinics and pay for health care of Iraqis. (Don't get me started...)


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

I've been waiting for one of the usual arguments that health care reform will signal the demise of private health care insurers and loss of jobs. On the contrary, it's one of those businesses that is and will be doing a lot of hiring _because of _the bill. 

74% of Nation's Top Insurance Companies Are Hiring

Reform Spurs Hiring at Health Insurers - Finance Career Management, Finance Career News - fins.com


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 29, 2010)

A 1.00 per gallon tax on gas, 2.00 per package of smokes, 50 cents per bottle of beer, and 3.00 on bottles of wine and liquor would pay for Universal Health Care in the USA.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


Who said anything about intellectual superiority? That you cannot follow the conversation in this area is more indicative of lack on your part, than anything else.

The fact is that , according to Greenbeard, the feds passed laws which have caused them to be derelict in their duty to regulate (i.e. make regular) interstate commerce in the insurance market. To turn around and blame most or all of the current problems on insurance companies --which are operating under in-state quasi-monopolies which would otherwise have class action attorneys licking their chops-- for the problems that said dereliction of duty has indeed caused.

Then, useful idiots like you and willing accomplice apparatchiks like Greenbeard burst to your feet yelling "_*YAAAAAAAY!*_"


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> A 1.00 per gallon tax on gas, 2.00 per package of smokes, 50 cents per bottle of beer, and 3.00 on bottles of wine and liquor would pay for Universal Health Care in the USA.



Sure, for a nation of individuals who balk at an additional $.05 tax on a litre of soda? Don't you know we're the kind of people who like to be fat and ugly and stay drunk so that we don't care? Then turn around and bitch that it suddenly costs thousands in health care expenses so we don't die from those excesses.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 29, 2010)

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



What's incredibly stupid is that you consistently fail to recognize that you're simply a different breed of "apparatchik" yourself. Hypocrisy is always knee-deep with you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

> How interesting that you agree with the flexibility of the Constitution in the first part of your response(s), then try to blame any of the USSC decisions you might happen to dislike as exclusively the fault of liberal activists on the court. The only thing that I see coming full circle here is the simple fact that you are a politial hack who will refuse to take even a middle of the road rationale if it has a whisper of damaging your political stand.



:::holds up a mirror::: look in one lately?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

> That's the best example of the conservative right that yammers that states should have more power over the federal government, but when states HAVE certain rights over federal, when that presents a problem, they want that power reversed. It's hard to keep up sometimes. I do believe the conservatives want their own Constitution. Perhaps Texas is now working on that.



That WAS the original intent.  Lincoln fucked it up with the Civil War diminishing the right to secede.  You even try the 'so you support slavery?' argument and I'm done dealing with you due to your terminal stupidity.

We want original intent restored, not this bullshit precedent layer salad we currently have with contradicting rulings going back 4 generations.



> You've forgotten money to rebuild hospitals and clinics and pay for health care of Iraqis. (Don't get me started...)



Should have bombed the shit out of them, destroyed Hussein's government, waited for the Iraqis to get their first vote in the can and then get out.  We're wasting lives and capital there now because we're fighting for no discernible victory goal, but we are killing thousands of would-be terrorists who otherwise would be attacking people around the world.



> I've been waiting for one of the usual arguments that health care reform will signal the demise of private health care insurers and loss of jobs.




Obviously you haven't read the whole thread.  I've pointed out that economic fact multiple times.



> A 1.00 per gallon tax on gas, 2.00 per package of smokes, 50 cents per bottle of beer, and 3.00 on bottles of wine and liquor would pay for Universal Health Care in the USA.



Whether we could pay for it or not is immaterial "father" Youcon.  There is no constitutional power for the feds to be doing this.  Game set match.  If we charged every American penny and gave it to me I'd have over 3.4 million dollars.  So?  There's no right for the government to do that either... but hell I'd be for it if I was that much of a hypocrite... which I'm not.



> What's incredibly stupid is that you consistently fail to recognize that you're simply a different breed of "apparatchik" yourself. Hypocrisy is always knee-deep with you.



Do you even KNOW what you are talking about or are you throwing out words you heard in Dr. Zhivago or something?  We can see you don't get the concept of a restrained and controlled government because you want a dictator... just as long as he's someone you like and does what you want.  But you don't get that in a Constitutional government.  Why don't you move to a nation that is more in line with your philosophical idealism.  I hear Cuba's nice in December, and Venezuela's planning to improve... some year.


----------



## Liberty (Jun 29, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> A 1.00 per gallon tax on gas, 2.00 per package of smokes, 50 cents per bottle of beer, and 3.00 on bottles of wine and liquor would pay for Universal Health Care in the USA.



congratulations. You take the cake for being the person to post the most insanely retarded comment i have ever seen ever. well done.


----------



## rikules (Jun 29, 2010)

Liberty said:


> ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.





absolutely

i completely agree

and far beyond universal health care the founding fathers (and the constitution) do NOT include the RIGHT to

think
get married
have children
work
earn money
sleep in a bed
wear clothes
drink beer
eat food

in fact

the founding fathers (via the constitution) gave ONLY the following rights;

the right to own guns
the right to not have to quarter soldiers
the right to free speech (as long as it doesn't offend any white male conservative christians)
the right to vote (as long as you are a WHITE MALE LAND OWNER)

and THAT is IT!

THOSE are THE ONLY RIGHTS YOU HAVE!

anyone demanding ANY OTHER RIGHT is  bordering on TREASON!

thank you


----------



## Liberty (Jun 29, 2010)

rikules said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.
> ...



your attempt at sarcasm shows your idiocy. The constitution does not provide rights. It protects the rights already ordained by the creator (in any form that works for you) from organized government. Moron. The founders saw government as a leviathan that is a necessary evil to prevent anarchy and maintain peace and the rule of law. That is the government's job, not to "give rights". People like you make me sick, but you are just the product of a fucked up education system so it's not your fault I guess. Try reading some federalist papers.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

rikules said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.
> ...



Let's not forget that many of the founding fathers argued against putting ANY rights in the consitution, maintaining that ALL UNMENTIONED RIGHTS are given to the people, and only list negative rights that the government cannot do to you, lest people forget that the bill of rights are not their ONLY rights.

But good of you to try and twist that around for tyranny.



> the right to own guns
> the right to not have to quarter soldiers
> the right to free speech (as long as it doesn't offend any white male conservative christians)
> the right to vote (as long as you are a WHITE MALE LAND OWNER)
> ...



Not just lies... Fucking disingenuous, intellectually and morally bankrupt lies of a depraved individual.  Another rare occasion where a lolcat is required to convey my revulsion of your lack of intellect.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

Guys, Big Meow doesn't rule anything much less the Board.  He is fun to watch and correct often for his inanities.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Please show why compartmentalization is a bad thing.



I didn't say it was a bad thing (you'll have to take that up with Dude). I'm pointing out that it's a poor rationale for opposing federal intervention, since compartmentalization exists only due to the absence of a prominent federal involvement.



> Which is the core of the MISTRANSLATION of the whole commerce clause.



This interpretation and precedent have been influential for the better part of a century and have been uphold by numerous courts (including the Rehnquist court, even as it was reeling in use of the Commerce Clause). You may not like it but stare decisis is significantly more important to American jurisprudence than are your personal preferences.

However, since personal preference seems to be the basis of your arguments, I don't see much reason to continue this.




> The government does not have the right to force compulsory participation in a market.  Don't even try the car insurance riff.  That fraud has been burst long since.



That's not the argument here. I'm simply establishing that the federal government has the authority to create and regulate health insurance exchanges. The individual mandate then follows pretty naturally as 1) a usage of Congress's general taxation power and 2) a necessary (and proper) component of successfully implementing guaranteed issue and community rating regulations in the exchanges.




> We won't know how it really works till after they finish modifying the laws behind our backs.  This legislation should never have been passed as it never fully existed.



What's happening behind your back?




Liberty said:


> Wow, it is so simple.
> 
> Let's assume the welfare clause and "regulate" bullshit the federal politicians like to use to backup their tyrannical crap was true....



To repeat my initial post to you:

You're going to have to be significantly more specific. You don't think the government has discretion over the tax treatment of health benefits (either in the individual market or benefits provided by an employer)? Or do you not think it can regulate industries? Or are you _only_ talking about the individual mandate?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2010)

> You may not like it but stare decisis is significantly more important to American jurisprudence than are your personal preferences.


Dred Scott was stare decisis, too...That didn't make it right.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

> I'm pointing out that it's a poor rationale for opposing federal intervention, since compartmentalization exists only due to the absence of a prominent federal involvement.



The desire to prevent a national police state?  Sounds like very wise rationale to me.  You obviously do not agree with the belief of a weak central government like the founders did.



> This interpretation and precedent have been influential for the better part of a century and have been uphold by numerous courts (including the Rehnquist court, even as it was reeling in use of the Commerce Clause).



You try to make two appeals to both authority and equivalency that are not accurate.  The fact that that this misinterpretation has not been overturned implies concurrence.  This is not true.  As we all should know the Supreme Court takes on cases it wants from those brought before it.  There are times when it can pick up old rulings to re-examine but this is almost never done unless a pressing issue compels it.  It is more than likely going to just let things go until they become problems and then deal with them then.

Secondly you seem to think that the Reinquist court means something special to me.  It does not.  It was fairly liberal and therefore I would expect to see it continue making decisions or ignoring previous activism from the Marshall court which was extremely radical by comparison.  So your appeal to authority fails again.



> That's not the argument here.



Oh really?  Then why say this:



> I'm simply establishing that the federal government has the authority to create and regulate health insurance exchanges.



No, it does not.  This 'found' power does not exist except in the imagination of statists and fascists who wish to rule, not govern.  Were blacks able to 'opt out' of segregation laws?  



> The individual mandate then follows pretty naturally as 1) a usage of Congress's general taxation power and 2) a necessary (and proper) component of successfully implementing guaranteed issue and community rating regulations in the exchanges.



No, you don't get to try and attach taxation to forced consumerism.  That argument is not valid.

It is neither necessary or proper for the government to be involved in something the private sector provides for itself quite well when not interfered with, OR is being taken care of on the state level.



> You're going to have to be significantly more specific. You don't think the government has discretion over the tax treatment of health benefits (either in the individual market or benefits provided by an employer)? Or do you not think it can regulate industries? Or are you only talking about the individual mandate?



And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats:  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.  

You want to play games of relativism and equivalency, find someone else more gullible.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.

You want to play games of relativism and equivalency, find someone else more gullible, Big Meow.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.
> 
> You want to play games of relativism and equivalency, find someone else more gullible, Big Meow.



So, in your backwards totalitarian mind, forcing people to buy a service provided by a private industry, under threat of fine and imprisonment, is fine because it's for the general welfare of the public.  I bet our founding fathers would be *really* proud.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2010)

Progressive Fabian interpretation of the Constitution: We'll do what we want and you can sue us if you don't like it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.
> ...


Did you know that "Gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

And for the definition of "Redundant" it says "See Redundant".

thanks Jeremy.  Good to see I've ignored him still for good reasons.  Terminal Stupidity can be contagious if we expose ourselves to it too long.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

Dude said:


> Progressive Fabian interpretation of the Constitution: We'll do what we want and you can sue us if you don't like it.


...and it won't matter cause we control the courts, then we'll disappear your ass for wasting our time and prevent you from spreading your dissent to us.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.



Since this appears to be roughly the amount of substance needed for an argument to fly in this thread, I'll pass the torch of sparring with Big Fitz to you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.
> ...


oh and you attempt to do so with such grace.  

happy to debunk your junk law anyday.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.
> ...



Let's see: so all taxation (think Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) is totalitarian.  Founding Fathers would think you were


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The Big Meow responds to me all the time.  He is a silly kitty.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Progressive Fabian interpretation of the Constitution: We'll do what we want and you can sue us if you don't like it.
> ...



Big Fitz's contributions to the dicussion.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDbGqJ2KYk]YouTube - Kitten Surprise!! ( how to break up a cat fight ) The Original[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.
> ...



Not too worry.  Big Fitz is as wrongheaded as yurt or daveman or that crew of libertarian neanderthals.  Not too worry.  They won't be back.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.
> ...


Substance schmubstance.

Your "pricing externalities" twaddle got torn to shreds, now your progressive Fabian doctrine of "living rules" (more accurately described as no rules) has take a pretty fair hit amidships.

Handing off to the forum's fake republican hardly recommends your case as anywhere near as substantive as you'd like to believe.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.  You far right reactionaries and libertarians cry boo hoo because knowlegable people laugh at you when you start stuttering.  You simply can't carry the argument.

And then the 2nd Amendment case is carried through incorporation by a 'conservative' court.

Every moderate and centrist Republican American is laughing at you fools.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 29, 2010)

Liberty said:


> ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.


Why?  Because it would take a 2/3 approval vote of the house and senate which is impossible with the polarization in congress.  Then it would have to go before all the state legislatures which would take about 5 years.  Then if it was approved, a healthcare bill would have to be passed.  By the time anything got into law most of the country would be without healthcare.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

Why, Flop?  Because it is not necessary.  HC is constitutional.  Now move on.  Dr. House has room at the end of the bar next to him.  Move along.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2010)

Flopper said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.
> ...


The wisdom of our founders in action.  Slow STUPID law to a crawl.  Too bad the fabian progressives have figured this out and are playing long game too to radically transform us into a fascist police state with them on top.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

The Big Fitz's are the ones who wish to create the economic police state that permits Americans to be tools of the libertarians.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.  You far right reactionaries and libertarians cry boo hoo because knowlegable people laugh at you when you start stuttering.  You simply can't carry the argument.
> 
> And then the 2nd Amendment case is carried through incorporation by a 'conservative' court.
> 
> Every moderate and centrist Republican American is laughing at you fools.



Oh....okay. Where exactly?

As far as constitutional hypocrisy how are you lefties at the very least not doing exactly the same? You imply that we want Article i Section 8 stricly interpreted but claim we want the 2nd ammendment loosely interpreted. Well smart guy you're doing exactly the opposite. You want article 1 section 8 broadly interpreted preferring we just skip over those very specific enumerated powers of the fed while wanting the the 2nd strictly interpreted wanting us to organize militia's if we want to own guns. Pot meet kettle.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

That's the point.  You have never shown where it wasn't.  If you don't like it, kiddo, take it up with SCOTUS.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.  You far right reactionaries and libertarians cry boo hoo because knowlegable people laugh at you when you start stuttering.  You simply can't carry the argument.
> 
> And then the 2nd Amendment case is carried through incorporation by a 'conservative' court.
> 
> Every moderate and centrist Republican American is laughing at you fools.


Well, we already know what progressive Fabian democrats like you think...I'll reserve judgment on what any "centrist" republican says or doesn't say when one shows up.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Big Fitz's are the ones who wish to create the economic police state that permits Americans to be tools of the libertarians.



Libertarianism is lack of control dimwit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

Dude, you, since you are not even a reactionary GOP, have no idea what a real Republican believes.  Reagan and his followers were an abortion and an aberration.  The history of the last decade and the impending GOP defeats in November and 2012 will allow the Party to be recast historically.

Watch closely and learn, poseur.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> That's the point.  You have never shown where it wasn't.  If you don't like it, kiddo, take it up with SCOTUS.



Eh eh. You JUST got done telling me how CRYSTAL CLEAR the constitution is on this. Shouldn't be hard for you to tell me where that power is granted to the fed. So let's see it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

You made the claim.  You back it up, or shut up.  If you offer the evidence, then I can respond to that.  But the evidence is NOT your interp of the Constitution.  That is merely your opinion and does not count.  Give us the evidence.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You made the claim.  You back it up, or shut up.  If you offer the evidence, then I can respond to that.  But the evidence is NOT your interp of the Constitution.  That is merely your opinion and does not count.  Give us the evidence.



Go back an read. I have not. YOU claimed the authority is granted. So learn me smart guy and show me where. If I did, quote it. I've only been in this thread the last couple pages so shouldn't be hard to find, if I did. 

And why is the same not required. You hold everyone else to some standard but not yourself? Pretty chicken shit Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional.  That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional.  That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



You are a piece of work. You can't find what you accussed me of so you want to change the rules again?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 29, 2010)

OK, guys, break's over...Gotta get these moved over to Jake the Fake's house, pronto!


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 29, 2010)

Liberty said:


> ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.



Um, because getting an Amendment to the Constitution is not all that easy.  Just ask the supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Equal Rights Amendment



> The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> The ERA was passed out of Congress in 1972 and has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states.  When three more states vote yes, it is possible that the ERA could become the 28th Amendment. The ERA could also be ratified by restarting the traditional process of passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states.



Wow!!  87 years young and still kickin'

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

You guys stated the law was unconstitutional.  I told you were full of crap and asked for the evidence.  You, as Dud so well pointed out, are moving the goals posts.  They fail is on you, guys.  Straighten out or fail tonight.  Dud already has, so you might as well join him.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 29, 2010)

Let's just look at the structure of your argument so far, irregardles of the subject and see how miserably you fail.  You start by accussing me of stating something I never did then you state that if someone makes an affirmative claim they must provide evidence for it. Fair enough if the rule applies to everyone. But you also made a claim:



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



Yet inexplicably you don't have to back yours up. 

EPIC FAIL, WEASEL.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2010)

Pay attention, for I will say this once.

Burden of Proof: On the folks who make the first claim.  You all did.
Counter Proof: Based on the evidence of the affirmative, the CP offers rebuttal and new evidence.

Fact: Since you posted no evidence other than opinion, I have no need to rebut opinion.

Conclusion: You fail.

Thus endeth the lesson.  Good night.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pay attention, for I will say this once.
> 
> Burden of Proof: On the folks who make the first claim.  You all did.
> Counter Proof: Based on the evidence of the affirmative, the CP offers rebuttal and new evidence.
> ...



The only lesson that you have given everyone here is  "How to be a weasel 101". 

ARTICLE I SECTION 8 YOU SNIVELING WEASEL. PROVIDE HEALTH CARE ISN'T THERE AND THE FED CAN ONLY DO WHAT IS ENUMERATED THERE. THAT IS NOT OPINION BECAUSE JEFFERSON AND MADISON SAID SO THE GUYS WHO FUCKING WROTE IT.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Thank you for stop weaseling. Your side made the claim, you have to support it first, then I respond.  That is how grown ups do it. 

You posted Article I Section 8 as evidence.  I will counter with : Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.  //  *This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.*  //  The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Thus endeth the lesson.  The U.S. has the right to make law under the supreme authority of the United States.  And I have not even added the 'general welfare clause'.

Thus endeth the lesson.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you for stop weaseling. Your side made the claim, you have to support it first, then I respond.  That is how grown ups do it.
> 
> You posted Article I Section 8 as evidence.  I will counter with : Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
> All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.  //  *This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.*  //  The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
> ...



There is no lesson here. How does your warped brain rationalize that the government has the authority to provide healthcare from that?

To break it down, the part you bolded says the constitution is the supreme law of land as are any laws and treaties made 'in pursuance thereof' (which means said laws must be in compliance with the constitution). Try again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means.  Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we?  So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS.  Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means.  Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we?  So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS.  Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.



Since you beleive we are on the same footing why is it I must provide evidence and you don't?

And frankly my position is not an opinion. We are debating what authority the constitution grants the federal government. Lucky us the framers told us in Article I Section 8. Article VI simply states that the constitution and the laws made in accordance with are the law of the land. Please explain how this is evidence that the fed has the authroity to provide healthcare. I don't get how that can even be an opinion since it has ZERO to do with the subject. I have had many people site various parts of the constituion where they beleive the authority is granted, but Article VI is a first. Me thinks you dont' understand what it means.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means.  Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we?  So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS.  Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.
> ...


He's a librul, which means that they're exempt from the rules which apply to everyone else.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 30, 2010)

Liberals make the rules that apply to the intellectually inferior conservatives. If it weren't for the Liberal states like New York and california the US is just a collection of right-wing, religious zealot farmers who don't particularily approve of coloured people..


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

Man, I can't wait until the Mexicans take over America....I'm soooo going to jump the northern border and hang out in front of Home Depot in Winnipeg!


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> Liberals make the rules that apply to the intellectually inferior conservatives. If it weren't for the Liberal states like New York and california the US is just a collection of right-wing, religious zealot farmers who don't particularily approve of coloured people..



At least you admit you're an elitist. Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery. Keep at it.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> Man, I can't wait until the Mexicans take over America....I'm soooo going to jump the northern border and hang out in front of Home Depot in Winnipeg!



LOL. We can start a launching point here in Fargo. With the thousands of Canadians that drive to Fargo to shop we can just hitch a ride in one of their Old Navy bags. piece o' cake.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Because you took the affirmative burden, Bern, meaning you have to support your claim.  Yes, I understand the Constitution.  The context of disagreement between us rests on originalist v. evolutionary approaches to the document.  And I am aware there are many sites that agree with you and many that don't.  That's all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



And Dud is a conloon, who makes up rules as he goes along.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Angle leads, in fact, by about 7% as Nevadans are becoming antsy about her position on social security, privitazation, massage for prison inmates and scientology, and so forth.  Harry, I image, is sitting back and waiting for the debates that will allow the press to visualize for the viewing public.  If she does not somehow get better, she will cut her own throat.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What dictionary do you use?

*Definitions of gullible *(adj)
gul·li·ble [ gúll&#601;b'l ]   
easily duped: tending to trust and believe people, and therefore easily tricked or deceived
Synonyms: naive, susceptible, innocent, trusting, credulous, accepting
See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary

*Definitions of redundant *(adj)
re·dun·dant [ ri dúnd&#601;nt ]   
superfluous: not or no longer needed or wanted
repeating meaning: with the same meaning as a word used elsewhere in a passage and without a rhetorical purpose
backup: fitted as a backup component or system
Synonyms: laid off, let go, out of work, out of a job, jobless, fired, dismissed, terminated
See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...



Excellent descriptions of Big Fitz.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Because you took the affirmative burden, Bern, meaning you have to support your claim.  Yes, I understand the Constitution.  The context of disagreement between us rests on originalist v. evolutionary approaches to the document.  And I am aware there are many sites that agree with you and many that don't.  That's all.



Those that are pro evolutionary or living document are trying to rationalize something they already know the document doesn't allow. And actually it is YOU that is arguing an affirmative, You know YES vs. NO. You are arguing YES the constituion does allow the fed to provide healthcare. You clearly don't understand the constituion and how the framers meant for it to be interpreted. It is a LIMITING document. They made it that way on purpose to protect themselves from the tyranny their anccestors fled. So that the government they had created could not become tyrannical (yet we managed to anyway thanks to your 'evolutionary' friends and/or just plain ignoring it). Limiting means that what the government CAN do is what is outlined with the understanding that what is not there the governemnt can not do. 

And why can't you at least answer a simple question? Why do you think what you posted supports the position that the federal government can provide healthcare?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yours is an opinion only also, genius. Although you're from the right, you're not always right just because of it. Good grief, what an egomaniac you are.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Torn to shreds???  If it makes you feel better to think so...


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

Well, he did fail to answer how gubmint suffers from and/or "prices out" any of the externalities of their failed policies.

Then again, the term and concept of extrnalities is probably so far over your head that you wouldn't know one way or the other.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



HEY!! The Dude is so self-centered, I'm sure he is very picky about people stealing his favorite slogans. "Fabian" is his and his alone. I'm sure you could find more up-to-date philosophers espousing the same doctrine and commandeer that as your own special reference.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.  You far right reactionaries and libertarians cry boo hoo because knowlegable people laugh at you when you start stuttering.  You simply can't carry the argument.
> ...



Well not to worry. The conservative activists serving on the USSC solved the problem of the Second Amendment's ambiguity just the other day.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> OK, guys, break's over...Gotta get these moved over to Jake the Fake's house, pronto!



Did you get off your ass, get dressed, take a bath and jump in to help? (Love these strict constitutionalists who preach from their recliners.)


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.
> ...



At some point someone needs to call for a Constitutional Convention, which would be quicker, and could resolve ALL the myriad issues that seriously need amendments.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means.  Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we?  So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS.  Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.



Their basic argument that nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that the federal government has the authority to provide health care is simpy lame. Using that logic, the Constitution is remiss in its authority to do any number of other things taken for granted. Such as spending billions on space exploration. (Sorry, that's the only example that always immediately pops into my head. There are, of course, hundreds of other enacted policies that are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, but because they have never been constitutionally challenged, they remain as accepted as lawful.)


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Man, I can't wait until the Mexicans take over America....I'm soooo going to jump the northern border and hang out in front of Home Depot in Winnipeg!
> ...



I'll gladly charter a bus for you to go now. (But my friends and relatives in Canada don't really take kindly to right-wing ideologues from the U.S., so fair warning. I won't pay for a return trip.) Oh, and by the way, Canada has strict gun control laws (and penalties) that you might want to check out first.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means.  Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we?  So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS.  Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.
> ...



What about THIS argument? What's your point? No shit sherlock, there are lots of laws on the books that aren't constitutional. That might be the hole in the constitution itself. It doesn't make any provisions for congress deciding to simply ignore it. That's realy what happens more often than not. Health care being an excellent example. Barely anyone on the left or even right argued whether or not taxing people for not buying health insurance was constitutional. They just did it. I think checking the constitutionality of a proposal simply doesn't occur to them.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> At some point someone needs to call for a Constitutional Convention, which would be quicker, and could resolve ALL the myriad issues that seriously need amendments.



Now there is an actual good idea. There has to be some requirement in place, a panel or bi-annual reconciliation....something tha forces ALL of the boffoons in office to abide by the constitution. Because as I said before I don't think as far as that body is concerned, it has anything to do with how it's interpreted. I think they just plain ignore it and it doesn't occur to them to even consult it. Apparently taking an oath to abide by it simply isn't good enough.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Bern, your opinion is just that, only your opinion.  In fact, no question exists constitutionally or ethically that the Constitution empowers HC reform.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, your opinion is just that, only your opinion.  In fact, no question exists constitutionally or ethically that the Constitution empowers HC reform.



There you go chaning the rules because you got nothing weasel. No one said government doesn't have the authoroty to reform the system. After all reform could mean that government decided it was going to regulate the industry LESS than it does now. The argument was whether or not they have the constitutional authority to provide health care. Please try in the future to at least not make your weasely antics quite so transparent. 

And you keep saying it's so simple. So I ask again point out what part of the constitution would grant the authority to do that. Citing article VI makes zero sense. It has nothing to do with what the fed can or can't do.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 30, 2010)

The constipational argument with respect to Health Care reform is a "white-elephant". If every government program had to be included in the constipation there wouldn't be any.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Stay on track, please, bern.  Who said anything about the Government "providing health care."  Stupid reactionary who knee jerks instead of really thinking!!

However, the government does provide medical assistance through VA, through DoD, through many other programs.  Of course, it can provide health care, imbecile.

Yes, the government has the constitutional authority to reform the health insurance industry, and no one has shown one compelling constitutional reason it can't.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 30, 2010)

Increase the tax on gasoline, cigarettes, and booze. Universal health care will then be paid by the people as it is in every other western democracy. When are you people going to get your heads out of the sand ?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 30, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...


*ROFLMAO!!!!!*

For an encore, Gullible is written on the ceiling above you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> Man, I can't wait until the Mexicans take over America....I'm soooo going to jump the northern border and hang out in front of Home Depot in Winnipeg!


You'll freeze your ding ding off come winter.  Travel south to the warmer climbs of Minnesota then.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 30, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Look up Fabian Socialism.  It'll help.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



As if (1) Fitz knows what it is, and (2) American government is socialist.

He is too funny.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 30, 2010)

Portage and Main...coldest corner in God's world.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> The constipational argument with respect to Health Care reform is a "white-elephant". If every government program had to be included in the constipation there wouldn't be any.



Another who doesn't get the constitution. Every government program does not have to be specifically outlined in the constitution in order for government to have the authority to do it.


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 30, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Not now!

We can't have Pelosi and Reid writing our next constitution!

Immie


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


OK, fine....Can we all chip in and send people like you to China, North Korea, China or Venezuela?

You even get to choose.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

But you, Dud, better start packing, cause, sonny, you are in the minority!    I know, it must stink to be you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...


I'm sure the Coyotes would be happy to make money on their shipping containers going back to Mexico et all instead of deadheading.  I hear we can pack 40-60 in to one.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I can only assume this is some sort of private joke written in conservatese. I refer to your first comment that came from out of nowhere that "gullibility isn't in the dictionary." I know you think you've got the greatest mind in the world, but mere mortals can't yet read minds, including yours O Great One.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I know what it is, asshole. Ergo, my point.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



What makes you think they would? A majority of the states would agree to a Constitutional Convention, and Congress would merely be responsible for the arrangements.

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_Because no Article V convention has ever been convened, there are many unanswered questions about how such a convention would function in practice. One major question is whether the scope of the convention's subject matter could be limited. The consensus is that Congress probably does not have the power to limit a convention, because the language of Article V leaves no discretion to Congress, merely stating that Congress "shall" call a convention when the proper number of state applications have been received_.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...



The difference is that I have no desire to leave. I love my country, and I'll stay and defend it against usurpers like you who USE the Constitution as a weapon until the day I die.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Maggie Mae, you don't have to sweat Dude and Zander and Big Fitz, cause they are small potatoes.  All balls and no stick.  As we used to say, uh, in the pool hall.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 30, 2010)

> I know you think you've got the greatest mind in the world, but mere mortals can't yet read minds, including yours O Great One.



Oh thank God!  You're safe from your head exploding.

I find it funnier still you still haven't gotten the joke.  Anyone else missing it?  Can we have that many people who don't get it?


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Stay on track, please, bern.  Who said anything about the Government "providing health care."  Stupid reactionary who knee jerks instead of really thinking!!



I'll give you this, weasel. It is hard keeping up with someone who back pedals as much as you do.....First you claim I have position X, when I never stated what it was. Then you not so subtly back track to saying 'it was earlier said......' and even though *I* never said required me to argue that position anyway.....NOW you're backpedaling again to say that you didn't mean government providing health care, you meant reform (when you actually never stated this yourself) Here for the record, is what you claimed the opposing position was and I guess, de facto my position because I just happened to not think what you do 



> the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional.



Doesn't get much vaguer than that. How very convenient for the weasel. Can't wait to see how you weasel your way into telling us what you really meant. 



JakeStarkey said:


> However, the government does provide medical assistance through VA, through DoD, through many other programs.  Of course, it can provide health care, imbecile.



Sure it does, where it gets the constitutional authority to do so is the question. 



JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, the government has the constitutional authority to reform the health insurance industry, and no one has shown one compelling constitutional reason it can't.



Do some degree yes. No one has argued it can't. YOU keep up, weasel.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Bern, please don't back track.  You don't only look stupid, you look disingenuous.

Not one person has been able to post why, other than their own opinions (which are not evidence), the government can't reform HC.  Not one stinking reason.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

Look who's calling someone else disingenuous and stupid looking! 

Reason #1: It's not their role.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

And this from Dud, the #1 disingenuous dud on the board.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

*snert*


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, please don't back track.  You don't only look stupid, you look disingenuous.
> 
> Not one person has been able to post why, other than their own opinions (which are not evidence), the government can't reform HC.  Not one stinking reason.



Because no one has ever argued they couldn't The thread was never about reform. YOU made it about that because it's the only argument you can win.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Then you have lost the discussion, because the government is not trying to socialize and deliver health care to America.  There is no discussion then.  Thank you.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Then you have lost the discussion, because the government is not trying to socialize and deliver health care to America.  There is no discussion then.  Thank you.



I can't lose an argument I never made, weasel. You're the one that told me what I was required to argue, remember? The ONLY person who EVER brought up the concept of the constitutionality of reform was you. You did that  because you saw it was the only argument you could win and couldn't even explain the one attempt you made at citing the consitition. Still waiting to hear what you think Article VI has to do with this at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2010)

Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 30, 2010)

Dude said:


> *snert*


Ahhh that's a flashback to an era of AOL.

Snot Nosed Egotistical Rude Teenager


----------



## Oddball (Jun 30, 2010)

Meh...That's just me giggling my ass off at the fake republican.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 30, 2010)

well shit.  way to ruin the mood.  

Here I was, having a Grandma Addams' moment going "An axe.... sigh... that takes me back!"  and you just had to ruin it!   

Thanks Dewd. 

And Bern... don't bother talking to Joke.  The kid is obviously looking for attention and hasn't made the distinction between good and bad yet.  Maybe it's to cover up his whinging homoerotic urges at school for all I know for log cabin republicans.  But just let it alone and ultimately it will go away.

Nothing good will come of talking to him.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> well shit.  way to ruin the mood.
> 
> Here I was, having a Grandma Addams' moment going "An axe.... sigh... that takes me back!"  and you just had to ruin it!
> 
> ...



Oh I know I can't win a debate with a cheat. I'm just trying to make it as plain as humanly possible for all to see what a slimy weasel he really is.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2010)

There is nothing that the Constitution says about denying health care.  I don't have to prove a negative, Bern, that is why Big Fitz ran away, he could not argue intelligently with me.

The far right must make a case using evidence that interprets the Constitution to your point of view.  Your own interpretation does not count, never has, never will, except of yourself.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> There is nothing that the Constitution says about denying health care.  I don't have to prove a negative, Bern, that is why Big Fitz ran away, he could not argue intelligently with me.



Nothing in the constitution says anything about denying health care? You can't prove a negative? What a cop out weasel. No one is arguing that either. What has been debated in this entire thread, the whole time, contrary to what you like to tell me my position has to be, is whether or not the constitution grants the fed the authority to PROVIDE universal health care. You dont get any points for winning your own made up, strawman arguments that no one else even ever mentioned. YOU are the one that has to prove the positive weasel. YOU have to show they DO have the authority to provide health care? That is an AFFIRMATIVE idiot. You are the one that has been telling me the whole time to prove a negative, that they DON'T have the authority. And of course the constitution doesn't say anything about denying people health care. The document lays how are government is to be set up and what it has the authority to do. It doesn't have anything to do with what it can provide or deny people. That doesn't mean they CAN provide health care because the document was written in such a manner as to delineate the powers the government has with the understanding that if it isn't there the government can't do it, not a laundry list of all the things it CAN'T do. 

I notice you didn't address my post blatantly pointing out all of your weaseling in this thread (see below in case you missed it), weasel. Are we still arguing your strawman reform or are we on to this new ridiculous concept that the constiution doesn't say anything about denying health care. Until such time as you come clean, you will remain The Weasel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2010)

Bern, you are the one who has to prove the positive, that the government can't do it, because (psst . . . come a little closer so you can hear clearly) the government has done it, and it is not listening to you.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 1, 2010)

jakestarkey said:


> bern, you are the one who has to prove the positive, that the government can't do it, because (psst . . . Come a little closer so you can hear clearly) the government has done it, and it is not listening to you.



can't is not a positive word you weasely dumbass. So you know what it means to say you can't prove a negative? Asking someone to prove a negative means asking them to prove that somethn can NOT be, or the something did NOT happen. Grow a brain weasel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2010)

Ah, name calling sure shows that you know what you are talking about.  Such maturity of character.  But one works with what one has.   Bern, the government does not have to prove to you that the program is constitutional.  You have to prove that it is not, and your opinion, to which your entitled, is not evidence.  So you disagree.  So what.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ah, name calling sure shows that you know what you are talking about.  Such maturity of character.  But one works with what one has.   Bern, the government does not have to prove to you that the program is constitutional.  You have to prove that it is not, and your opinion, to which your entitled, is not evidence.  So you disagree.  So what.



You just told me a negative can not be proved which proving the government CAN'T do something would be. As far as name calling goes, I don't normally, but as the record shows below, weasel, is entirely appropriate for you. Your endless changing of the subject, your demands that others provide evidence, but you don't have to, your inability to admit that you are caught in a lie, makes you a spineless, dishonest, WEASEL. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2010)

Bern, in other words, you are unhappy that you can't dictate the debate.  Why?  Because you are more worried about 'winning' than you are about learning.  Big Fitz and Yurt have the same exact problem.

But, if you want to engage, then go ahead and post your contention that the government can't do it constitutionally.  You will lose, but that's OK because you might learn.

An aside: name calling means a fellow has fail in a discussion.  Word to the wise.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, in other words, you are unhappy that you can't dictate the debate.  Why?  Because you are more worried about 'winning' than you are about learning.  Big Fitz and Yurt have the same exact problem.
> 
> But, if you want to engage, then go ahead and post your contention that the government can't do it constitutionally.  You will lose, but that's OK because you might learn.



Again you told me a negative can not be proven. Maybe you better just tell me what you think that means first because it appears you don't understand it. You said I am arguing an affirmative. Proving the government CAN'T do something would be a negative. Make up your fucking mind. Tell me what affirmative I am suppossed to argue or get your facts straight.



JakeStarkey said:


> An aside: name calling means a fellow has fail in a discussion.  Word to the wise.



No I haven't. I understand my opponent. I understand that you are intellectually dishonest, that you reframe discussions and speak in vagueries to avoid having to admit you're wrong and a liar. When your inconsistancies and outright lies are put right in front of your face (see below AGAIN), you avoid. Instead of trying to provide evidence for your stance you keep yours vagee and tell others what they are required to argue regardless if that is their position or what the discussion is really about. The record shows that you are one that cares more about winnng than intellectual honesty. My position has never changed. It is the same as that of the OP. That government providing health care is uncosntitutional, not whether they can discuss reform. The shortened term for that type of behavior in an honest discussion is called being a weasel. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.


----------



## Immanuel (Jul 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Come on, without them we would not have HRC.

They have the power to twist arms in this country and enough power that if people don't bow to their demands to break heads.

They would write our new constitution.

Now, if we could somehow exclude all politicians from the procedure... 

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2010)

Bern, you are projecting your own inner angst for being conflicted onto me.

Go ahead, try and post your argument.  I will be fair with it, fairer than you ever could be, based on your dancing and prancing here.  Go ahead and post.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 1, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Since it's never been done before (except for the original Constitutional Convention), there would be no governing law _except_ the Constitution; therefore, no loopholes and no jurisdiction for Congress to usurp the powers of the states.


----------



## Immanuel (Jul 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



True, they could write their own tickets and would do so.

They would not have the good of the country at heart.  They would have what benefits them first and foremost on their minds as they are so damned corrupt that it isn't even funny and by that statement I am not only speaking about Reid and Pelosi but the whole kit 'n' kiboodle in Washington.

Immie


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 3, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, in other words, you are unhappy that you can't dictate the debate.  Why?  Because you are more worried about 'winning' than you are about learning.  Big Fitz and Yurt have the same exact problem.
> 
> But, if you want to engage, then go ahead and post your contention that the government can't do it constitutionally.  You will lose, but that's OK because you might learn.
> 
> An aside: name calling means a fellow has fail in a discussion.  Word to the wise.



I stated it in the precious post. When you can respond to your lies below like a grown up get back to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.




JakeStarkey said:


> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread




> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....




JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 3, 2010)

Bern, post your argument.  Understand that I responded to your nonsense with the VI.  You are not an expert on the Constitution.  Until you understand you have to play it right, you fail.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 4, 2010)

Liberty said:


> ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.



What is unconstitutional about Obamacare is mandating you buy anything Just because you are alive, and stop with the "they make us get Car Insurance crap" Because they do not make you own a car, and it is states that make you have it not the fed. Obamacare makes you buy something from a private company or pay a penalty for not, and that my friends is a clear violation of the constitution and Abuse of Federal Power. 


Who cares if it is for a noble Idea. Every time you bend over and take a slight to the constitution in the name of some noble Idea. The constitution dies a little more. Soon they will not respect any of it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.
> ...



Thank you, Charles.  The car insurance argument, I agree, is very weak.  However, government mandates that you buy Medicare and Medicaid through your taxes: no choice about it.  HC is better than that: you don't have to buy it if you don't want.  However, your tax share will be adjusted to help pay for those who do need it.  SCOTUS, I don't think, will find that unconstitutional.


----------



## Immanuel (Jul 5, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Medicare and Medicaid are not private organizations they are simply the name of a different kind of taxing philosophy.

I have no problem supplying health insurance to the needy.  I do have a problem with the Federal government controlling the Health Insurance industry and making our decisions for us and that is exactly where this bill is leading.  

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2010)

Regulation of industry at the national level began 123 years ago because business failed to understand that if they deal in the public interest they are subject to public policy.

The insurance industry brought this upon itself.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 5, 2010)

You tell 'em, Uncle Leon!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2010)

Dude is channeling Robert Welch!


----------



## Oddball (Jul 5, 2010)

No more than you're channeling Trotsky.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2010)

Dude, you don't even know the difference between Trotsy and Lenin.  For that matter, neither do I.  And if you do, then why do you have such a hard time understanding the Constitution?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 5, 2010)

Funny statement to come from someone who can't tell his ass from a hot rock.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2010)

Yep, that is what I thought.

Dude, you are part of America's social compact, even if you don't want to be.

That's reality, and it does not matter if you don't like it.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 6, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, post your argument.  Understand that I responded to your nonsense with the VI.  You are not an expert on the Constitution.  Until you understand you have to play it right, you fail.



The only nonsense below is yours. It is simply there for all to say what a weasel you are. That you change subjects when you are losing. Your refusal to address what is either a lie or confusion on your part begs the question as to why one should debate you at all when you WILL (as the below shows) either lie or become easily confused. I have stated my argument (two posts back now). The FEDERAL government a) does not have the authority to PROVIDE health insurance b) nor does it have the authority to require people to purchase it. 

It doesn't because the purpose of Article 1 Section 8 is to tell us what powers the federal government has. Provide health care isn't there.  It doesn't have the authority to do b) either because it does fit the definition of general welfare, and some very basic logic because if you support that what you are essentially saying is the fed has the power to require pretty much anything of you as long as they collect a tax for non-compliance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.







Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 6, 2010)

Bern, everybody knows that your opinion or Fits' opinion or my opinion don't carry weight at all.

Make your premise, post your evidence.  If  you post any part of the Constitution, I am going to refer you to SCOTUS.

Capiche, sonny?


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 6, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, everybody knows that your opinion or Fits' opinion or my opinion don't carry weight at all.
> 
> Make your premise, post your evidence.  If  you post any part of the Constitution, I am going to refer you to SCOTUS.
> 
> Capiche, sonny?



How much more basic does it need to get for you?  I don't have to play by your rules. Hell even you can't follow the one's you make up as evidenced below. The Constitution IS the evidence weasel. Anyone who has actually read the thing can see this. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to take a very short sighted view of things for the purpose legislating whatever they want. Simply because people have tried and indeed broadly interpreted it doesn't mean it was EVER meant to be prescribed that way. Anyone with a brain who can't see the dangers of broadly interpreting the constitution is simply gambling with their freedom.

How much more obvious does it need to be than a section in the constitution with the sole purpose of the PEOPLE telling us what powers they will GRANT to the fed? If it isn't there, the fed can't do it. It's that fucking simple.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.







Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 6, 2010)

Bern80, you will keep losing the discussion then, because NO ONE thinks you are an expert in and of yourself on the issue.  That's fine.  That's your right, to look like a doofus.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 6, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern80, you will keep losing the discussion then, because NO ONE thinks you are an expert in and of yourself on the issue.  That's fine.  That's your right, to look like a doofus.



As oppossed to you who takes the weasel road and can't lose an argument if he doesn't have the balls to stick with or actually make one? I never claimed to be an expert. But frankly one doesn't have to be to understand the document. The framers made the constitution simple. All they expected was a basic grasp of written english. What the intent of Article i Section 8, is not an opinion. It's purpose is 'CRYSTAL CLEAR, (as you are so fond of stating, but can manage to actually back up). That you have no reasonable rebuttal in every post you make to anything speaks far more about you and the weasel you are than anything else. The guy who wrote the fucking thing is on my side, not yours, weasel. In fact he agrees with me in calling the likes of people such as yourself, essentially, weasels....



> Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power &#8220;to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,&#8221; amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.



The fact that you are so cowardly as to not even quote others so that you have an easy way out speaks volumes to the fact that you remain an intellectual weasel and a outright liar as again illustrated below. The more you choose to ignore it, the more you look like complete and utter tool.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 6, 2010)

Son, we cannot accept you as an expert.

Get somebody with balls and cred whose evidence can make sure argument.  As if you know what 1:8 means, as if.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Son, we cannot accept you as an expert.
> 
> Get somebody with balls and cred whose evidence can make sure argument.  As if you know what 1:8 means, as if.



What Sec. I Art. 8 means is quite clear. But on the off chance one doesn't understand it, the guy who wrote it explained it for us in the quoted Federalist paper. He is as expert as it gets on the subject. Please explain to us all why the guy who wrote it, then explained what it means, is wrong on what the fed has the authority to do. You, on the other hand, are the very last person that should be pointing fingers when it comes to credibility. As shown below you are a weasel that doesn't have a shred of it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Douger (Jul 7, 2010)

Thanks for the reminder. I have to go pick up my prescriptions.
Yeah. Free.At the clinic.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2010)

Bern, simply you are not an expert.  You can win an argument if you can't craft one.  You haven't.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, simply you are not an expert.  You can win an argument if you can't craft one.  You haven't.



I never said I was an expert. Your flailing like a weasel for any excuse to not actually have to address the argument. So typical of the avg. liberal. I went to the source for my argument. The guy who wrote it who explained what it meant and thus why it means the fed does not have the authority to provide healthcare. It isn't my OPINION about what he said. It's what he said. Give me some type of logical explanation as to why that doesn't count and allows you to make the lame excuses you make above. You made one effort by citing Article VI of all things but when asked to explain this you couldn't tell us why it supports your position or even what position that is. I hate to burst your bubble, but the record of this thread is gong to show that YOU are the weasel with no logical, rationale arguments and that you are the one that has lost the argument.

Look at the record weasel. YOU are the one that hasn't crafted an argument. YOU are the one that hasn't been able to rebut anything I've posted short of childish responses like the above. YOU are the one that is a liar as seen below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, I see.  You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution.  The VI trumps whatever you have.  Throw in the general welfare clause as well.  Then you will, "What about . . .?"  Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this?  We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows.  So what.



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



> No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread



> So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?



to which you replied....



> The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.



It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dante (Jul 7, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Read Article 1, section 8.
> ...




thank you quoting the Constitution. 

people -- watch your backside.

people like Dude will tell you to read The Federalist and go on to list things like Federalist 41, but The Federalist are not documents hammered out and voted on as a compromise for governing. They were one sided arguments and as such carry weight only in philosophical arguments. Heck, both Madison and Hamilton went on to disagree with themselves as well as each other over their very own words.

The Federalist Papers are not the new Bible, though cliques of libertarians may worship them _at the expense of the general welfare_.  

*We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.*



> *promote the general Welfare*
> 
> This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it &#8212; the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare &#8212; to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.


http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html


----------



## Dante (Jul 7, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> Liberty,
> 
> You really are an idiot. But I will continue to pray for you at Mass.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 7, 2010)

Dante said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



The only expense is your freedom. And no the federalist papers are not the bible of the consititution. But the facts are this. It is a pretty simple document written in plain english, yet precise enough that there are few areas open to broad interpretation. For example if you actually read Federalist 41, you will see he is not giving his opinion as to what the general welfare clause means. He is explaining why they way in which it was written indicates that the general welfare refers to the enumerated list that follows it and nothing more. He states for example that had the clause been left alone with no enumerated powers afterward one might have an argument that the fed has more power than it does. But to paraphrase anyone who ignores the basic structed of how the ENTIRE section is written is simply being willfully ignorant.

We aren't trying to maintain a strict interpretation of the constitution because we're mean people. We're doing it becuase unlike Starkey and you we can see the forest for the trees. Things like SS and medicare and providing health care seem like such nice things for government to do, who would say no to that. The framers would say no to that because you have to look at the bigger picture. Taking from Franklin, re you willing to sacrafice a little freedom for a little safety? Are you willing to keep traveling down that slippery slope giving up a little more for a little less as more and more programs that sound nice and compassionate come up? If you allow things like that, 'out of the goodness of your heart', what legal ground are you going to stand on when they do something you don't think is right?


----------



## Dante (Jul 7, 2010)

Liberty said:


> ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution...



because that is not the job of the government? 


and also maybe because they do not have to?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 7, 2010)

Dante said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution...
> ...


Ahhh, the last several Dante posts were brought to us by the "Committee for an All-Powerful Government".

If the feds can do anything because of the federal welfare clause, why are there checks and balances?  Enumerated power?

Heck, why write the Constitution at all beyond the line: 

"The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."

Oh that's right, because that view is false, created by statists created during the FDR years to enable the illegal expansion of federal power.

What do you do when the Supreme Court becomes corrupt?  How do you check and balance them?  If Amending the constitution is the only way, but the court determines what the constitution says, then there needs to be more checks and balances put on their power.


----------



## Dante (Jul 7, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Poor Fitz, I guess being at the Hannity Forums for so long has rotted what few brain cells you ever possessed. 

The government. Elected officials. Government Bureaucracy. Politicians and politics. 


you appear to confuse all of the above. your inability to grasp nuance and differences with distinctions is an example of what happens to people who hang around demagogues and douchebagh populists too long.


----------



## Dante (Jul 7, 2010)




----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 7, 2010)

Dante said:


>


You just can't even defend your own bullshit so right to the neg reps.  

Don't worry, you'll be getting some back soon enough.

Now, answer the fucking question.



> Heck, why write the Constitution at all beyond the line:
> 
> "The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."



You assert that government can do whatever it wants.  Back it up.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 7, 2010)

> The government. Elected officials. Government Bureaucracy. Politicians and politics.



And this string of nouns is supposed to represent what?



> you appear to confuse all of the above. your inability to grasp nuance and differences with distinctions is an example of what happens to people who hang around demagogues and douchebagh populists too long.



You got nothing.  Gotcha.  Not even a coherent argument to support your rabid rhetoric of frothing fascism.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 7, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> "The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."
> 
> Oh that's right, because that view is false, created by statists created during the FDR years to enable the illegal expansion of federal power.



The notion that the General Welfare clause has broad implications certainly predates the 20th century.

Here's Alexander Hamilton (a signer of the Constitution and author of many of the Federalist papers) writing on December 5, 1791:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the _Common defence and general welfare_" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be _uniform_ throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to _raise money is plenary, and indefinite_; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "_general Welfare._" The terms "_general Welfare_" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.​


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 7, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > "The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."
> ...



The notion may have been around forever, however it does not make it any less wrong.

How can anyone imagine that the founders would write a document that sought to limit the power of the government it set up at every turn, and then include one line, in the preamble that they intended to be used as a blanket excuse for the government to use to justify just about anything?

yeah that would make a lot of sense.

it is in the preamble for a reason. Because it is not a power of the government. It is a reason for it. It is saying this is why we are setting up this government and restraining as we are. To promote the general welfare. It is in no way saying. The Government can do anything it wants in the name of general welfare.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 7, 2010)

For gods sakes you guys. Anyone with half a brain can see the preamble is a list of reasons why the founders did what they did, not a list of powers for the government they set up.

Show me one place in the body of the document that says the government should supply direct welfare to the people? Who me one place where it says they can apply direct taxes to do it?

Even one.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2010)

Anyone can see that Charles Main unmasked the weakness of the Founders.

They could not foresee the future, thus to suggest that we should hold to "originalism" is the war cry of reactionary one-thinkers. 

Good to know who they are, because they can be unmasked for what they are: the 21st century version of the 18th century loyalists or the 19th century secessionists.

They can't change for the better of the country and the citizens.  So be it.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 7, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> The notion may have been around forever, however it does not make it any less wrong.
> 
> How can anyone imagine that the founders would write a document that sought to limit the power of the government it set up at every turn, and then include one line, in the preamble that they intended to be used as a blanket excuse for the government to use to justify just about anything?



To reiterate: Hamilton _was_ a Founder. Not only was he a signer of the Constitution, he was one of its primary salesmen in the run-up to ratification (see: the Federalist papers).

How could I think some of the Founders took a broad view of the General Welfare clause? Because I just quoted one doing exactly that.



> it is in the preamble for a reason. Because it is not a power of the government. It is a reason for it. It is saying this is why we are setting up this government and restraining as we are. To promote the general welfare. It is in no way saying. The Government can do anything it wants in the name of general welfare.



The quote from Hamilton isn't about the preamble, it's about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (i.e. the very first power of Congress laid down): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises  shall be uniform throughout the United States"


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone can see that Charles Main unmasked the weakness of the Founders.
> 
> They could not foresee the future, thus to suggest that we should hold to "originalism" is the war cry of reactionary one-thinkers.
> 
> ...



Wait so because I want the government not to take powers never intended to be theirs? I am now the same as a loyalist to the king or a separatist in the civil war.

Now that's fucking funny.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 7, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > The notion may have been around forever, however it does not make it any less wrong.
> ...



Um that is one founder not some.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 7, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Um that is one founder not some.



George Washington tentatively embraced Hamilton's view when he chartered the First National Bank in 1791. Amazingly there were political disagreements--between the Founders--about the correct application of the Constitution even then.


----------



## driveby (Jul 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone can see that Charles Main unmasked the weakness of the Founders.
> 
> They could not foresee the future, thus to suggest that we should hold to "originalism" is the war cry of reactionary one-thinkers.
> 
> ...



Jesus Christ, you're the clown that ENJOYS the attention of having a "kick me" sign taped on his back......


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2010)

Driveby, you offer nothing, so drive on by! 

You are Dude Jr, I guess.  No stick, lots of balls.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 7, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > "The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."
> ...


I will refute it with James Madison's own words from Federalist #41.



> Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. *It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.*
> 
> *Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it*; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."



The Federalist #41

As he points out using the contrary, that the very statement that the general welfare clause is unlimited and critics are being disingenuous by calling it such, is because of the enumerations of power that follow.  

Therefore, even with such convoluted language, the General Welfare Clause IS limited to enumerated powers only, and has flexible language in as much as the methods in which it deals with the mechanics of providing for these enumerated powers.

Consider also that we are talking about a time in history where there was a near universal distrust for all government by those who crafted our form of government.  Hamilton being one of the lone standouts for he only wanted a new King and English system of nobility, not a new form of government.  Burr's bullet at least put a stop to that.

They stole language from the articles of confederation that did include such words as General Welfare, but again, it was always constrained on what type of general welfare was the perview of government as well.  This leads for an originalist view that corresponds with the idea that the general welfare is not an all encompassing clause.  None of the states would have ratified it, for none of them would want to have lost their own sovereignty.  

Consider this too.  When the constitution was ratified, it was not ratified as subservient states that abdicated their sovereignty, but as willing and free participants in the Union.  All states still hold this nature, even today.  Lincoln brought the south to heel.  Although the morality of ending slavery is NOT the point some long debate can be done whether or not it was the right thing to do, in regards to states rights which were trampled on tremendously.

We are rapidly coming to a point in our history where the federal government has vastly overstepped it's authority and the states may have to rise up again and potentially put the federal government back in it's place as the weaker sister in this Union, returning us back to our patchwork quilt of 50 laboratories in democracy.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 7, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > "The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."
> ...


I will refute it with James Madison's own words from Federalist #41.



> Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. *It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.*
> 
> *Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it*; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."



The Federalist #41

As he points out using the contrary, that the very statement that the general welfare clause is unlimited and critics are being disingenuous by calling it such, is because of the enumerations of power that follow.  

Therefore, even with such convoluted language, the General Welfare Clause IS limited to enumerated powers only, and has flexible language in as much as the methods in which it deals with the mechanics of providing for these enumerated powers.

Consider also that we are talking about a time in history where there was a near universal distrust for all government by those who crafted our form of government.  Hamilton being one of the lone standouts for he only wanted a new King and English system of nobility, not a new form of government.  Burr's bullet at least put a stop to that.

They stole language from the articles of confederation that did include such words as General Welfare, but again, it was always constrained on what type of general welfare was the perview of government as well.  This leads for an originalist view that corresponds with the idea that the general welfare is not an all encompassing clause.  None of the states would have ratified it, for none of them would want to have lost their own sovereignty.  

Consider this too.  When the constitution was ratified, it was not ratified as subservient states that abdicated their sovereignty, but as willing and free participants in the Union.  All states still hold this nature, even today.  Lincoln brought the south to heel.  Although the morality of ending slavery is NOT the point some long debate can be done whether or not it was the right thing to do, in regards to states rights which were trampled on tremendously.

We are rapidly coming to a point in our history where the federal government has vastly overstepped it's authority and the states may have to rise up again and potentially put the federal government back in it's place as the weaker sister in this Union, returning us back to our patchwork quilt of 50 laboratories in democracy.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone can see that Charles Main unmasked the weakness of the Founders.
> 
> They could not foresee the future, thus to suggest that we should hold to "originalism" is the war cry of reactionary one-thinkers.
> 
> ...



The lame excuse of someone attempting a power grab. The framers didn't screw anything up. If you want to change the constitution the instructions are there on exactly how you can do that. But you don't get to ignore just because it's inconvenient for social program x. I ask again, if you don't hold to originalism what legal leg are you going to have to stand on when government finally makes a power grab you don't like? The answer is you won't. You have, in small increments, given away your freedom by YOUR choice and then weasel's like yourself are going to wake the fuck up one day, wonder where it went and blame everyone but yourself for it.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 7, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > The notion may have been around forever, however it does not make it any less wrong.
> ...



But even Hamilton maintained that the clause taken alone still must be complied with in the way it was written. He stated the general welfare clause is not a free ticket for government to do what it wants. First of all it stated TAXES are to be collected FOR the general welfare. Which means, yes you can do things for the general welfare via tax revenue, but the tax must applied evenly and the benefits of it must apply to EVERYONE. Meaning if a weasel wanted to ignore the enumerated powers that follow the clause, the government providing health care and/or taxing people for not purchasing insurance, would STILL be unconstitutional.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 7, 2010)

You know... by the same logic Greenbeard espoused, say some uber right wing Christian radical like Fred Phelps got elected president with a complicit congress.  He could have being gay made a crime and execute them summarily, and fund it by taxing atheists in a super high tax bracket.  After all, it's for the general welfare of the nation!

Hmmm... What a sick sad world the unlimited General Welfare clause definition would be.  But it'd be atheist and gay free!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2010)

Yep, go back to slavery, no women voting, and so forth and so on.  You, my friend, are a Loyalist.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 7, 2010)

editec said:


> We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.
> 
> We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia
> 
> ...


Oh, so much is wrong with that.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, go back to slavery, no women voting, and so forth and so on.  You, my friend, are a Loyalist.



More blatant, intellectual dishonesty by the weasel. Shocker.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 7, 2010)

That's why I have him on ignore Bern.  He has a case of terminal stupidity I am just not willing to entertain anymore.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2010)

The centrists and the liberals will tolerate nonsense from Big Fits and Bern80.  We correct them, we slap them upside of the head, we pull their arguments apart, we make them realize how stupid they look.  We will not tolerate their nonsense.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bern, in other words, you are unhappy that you can't dictate the debate.  Why?  Because you are more worried about 'winning' than you are about learning.  Big Fitz and Yurt have the same exact problem.
> ...



What Bern does not get is that he is not a constitutional expert.

He is entitled to his opinion, and we all have one.

He needs some clear and convincing evidence to support his claim: he doesn't, though.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> What Bern does not get is that he is not a constitutional expert.



Never claimed to be one, I simply looked at the document, understood it, and looked up what the writer said he meant by it to make sure I had derived its correct intent.



JakeStarkey said:


> He is entitled to his opinion, and we all have one.



What opinion would that be?



JakeStarkey said:


> He needs some clear and convincing evidence to support his claim: he doesn't, though.



What is more convincing than the words of the person who wrote it explaining what he meant by it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2010)

Thank you for getting to the point.  But the issue is " originalism", is it not, and in your opinion whether that should greatly influence the courts?  But that is not what SCOTUS goes by and hasn't for a long time.  Thank heavens.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 8, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you for getting to the point.  But the issue is " originalism", is it not, and in your opinion whether that should greatly influence the courts?  But that is not what SCOTUS goes by and hasn't for a long time.  Thank heavens.



No the issue is not originalism. The issue is what powers are granted to the fed by the constitution. The constitution tells what they are and in case there is confusion, there are historical writings by those that wrote it that tell us what they mean. Non-original is just a nice way of saying the consitution doesn't allow what I want it to so I'm, going to a) ignore it or b) twist the what is said to make it mean what I want it to.

Cite something in the consitution, somewhere, that indicates government has the authority to provide health care and/or has the power to tax people for not purchasing something. Hell, use a 'non-originalist' interpretation if you want.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2010)

SCOTUS defines the interpretation of the Constitution, not your or me.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 8, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> SCOTUS defines the interpretation of the Constitution, not your or me.



A weasely way of saying that you have nothing. Thanks for playing. I love how you weasely libs always resort to that excuse. As if SCOTUS always interprets the constitution correctly. It's official weasel. YOU are the one that has lost the discussion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2010)

Bern, you are a reactionary, not an honest Republican conservative.  The GOP does not need your kind.  SCOTUS interprets and defines the Constitution, not you.

Try this approach in a freshman history or government class, other than as exploratory, but rather as definitive analysis, and you will fail the class.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 8, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, you are a reactionary, not an honest Republican conservative.  The GOP does not need your kind.  SCOTUS interprets and defines the Constitution, not you.
> 
> Try this approach in a freshman history or government class, other than as exploratory, but rather as definitive analysis, and you will fail the class.



Who is the one here that can not answer a single question directed at them? You call me a reactionary, so what am I reacting to exactly? Yes I happen to think I'm right, but you're just being a weasel. You can't even make a simple argument. 

For the record I'm not a Republican and not much of a conservative either. What your kind doesn't understand is that there is difference betweeen the OPINION (because that is what the ruling of the SCOTUS judges is called) SCOTUS judge is and what the true intent of the words written are. After all this going back and forth the best argument for government providing health care and requiring people to purchase it is SCOTUS defines the constitution? Weak weasel.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2010)

Bern, you have a right to your opinion.  But you do not have a right to (1) your own reality, and (2) your own definitions.  SCOTUS gets to interpret and define the Constitution, while you get to obey those interpretations and definitions.  It's easy.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 8, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, you have a right to your opinion.  But you do not have a right to (1) your own reality, and (2) your own definitions.  SCOTUS gets to interpret and define the Constitution, while you get to obey those interpretations and definitions.  It's easy.



They have that power. Whether they always interpret it correctly is the question here. To pretend they always do  get it right is simply being naive. And not taking a position on anything as you do is simply being a weasel. Hell you can't even explain WHAT my opinion is or why it is an opinion at all. SCOUTS hasn't ruled one way or the other on things like SS or medicare or Obamacare. So your weasel argument about SCOTUS getting to interpret the constitution is entirely irrelevant. Stop lecturing other people about making decent arguments until you can actually gain the ability to make an argument that addresses the argument. I will help you.

The argument is:

The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to provide health care nor does have the authority to require people to purchase insurance.

Your weasel response was.

SCOTUS interprets the constitution. Please explain to us all how that is evidence against the above argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2010)

I don't care what your opinion is, kiddo.  I do expect to give evidence, current evidence, of what the constitutional landscape is like.  What Madison or Hamilton or whoever thought 220 years ago informs one's understanding, but constitutional interpretation has developed in all of those years.  Bern, we are not going back, no matter how much you cry about it.

So go for it, wild man, but who cares?


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 8, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't care what your opinion is, kiddo.  I do expect to give evidence, current evidence, of what the constitutional landscape is like.  What Madison or Hamilton or whoever thought 220 years ago informs one's understanding, but constitutional interpretation has developed in all of those years.  Bern, we are not going back, no matter how much you cry about it.
> 
> So go for it, wild man, but who cares?



Translation: "I don't like what the authors wrote, so I'm going to 'interpret' (which is your code word for ignore whether you choose to admit it or not) it to fit what I want." Developing interpretation is not progress. It is slowly removing your freedoms that it originally garunteed and you are too busy being a weasel to see it.

I expect my debate opponent to provide evidence as well and I hate to hoble you out of the gate, but saying it has been interpreted differently isn't evidence of a damn thing. It is clear that you are unable to cite anything in the constitution that supports your stance. So now I'm going to put words in YOUR mouth. 

The only argument I (Weasel) have left is that I think the constitution is too old and it is okay to ignore it for 'righteous' causes.

If you have the balls to answer yes, great. You unfortunately then must contend with the question, what prevents tyranny (the very thing the framers sought to prevent)?

If you answer No then you have to cite where the constitution supports your argument, which, as far as I can tell is simply I'm wrong (though you can't seem to explain why).

Good luck, weasel.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2010)

The following, "Translation: "I don't like what the authors wrote, so I'm going to 'interpret' (which is your code word for ignore whether you choose to admit it or not) it to fit what I want" defines exactly what Bern is trying to do.  He is ignoring the rule and rationale for a Supreme Court, he has ignored A. Hamilton's and other Founders' and nine states' support for judicial review at the time, and merrily carries along in his _la la _land.  Come closer, Bern.  Here's a hint. Closer. What you think does not matter, will not effect anyone here, has no effect on the larger world.  In other word, you are the weakest link.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jul 9, 2010)

Liberty said:


> ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.




The Constitution is a contract between WE THE PEOPLE and the government.  It was created and set up for the sole benefit of WE THE PEOPLE and never for the benefit of  government or any other manmade institution.  The idea that our manmade institutions somehow have greater rights than we do as individuals and that man must exist as the slaves of their own creations is truly revolting.  But an idea the left wholeheartedly embraces in their deluded belief that manmade institutions are more humane and caring than our species that created them!  And that belief itself is truly nothing short of pure evil that has historically caused misery, pain and suffering on a nearly unimaginable scale.  It is the stuff of Frankenstein science fiction but there really are people who firmly believe that our creations are more humane than the species that created it when the exact opposite has been repeatedly proved.     

The Constitution says that WE THE PEOPLE agree to be governed by the rules and laws WE THE PEOPLE have decided and establishes the means for WE THE PEOPLE to alter, change or modify that contract as WE THE PEOPLE see fit throughout the years.  It is why the Constitution has actually left so much unnamed powers still in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE and NOT in the hands of government.  We have no right to force future generations to live by our mores and morals just like past ones did not have the right to force us to live by theirs.  But the left wants all future generations forced to live by the current mores and morals of TODAY no matter what progress or changes are made - which is why they resort to using activist judges to pretend a matter of changing the law to suit the current times is actually a matter of permanent Constitutional issues that binds all future generations even though it isn't.   The left demands our courts IMPOSE their personal will on us all regardless and with rulings that force all future generations to live by them as well even though not constitutional issues whatsoever.   I never fail to be amazed, revolted and scared SHITLESS by the people who want to know why government doesn't just declare this or that to be "legal" or "illegal" as if this is all about whatever government wants.  This is NEVER about what government wants but ONLY about what WE THE PEOPLE want.  The ONLY thing that makes this nation unique in the world.

GOVERNMENT is not our master in this country -unlike EVERY other nation in the world.  In any other country it is all about whatever government wants and NOT about what the people who must live by those rules want. You want THAT kind of system where government  just decides on its own what the rules will be and FUCK what you may think of that -then go move to another country.  Iran is doing nicely with their new law the ruling mullah assholes think is founded in their bastardized version of Islam to punish people for having the "wrong" haircuts even!  But STOP trying to turn this nation into just one more pale copy of an historically known failure of a system!  

In THIS country WE THE PEOPLE decide what rules and laws we AGREE to be governed by.  NOT what government =which means the arrogant puffballs who happen to TEMPORARILY occupy government at the moment decide they will ram down our throats against our will -want to do.   I think they fail to realize their occupation IS temporary and too often as if they believe themselves to be dictators.  Like Pelosi with the ARROGANCE of saying WE THE PEOPLE are not allowed to know what is in a bill until after it is passed!  You have to be NUTS and DESPISE our system to believe that woman deserves to continue holding that office.  The sheer arrogance is jaw dropping.  But maybe for some people it requires the individual saying such a HORRIFIC thing to have an "R" after their name instead of "D" before they are even able to grasp that level of government arrogance that should be promptly SQUASHED as dangerous.

In OUR system of government, government is SUPPOSED to have ZERO -get this one -ABSOLUTELY NO ability to change or modify the Constitution in any way.  Only WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be able to do that and then only after the majority of people in 2/3rds of the states vote in favor of changing, modifying or adding to our Constitution.  The LAWS we live under are supposed to able to be changed by each generation as they see fit for themselves without any past generation forcing a future one to live by their personal morals.  It is supposed to be difficult to change, but not impossible -but government has NO RIGHT whatsoever to alter it on its own.  Liberals want future generations to be FORCED to live by their own personal morals no matter what may change in the future.  The fact we have some judges and justices willing to give government that unilateral authority in direct violation of our Constitution only tells us all that we have judges and justices that in spite of the vow to uphold and defend our Constitution -never had any intention of doing so, lied under oath when they vowed to do so and believe that government should be our master instead of WE THE PEOPLE being master of the institution that was the creation of man in the first place. 

The idea of being slave to our own creation is the stuff of science fiction where man's creation ends up turning against him.   And when it comes to man's creation of government, history has repeatedly proven that it can and always will turn on its own creators unless man keeps constant vigil to limit the power and ability of government to do so.  But the left LOVES the idea of man becoming slave and victim to his own creation and will argue that faceless institutions are actually more humane than humanity and more humane than the species that created it -which is itself insane.  The notion of man existing for the benefit of the system he created is the founding principle of liberalism.  In spite of the fact that history has repeatedly proven that is not only a lie on a monumental scale -but one that has cost the lives of BILLIONS already.  And will undoubtedly cost the lives of billions more until our species finally learns the REAL lessons of history.  The truly depressing reality is the fact it doesn't appear this generation is the one that has finally figured that lesson out once and for all.  But considering the deplorable education in our public school systems, it is a lesson they were never taught already existed.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jul 9, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> SCOTUS defines the interpretation of the Constitution, not your or me.



Actually the Constitution was originally written in language that the common person could easily understand for himself and did not need a "special" interpreter at all.  People used to sit around and readily argue what was and was not constitutional based on the actual language of the Constitution which is NOT mired in mystique whatsoever.  The left is guilty of fostering the notion that understanding our Constitution requires this "special" thing beyond the capability of the average person -which the founders would have LOUDLY rejected.  Oh and DID.

LEGALLY the Supreme Court is the last step of interpretation.  But MORALLY, the average person can easily figure out the original intent of the founders as the founders intended it to be in the first place.  And it is the average person on the street the founders intended to be able to easily interpret the Constitution so they could understand and see when a branch of their government was going haywire and off track.  A contract between the governed and government where the left insists the governed can't possibly understand the terms is ludicrous!   And a lie.  How else do YOU expect a people to know when their own government is violating the contract made between WE THE PEOPLE about the rules and laws we agree to be governed -and a government engaged in what governments throughout history have ALWAYS done without exception -to try and expand its scope and range of power at the expense of the governed.

I think if the founders could "re-do" anything in the Constitution they would have included term limits.  The notion that someone would make a career out of "ruling" would have nauseated them even far, far more than it does me.  And that is pretty bad.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 9, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The following, "Translation: "I don't like what the authors wrote, so I'm going to 'interpret' (which is your code word for ignore whether you choose to admit it or not) it to fit what I want" defines exactly what Bern is trying to do.  He is ignoring the rule and rationale for a Supreme Court, he has ignored A. Hamilton's and other Founders' and nine states' support for judicial review at the time, and merrily carries along in his _la la _land.  Come closer, Bern.  Here's a hint. Closer. What you think does not matter, will not effect anyone here, has no effect on the larger world.  In other word, you are the weakest link.



Translation: The weasel has nothing. History shows Hamilton was considered an outsider in terms of his views (he wanted there to be a king inthe colonies). Can you or can you not, point to something in the constitution that supports your opinion? I am ignoring nothing. I understand that SCOTUS has the last say on the costituion. The point I am making is they don't always get it right. That isn't a matter of opinion. You can't expect that 9 people of different political persuasions and their own opinions, nominated by partisan presidents are ALWAYS going to interpret the constitution correvtion. Second, bringing it up is irrelevant because they have not rendered an opinion on what we are talking about. You've made all of two counter arguments in this thread citing article VI for god knows what reason, and then what the role of SCOTUS is. Neither has anything to do with what we are talking. Keep trying weasel.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2010)

frazzledgear said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.
> ...



Sheer lunacy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2010)

When Bern writes, "I understand that SCOTUS has the last say on the costituion" he admits fail on the issue.

Now to the larger issue: yes, the SC can get things wrong; yes, we should point those things out; and, no, Bern, based on everything you have written reveals you truly do not understand the document.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 9, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> When Bern writes, "I understand that SCOTUS has the last say on the costituion" he admits fail on the issue.
> 
> Now to the larger issue: yes, the SC can get things wrong; yes, we should point those things out; and, no, Bern, based on everything you have written reveals you truly do not understand the document.



What do I not understand? What is there in it that supports your position? What is _your_ position weasel?  Why is it so difficult for you to answer these questions when you claim it is so crystal clear?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > When Bern writes, "I understand that SCOTUS has the last say on the costituion" he admits fail on the issue.
> ...



You are cut when you get angry, Little Weasel.  We all know what your opinion is.  We all know that it is just your opinion.  All of the necessary questions have been answered.  What don't you understand?


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 9, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You know what weasel? I get it now. Your problem is a fundamental lack of understanding of the english language. The one part of the constitution you did attempt to cite way back had ZERO to do with what we we're talking about. You can't explain what my opinion is or why it is actually an opinion. I'm dealing with an intellectual neophyte on top of being a weasel that won't provide evidence or have the integrity to answer direct questions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Oh, Little Weasel, you truly don't understand your opinion is only your opinion, binding on no one.  Of course you can have your opinion on the Constitution, but that means nothing here whatsoever.  

You have not been able to formulate an argument here that merits rebuttal.  It fails on summary examination.  You are not expert, thus . . .


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 9, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have not been able to formulate an argument here that merits rebuttal.  It fails on summary examination.  You are not expert, thus . . .



You will have to pardon me if, coming from you, I don't put much credence in that. You've been a broken record for a few pages now. The evidence of those pages shows that YOU are the one that can't back up shit. The only one here projecting an opinion with zero backing is you. This entire thread is proof of that. I've provided plenty of evidence backing my position. You have provided ZERO for yours and you have provided ZERO explaining why I am wrong. You're wracking up the accurate labels quite quickly now weasel. You can officially add hypocrite.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2010)

You have proved that you mistake your opinion as substantive evidence.  You have fail here from the beginning.  The interp is what SCOTUS say it is, and you can say, "I disagree", and the reply of the world is, "No one cares, kiddo."


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 10, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have proved that you mistake your opinion as substantive evidence.  You have fail here from the beginning.  The interp is what SCOTUS say it is, and you can say, "I disagree", and the reply of the world is, "No one cares, kiddo."



The FACT is weasel the only person here who as presented an unsubstatiated opinion here is YOU. YOU are the one of the opinion that it is okay to ignore the constitution and that framers intent is irrelevant. As far as ther SCOTUS goes Problem is I haven't said I disagree with them on anything in this thread. I certainly haven't said I disagree with them on ruling on what we are talking about. Why? Because they haven't rendered an opinion on it one way or the other. This is just another diversion of yours to avoid having to actually come up with a credible argument. We're not even on the same wavelength at this point. I'm arguing one subject and you are making counter arguments to something else entirely as if it actually means something. I will help you.......again.

The argument is:

The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to provide health care or require people to purchase it under threat of taxation.

Now let's ruile out what you've tried so far:

Article VI has ZERO to do with this.

citing that SCOTUS interprets the constitution has zero to do with this because they haven't rendered an opinion on it yet.

Stop being a weasel and come up with some original argument that actually pertains to the subject.


----------

