# Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 22, 2010)

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 22, 2010)

Hmm this could be interesting.


----------



## jillian (Feb 22, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



there's no such thing as "obamacare" and neither the plans that are in the works nor medicare are unconstitutional.


----------



## Christopher (Feb 22, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



Who is it that is making that argument?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 23, 2010)

jillian said:
			
		

> there's no such thing as "obamacare" and neither the plans that are in the works nor medicare are unconstitutional.



Under the Constitution, Congress isn't authorized to run, regulate, or subsidize our health care. Because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't expressly authorize it to do, federal intervention in health care is unconstitutional.

This is not an anachronistic interpretation of the Constitution, unless undertanding basic English is also anachronistic. Yes, the Supreme Court hasn't struck down unconstitutional programs such as Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit , but that's neither here nor there. For decades, the Supreme Court held that segregation was constitutional, and then, one day, poof! it wasn't. The Supreme Court does as the Supreme Court wants, not what the Constitution says.

The Partial Observer - The Tenth Amendment is the Best Medicine


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 23, 2010)

jillian said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
> ...



then prove it oh wise lawyer of the boards. Government forcing people to purchase insurance is constitutional? Can't wait to here your CONSTITUTIONAL justification for that one. 

Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do. Now anyone with a brain or one not being deliberately obtuse needs to ask themselves 'gee, why did our founders write such a specific list'? Maybe because the framers actually had a clue and realized it would be far easier to write a short list of the things the fed can do with the clear implication that if it isn't on the list the fed can't do it (hence the 10th ammendment), then it would be to try and dream up everything they wanted to prevent the fed from being able to do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



Medicare is NOT Constitutional.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 23, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Under the Constitution, Congress isn't authorized to run, regulate, or subsidize our health care. Because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't expressly authorize it to do, federal intervention in health care is unconstitutional.




Wrong, the Congress clearly has the power to levy taxes for the purposes of providing for the general welfare. 


Article I
Section 8

*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*;



> Yes, the Supreme Court hasn't struck down unconstitutional programs such as Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit



Oh, in fact, it is here, and its everywhere. By your tone I take it you're retired and presently enjoying the benefits of these socialist unconstitutional programs.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 23, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.



This is the first clause of article I section 8:

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;


It says right there congress can tax to provide for the general welfare. 

So you're wrong.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 23, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
> ...




Why not?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.
> ...



 I am well aware of the opening clause. Of course being the dishonest lib you are you failed to have the balls to post the rest of it. 

I am also well aware that the libs of has 'general welfare' as an excuse to basically do whatever they want, which is far from what the framers intended. Evidence of which can be found in the federalist papers. Again one has to be being purposely obtuse to ignore the context of this section of the constitution. The framers certainly good have just left that clause and done no more with that section. But they didn't. That clause is followed by more than a dozen very specific duties granted to the fed. Deny all you like but the intent of the framers in doing so was so that the fed would have limited power. 

People like yourself lack a basic understanding of why the constution was written the way it was. You miss the nuance of it and smart a document it truly is. You have to consider the perspective of the time and where the framers more recent ancestors had come from. They intentionally and specifically limited the power of the federal government so that things they fled from in Europe couldn't happen here. They simply overlooked the fact that people like yourself would be intellectually dishonest in interpreting it despite us knowing how they meant for it to be interpreted. They didn't count on our society devolving into a group immediate gratification seeking, future sacrificing piss ants.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> I am well aware of the opening clause. Of course being the dishonest lib you are you failed to have the balls to post the rest of it.



I had assumed the Constitution was something most readers could find on their own. 

And its not an "opening clause", its an enumerated power.

In its entirety, to show you I have balls:


> 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;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> ...





You'll note that each enumerated power of the Congress begins with the capitalized word "To" The FIRST of those enumerated powers is

"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;"

Take a look at the original http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/slurp_file.php?fileref=4

The "T" in the "To" preceding every enumerated power is very large and stylized - and in the original, immediately after the phrase "The Congress Shall have the Power" there is a SPACE - and then the exact same "To" that begins every other enumerated power.








> I am also well aware that the libs of has 'general welfare' as an excuse to basically do whatever they want, which is far from what the framers intended. Evidence of which can be found in the federalist papers.



I thought the Constitution was written in plain English that did not need interpretation? Why would we need to look to the Federalist Papers if they wrote it in a way that doesn't require interpretation? 



> Again one has to be being purposely obtuse to ignore the context of this section of the constitution. The framers certainly good have just left that clause and done no more with that section. But they didn't. That clause is followed by more than a dozen very specific duties granted to the fed. Deny all you like but the intent of the framers in doing so was so that the fed would have limited power.



You're absolutely right, and in the first enumerated power, the federal government is allowed to collect taxes for the purposes of the general welfare. That's a specific power. It doesn't mean they can pass ANY law for the general welfare, only tax laws. 

Since you like to use the Founders, see Thomas Jefferson:



> [T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. [Writings of Thomas Jefferson ,Library Edition, 1904, 147149.]





> People like yourself lack a basic understanding of why the constution was written the way it was. You miss the nuance of it and smart a document it truly is.




Boy aren't you a self righteous snob! Shouldn't you be busy smelling your own farts?



> They simply overlooked the fact that people like yourself would be intellectually dishonest in interpreting it despite us knowing how they meant for it to be interpreted.


You mean, people like myself, who intepret it like THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE 3RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WRITER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE interprets it? Yeah - we're nutballs!


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2010)

> > I am also well aware that the libs of has 'general welfare' as an excuse to basically do whatever they want, which is far from what the framers intended. Evidence of which can be found in the federalist papers.
> 
> 
> I thought the Constitution was written in plain English that did not need interpretation? Why would we need to look to the Federalist Papers if they wrote it in a way that doesn't require interpretation?


Maybe because the framers had an intuition that smarmy know-it-all authoritarian thugs would do their dead-level best to interpret "general welfare" as generally as they possibly could, more than likely to their particular political benefit?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> 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;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> ...



Then it should be very easy for you to show me things like 'TO provide health care' and 'TO require people have health insurance'.





SpidermanTuba said:


> You'll note that each enumerated power of the Congress begins with the capitalized word "To" The FIRST of those enumerated powers is
> 
> "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;"
> 
> ...



ooookaaay. What's your point?










SpidermanTuba said:


> I thought the Constitution was written in plain English that did not need interpretation? Why would we need to look to the Federalist Papers if they wrote it in a way that doesn't require interpretation?



I thought so too. That list tells the fed what it can do. Provide health care and force people to purchase insurance aren't on the list, so the fed can't do it. I agree. Pretty simple.  





SpidermanTuba said:


> You mean, people like myself, who intepret it like THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE 3RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WRITER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE interprets it? Yeah - we're nutballs!



You're intellectually honest? That's a laugh. Tell me oh intellectually honest one. You really mean to tell me Jefferson wouldn't have a problem with the fed REQUIRING people to purchase health care? That he wouldn't have a problem with the fed subsidizing and running a public option?


----------



## jillian (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.
> ...



I don't think I've ever seen him correct about anything.


----------



## maineman (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



more to the point.... "Says WHO?"

Has SCOTUS ever said that Medicare was unconstitutional?  If not, then, BY DEFINITION, it is not unconstitutional.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

jillian said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Thanks for adding to the conversation. The question remains why can't anyone be honest about this? If it was the intent of the framers to allow the concept of general welfare to truly be interpreted generally thus granting the fed the ability to make any half ass claim it wants to for 'general welfare' for the purpose of collecting taxes, why on earth would they follow that clause with a hughly SPECIFIC list (as in NOT general) of the things they wanted the fed to be able to do?

I prefer James Madison's take on the issue who essentially notes exactly as I do that anyone who tries to pretend that 'collect taxes......for the general welfare' doesn't refer specifcally to the list immediatley following it is being purposefully obtuse and and dishonest.



> Federalist 41: James Madison
> 
> 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 defence 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 defence 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." But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied by signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.



As far as Obama's position that everyone be required to purchase insureance, that can't even remotely be argued as a matter of tax collection for the general welfare because it deosn't require the collection of taxes to impose. That particular postion speaks directly to the list of specific enumerations.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

maineman said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Wrong. They are the last word on the issue. That doesn't mean their word is right. If the supreme court always got it right in terms of whether something is constitutional there would never be a split decision on anything.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2010)

I don't believe SCOTUS has ever ruled because suit hasn't been filed.

Gubmint has basically been playing "we'll do as we please and you can sue if you don't like it" since FDR.


----------



## maineman (Feb 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



the supreme court is, by definition, ALWAYS "right" when it comes to determining the constitutionality of statutes.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

bonus question:

why hasn't the scotus ruled against fdr programs?  and why did they give so much unfettered power to the vague term "general welfare"?

what really happened to make the court change its mind?


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

"With respect to the two words general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."  James Madison in letter to James Robertson 

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> bonus question:
> 
> why hasn't the scotus ruled against fdr programs?  and why did they give so much unfettered power to the vague term "general welfare"?
> 
> what really happened to make the court change its mind?



Uuuuuummmm same reason Dude gave last time. I guess maybe this needs to be explained on a kidnergarten level. The Supreme COURT is presided over by judges. The role of a judge is to hear cases. They aren't a committee. They don't have the pervue to sit all day and run through laws deciding if they are constitutional. They can only rule on what is brought before them.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

maineman said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



You can use 'by defintion' all you like and pretend it's the final word, but it isn't. You have a problem seperating absolute truth from what the court decides. The intent of the constitution does not change as the court's opinion about it has. Again if they always get it right regarding the constitutionality of an issue obviously every decision would be unanimous. The very fact that there are split decisions shows that absolute truth of what is constitutional can be different than whay they say is constitutional.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > bonus question:
> ...



i was talking about court packing.  scotus was going to rule against fdr expansion of federal powers, so fdr threatened to pack the court, scotus backed down and ruled in favor of fdr


----------



## maineman (Feb 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



the fact of the matter is:  a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is.  And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.  

Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.

ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Doesn't that also prove that the truth of whether something is constiutional is different from how the court may rule on it?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2010)

maineman said:


> the fact of the matter is:  a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is.  And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.
> 
> Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.
> 
> ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.


Using that inane argument, one could argue that murder isn't wrong until you get caught and convicted.


----------



## maineman (Feb 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > the fact of the matter is:  a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is.  And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.
> ...



we weren't talking about "wrong", though, were we?

We were talking about "unconstitutional"  

perhaps you should stick to My Weekly Reader


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2010)

What we're talking about is shameless authoritarian political hacks, like you, splitting hairs on semantics and pulling any silly excuse, no matter how intellectually vapid, out of their asses to rationalize their abject despotism.

And you just provided another smashing example.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > the fact of the matter is:  a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is.  And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.
> ...



exactly

further, there is also the issue of when something is unconstitutional on its face, though scotus has not ruled such a law unconstitutional, it can be disregarded if the law is unconsitutional on its face....and the president has such a duty


----------



## Zona (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



They said medicare was unconstitutional.  In fact, if you look hard enough, every single thing they are saying about Obama healthcare, they said about medicare and social security.

ONCE AGAIN, THE REPUBLICANS WILL GO DOWN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.  Once again.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

Zona said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
> ...



see court packing and the erosion of an independent scotus


----------



## Zona (Feb 24, 2010)

Christopher said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
> ...



Rush, hannity, beck, all their fans and the idiots in here.


If you have insurance, this wont affect you in the least bit.  Well, it will change the costs eventually.  It will be lower because of COMPETITION.  

Did you enjoy your last rate hike?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

Zona said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
> ...



Just because those things made it into law doesn't mean they still aren't unconstitutional. It just means some administration chose to ignore it.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

Zona said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Libs like yourself only now how to solve problems one way; let government do it. This despite the track record of government's overwhelming ineffeciency and ineptness at running anything. This doesn't need to be politcal at all. There are simply efficient ways to spend money and inefficient ways to spend money. People spending other people's money on other people is one of the least efficient ways to spend money. That also happens to be the only way government has the ability to spend money. In the long run most everything government monkeys with has failed as a result of governmenet monkeying with it.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



Just in case no one pointed it out - Medicare *IS* unconstitutional. But all the socialists like it too much to let it go.


----------



## maineman (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



and again.... yurt uses faulty nightschool logic and equates "wrong" with "Unconstitutional"  

Further, are you really suggesting that medicare is unconstitutional on its face, yet it has been allowed to exist unconstitutionally for 45 years and nine presidential administrations?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Maybe because the framers had an intuition that smarmy know-it-all authoritarian thugs would do their dead-level best to interpret "general welfare" as generally as they possibly could, more than likely to their particular political benefit?




It says congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and the common defence. If they didn't MEAN Congress to have that power then why would they put that in there?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Then it should be very easy for you to show me things like 'TO provide health care' and 'TO require people have health insurance'.



I don't have to. The first clause in Article I Section 8 clearly gives Congress the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. If Congress decides health care is part of the general welfare then it is. 



> ooookaaay. What's your point?



I guess my point is that Congress gas the 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. That's all. 










SpidermanTuba said:


> I thought so too. That list tells the fed what it can do. Provide health care and force people to purchase insurance aren't on the list, so the fed can't do it. I agree. Pretty simple.



Taxing and spending for the general welfare is. Do you understand what words mean?



> You really mean to tell me Jefferson wouldn't have a problem with the fed REQUIRING people to purchase health care? That he wouldn't have a problem with the fed subsidizing and running a public option?



Jefferson doesn't have a vote in the U.S. Congress, it hardly matters if he would have wanted it or not. But its pretty clear that he would have thought it constitutional to levy a tax and spend it on health care.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2010)

James Madison --y'know, the guy who_* WROTE THE CONSTITUTION*_-- went into explicit detail whet was and wasn't meant by "general welfare" in Federalist #41.

That you want to conveniently suspend actual reality and supplant it with your own, is irrelevant to the fact that Medicare/Medicaid and all other forms of socialized medical services are completely beyond the intended scope of the  powers enumerated to congress.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Thanks for adding to the conversation. The question remains why can't anyone be honest about this? If it was the intent of the framers to allow the concept of general welfare to truly be interpreted generally



They wrote GENERAL welfare - I fail to how they could have not MEANT "GENERAL" welfare. Sorry, but I'm going with what the CONSTITUTION SAYS.



> thus granting the fed the ability to make any half ass claim it wants to for 'general welfare' for the purpose of collecting taxes,



Whatever claim they decide to make there's still this whole "democracy" thing they get subjected to every 2 or 6 years. That's the whole idea. The Congress is the representative will of the People and States. Maybe you didn't get that in civics class.



> why on earth would they follow that clause with a hughly SPECIFIC list (as in NOT general) of the things they wanted the fed to be able to do?




The first clause only gives them the power to TAX AND SPEND for the general welfare - it doesn't give them the power to pass ANY law for the general welfare. For instance - they can't pass a law requiring every American do 50 situps and 50 pushups every morning. That might be reasonably good for the general welfare, but its not an appropriation of funds - its a restriction on peoples actions - therefore, not allowed by the general welfare clause.

Taket this power:

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

This would not be allowed under the general welfare clause by itself, because regulating commerce isn't taxing and spending - its regulating people's behaviors.




> I prefer James Madison's take



I thought the Constitution was clear and there was no room for interpretation?



> on the issue who essentially notes exactly as I do that anyone who tries to pretend that 'collect taxes......for the general welfare' doesn't refer specifcally to the list immediatley following it is being purposefully obtuse and and dishonest.



That's great he said that, but his opinions do not constitute legally binding law. 




> As far as Obama's position that everyone be required to purchase insureance, that can't even remotely be argued as a matter of tax collection for the general welfare because it deosn't require the collection of taxes to impose.



Dude - the government has required everyone purchase medicare insurance for decades now. its constitutional. *GET OVER IT.*


----------



## Zona (Feb 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Please exound on how its unconstitutional please.  I dont mean a link to Beck saying it, I mean you explain how its unconstitutional.


----------



## Zona (Feb 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



So you like the way the "free market" is doing well as far as health care?  This proposed bill will not make it so its a government run health care system, only a small part and you wont be affected in any way.  

By they way, my government run Tricare is running just fine.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2010)

Zona said:


> So you like the way the "free market" is doing well as far as health care?  This proposed bill will not make it so its a government run health care system, only a small part and you wont be affected in any way.
> 
> By they way, my government run Tricare is running just fine.


There is no free market in health care....That's why it's so screwed up.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

post 22 spidey

you can't get around it...


----------



## Oddball (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> *"With respect to the two words general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."  James Madison in letter to James Robertson
> 
> "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792*


A-yup.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> That's great he said that, but his opinions do not constitute legally binding law.



You are a hypocrite. First you claim you are going by what the constitution says, then when presented with what is MEANT by what the constitution says you get to conveniently ignore it. You are the one that has zero credibility left friend. 





SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude - the government has required everyone purchase medicare insurance for decades now. its constitutional. *GET OVER IT.*



Ah so your position now is if congress does it it must be constitutional? You truly are a fuckwit.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

Dude said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > *"With respect to the two words &#8216;general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." &#8211; James Madison in letter to James Robertson
> ...



and thanks to court packing threat by FDR, scotus lost its independence and basically ruled that GW means almost anything....i would like to see the issues in those cases revisited, this time without the executive branch threatening to pack the court with people who will rule in the executive's favor.....


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



Medicare is voluntary.

Obama wants his health plan to be mandatory punishable by fines and possible jail terms.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> You are a hypocrite. First you claim you are going by what the constitution says, then when presented with what is MEANT by what the constitution says you get to conveniently ignore it.



You don't have to present me with what it means, I already understand the meaning of words. I don't need James Madison to explain it to me, the Congress has the 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; - I know this because it says PRECISELY that in the constitution.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Medicare is voluntary.



No it isn't. Everyone is forced to by Medicare, its taken out of your paycheck.

 You're an idiot, BTW.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> "With respect to the two words general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."  James Madison in letter to James Robertson
> 
> "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792




Hey, I'm sorry, I had no idea that James Madison was the only founding father. I thought there was a guy named Thomas Jefferson, too.

[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. - Thomas Jefferson


But I guess only the Founding Fathers whose views are in line with the modern right wingers actually count.


Me, personally, I'll go with what the Constitution says.


----------



## sboyle24 (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



You shouldn't call it Obamacare, it is called _healthcare reform_. To call it Obamacare is to perpetuate unrelated political qualms.

The constitutionality of healthcare reform has been under scrutiny for some time. The 2009 bill had some portions which can be considered unconstitutional.

The main focus is over the 10th amendment, which is summarized as follows:

*
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*
(Amendment X)



*Snopes* has analyzed to the constitutionality of healthcare reform as well;

Their article correctly attributes the source of a letter to some lawyer, though doesn't specify whether or not reform is constitutional.

_snopes.com: Michael Connelly on the Constitutionality of Health Care Reform_


Snopes' conclusive statement in that article is possible the best answer to your question:

_"All such pronouncements are, for the time being, opinion - whether some aspects of health care reform legislation are indeed unconstitutional is an issue that will only be resolved if and when cases challenging them are brought before U.S. courts."_


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > "With respect to the two words general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."  James Madison in letter to James Robertson
> ...



lmao....he doesn't define general welfare and this is your response....

you don't know, so you'll call it anything you want

what is pathetic about the same people claiming h/c is constitutional because of some vague term are the very same people who have no problem claiming the specific type of waterboarding is unconstitutional....they very same people who claim a court must determine if h/c is unconstitutional, have already claimined the specific waterboarding is unconstitutional....

irony, to say the least


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > You are a hypocrite. First you claim you are going by what the constitution says, then when presented with what is MEANT by what the constitution says you get to conveniently ignore it.
> ...



LOL....so to you, GW means anything YOU want it too


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > You are a hypocrite. First you claim you are going by what the constitution says, then when presented with what is MEANT by what the constitution says you get to conveniently ignore it.
> ...



Thank you for making my point about people being purposfully obtuse. Everything we know about the constitution, about the guiding principles around which the document was written scream that that isn't true. One of those themes was limited central government. 

I know you have your head in the sand on this one, BUT THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU  ARE WRONG. 



> No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.



When Madison said the above about the general wellfare clause he was speaking directly to dipshits like yourself who would attempt to take the proverbial ball and run. You would rather sit their and go 'look what i can get away with' rather than grow up and recognize the real danger such a ridiculous interpretation puts your freedoms in.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



No no no. We can vote them out remember. That is until they decide it's in the best interest of the country to collec taxes to support an appointed king rather than actually bother with leaving these things to the citizenry.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > "With respect to the two words &#8216;general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." &#8211; James Madison in letter to James Robertson
> ...



Much as your idiot mind would like to believe, this is not a contradiction. History shows that Madison and Jefferson AGREED on this issue but you are again being obtuse in assuming because Jefferson comments in no more detail on the matter that he meant for general wellfare to be interpreted broadly. The FACT is he did not: Here's another quote by Jefferson



> Thomas Jefferson concurred with Madison on this issue of constraint:
> 
> "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus *specifically* drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791. [/B]


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...







Torture is a federal crime. 

And if you don't know what "general welfare" means pick up a dictionary.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




No, it means the general welfare.

general - 1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the who
General - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
welfare - 1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity 
Welfare - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 24, 2010)

Hey Bern80,  why is Madison the only one whose opinion counts? 
What about Alexander Hamilton? He wrote 51 of the Federalist papers to Madison's 29. And this is what he had to say about it:



> 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



Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures



Does his opinion just not count because you don't happen to like it? Guess what, too bad!


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



like i said, so anything YOU want it to be


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



what court has ruled that specific technique specifically used at that time is torture?  if you don't have a case, then you have past judgment on what is constitutional or not constitutional behavior without a court doing so and thus a hypocrite for whining about people claiming this is unconstitutional.


----------



## maineman (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



yurt.... do you honestly believe that waterboarding does NOT induce severe mental pain or suffering?

really?


----------



## maineman (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



has a court ruled that health care is unconstitutional?  if not... aren't you being a bit two faced here?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Hey Bern80,  why is Madison the only one whose opinion counts?
> What about Alexander Hamilton? He wrote 51 of the Federalist papers to Madison's 29. And this is what he had to say about it:
> 
> 
> ...



He isn't the only one. Jefferson agreed with him which I proved....it also seems quite likely that Hamilton actually did agree with them as well. I understand that old english can be a bit tough to read. Here is an excerpt of your link and and explanation of what was said



> That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
> 
> No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.





> In other words, Hamilton says, don't object to the funding part of it by improperly inferring that I think the federal government can legislate on anything it might deem to be in the general welfare. Or--more simply--just because you can fund it doesn't mean you can legislate it. Maybe Madison and Hamilton were more in agreement about the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution than has been generally thought.
> 
> Regardless of whether the Founders disagreed on the "general ability" of the federal government to legislate as regards the General Welfare, it seems easy to intuit that the Founders, were they alive today, would be unanimous in bemoaning that a great deal of what the federal government funds today is of a very un-general nature, and is therefore unconstitutional.



The last two paragraphs are out of the book Liberty's Blueprint by Michael Meyerson. He explaines it better than I can


----------



## Yurt (Feb 24, 2010)

why does the constitution even list certain enumerated powers if the general welfare clause means....anything we want for the general welfare?  whats the point of even listing those enumerated powers as one can argue each enumerated power is for the general welfare...

seems redundant and nonsensical


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2010)

Yurt said:


> why does the constitution even list certain enumerated powers if the general welfare clause means....anything we want for the general welfare?  whats the point of even listing those enumerated powers as one can argue each enumerated power is for the general welfare...
> 
> seems redundant and nonsensical



Well thank God the framers - that would include, Madison, the main author, Jefferson AND Hamilton, told us why.

That is exactly my point. For the general wellfare clause to be construed as broadly as Spider would like takes some true mental gymnastics, intentional ignorance of context and intent of the framers.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...






No, not me, the Congress


"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" - Alexander Hamilton


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> I understand that old english can be a bit tough to read.



Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" isn't written in old English you dolt, I can understand the wording just fine and I don't need anyone to explain it to me, I'm not a moron.





> *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."


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> why does the constitution even list certain enumerated powers if the general welfare clause means....anything we want for the general welfare?  whats the point of even listing those enumerated powers as one can argue each enumerated power is for the general welfare...
> 
> seems redundant and nonsensical




It doesn't mean anything we want for the general welfare, its the power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

For example, Congress may levy a tax on cigarettes and spend the tax money on helping smokers to quit smoking, if it judges that to be in the interest of the general welfare. Congress cannot, however, abolish tobacco use. That could be something they might judge in the interest of the general welfare - but its not taxing and spending, its a law regulating peoples actions, and thus, not an enumerated power.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> That is exactly my point. For the general wellfare clause to be construed as broadly as Spider would like takes some true mental gymnastics, intentional ignorance of context and intent of the framers.





I don't think you've actually READ the snippet by Hamilton that I linked. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

But you don't have to, and no mental gymnastics are required. There's no need to ponder endlessly about what the writers meant - because its quite clear what they meant, its written in plain English. The Congress has the 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;


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> what court has ruled that specific technique specifically used at that time is torture?  if you don't have a case, then you have past judgment on what is constitutional or not constitutional behavior without a court doing so and thus a hypocrite for whining about people claiming this is unconstitutional.




A court doesn't have to rule it torture, it is torture.


----------



## Christopher (Feb 25, 2010)

Zona said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



I did a quick search online and could not find any such argument being made by the three you listed.  Could you provide a link?

Overall costs of health care will not go down under a government plan.  People who expect the government to pay for their insurance or to use tax dollars to decrease their premiums are not concerned about overall costs we as a nation will still be spending.  They just want their "cut" or a seemingly "quick fix" to the problem.  The government will only make it worse in the long run; yet, that is a topic for a different thread.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that old english can be a bit tough to read.
> ...



Apparently you do as you believe he agrees with your interpretation. He doesn't. Twice now you have displayed the text book definition of 'out of context'. You immaturely find whatever sentence you need to find that could be construed as supporting your position and ignore everything else. You are sorely lacking in intellectual integrity.

I again submit he also said this:



> No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That is exactly my point. For the general wellfare clause to be construed as broadly as Spider would like takes some true mental gymnastics, intentional ignorance of context and intent of the framers.
> ...




yes I read it. I understand how someone of low intelligence could interpret it the way you did. The FACT is Hamilton would most likely disagree with your interpretation of that clause. Anymore words from the founders you would like to bastardize?


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > why does the constitution even list certain enumerated powers if the general welfare clause means....anything we want for the general welfare?  whats the point of even listing those enumerated powers as one can argue each enumerated power is for the general welfare...
> ...



and again, you can't provide a limit on the GW clause, so far all you've done is expand to anything YOU deem appropriate, like h/c...you already have made up your mind that the specific waterboarding is torture, though no court has said so, and here, you have made up your mind that h/c is not unconstitutional though no court has ruled thusly.  

IOW, you do in fact make the GW clause anything YOU want it to be.  and so does congress.  due to FDR's court packing threat, scotus caved and basically ruled the GW is limitless.  and you have yet to argue one single limit on the GW clause.  you hide behind, 'well its not me its congress'....yet in the same hypocritical breath pass judgment on what is unconstitutional regarding waterboarding.  further, you continue to support an unlimited definition of the GW clause with regards to spending.

its quite clear that such an interpretation makes the enumerated powers meaningless.  

your comment about tobacco is irrelevent and completely off base with regards to what i am talking about.  if i said the GW allows congress to make marijuana illegal, you would have a point, but i never said that.  i've always talked in the vein of spending.  you're spinning madly to try and justify your stance, so you have to come up with red herrings.


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Under the Constitution, Congress isn't authorized to run, regulate, or subsidize our health care. Because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't expressly authorize it to do, federal intervention in health care is unconstitutional.
> ...



The general welfare of an overall populace is not the providing of your personal welfare... and also try understanding what the founders meant by welfare... I'll give you a hint, it certainly was NOT government entitlements


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Apparently you do as you believe he agrees with your interpretation. He doesn't. Twice now you have displayed the text book definition of 'out of context'. You immaturely find whatever sentence you need to find that could be construed as supporting your position and ignore everything else. You are sorely lacking in intellectual integrity.



Actually, douchebag, I was only putting a few sentences for brevity. That's why I supplied the whole link, so you could read it yourself, which you obviously didn't. So here's the entire relevant passage, enjoy:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I again submit he also said this:



> No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.


[/QUOTE]


Yeah, he's basically saying the same thing Thomas Jefferson said - which is that the general welfare does not grant unlimited power, its specifically related what can be taxed and spent on. See, what he's saying here, since you have trouble with the "old English" (LOL):
"A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing"
is that the power to appropriate money for the general welfare does not carry the power to do ANYthing for the general welfare. Congress can appropriate money for health care - but it can't force you to go to the doctor.




We're basically going to go back and forth on this to infinity because YOU CAN'T READ. I keep telling you that the general welfare clause does not grant unlimited power - it only grants SPENDING power for the general welfare - and in fact, the quote from Hamilton YOU SUPPLIED says the same thing. Then you come back and tell me its absurd to think it grants unlimited power. One can only conclude you have severe reading comprehension problems, which isn't surprising since you believe the Constitution to be written in "Old English". 
Old English, BTW, is nothing you or I could understand. Here's the Lord's Prayer in Old English:





> Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
> Si þin nama gehalgod
> to becume þin rice
> gewurþe ðin willa
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> yes I read it. I understand how someone of low intelligence could interpret it the way you did. The FACT is Hamilton would most likely disagree with your interpretation of that clause. Anymore words from the founders you would like to bastardize?






> The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). *There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power* to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control.


General Welfare Clause: Information from Answers.com

You really can't fucking read, can you? A Supreme Court Justice can't read, either I guess.




BTW, you should go an edit wikipedia.



> * the narrower view of James Madison that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax;[16][17] and
> * the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]



Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

> We're basically going to go back and forth on this to infinity because YOU CAN'T READ. I keep telling you that the general welfare clause does not grant unlimited power - it only grants SPENDING power for the general welfare - and in fact, the quote from Hamilton YOU SUPPLIED says the same thing. Then you come back and tell me its absurd to think it grants unlimited power. One can only conclude you have severe reading comprehension problems, which isn't surprising since you believe the Constitution to be written



Still wrong. if the above is true that would mean government can tax for whatever it wants to. Surely you aren't so stupid as to believe that's what the framers intended. Can you not comprehend the level of tyranny that could result from such an interpretation? Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton aren't just speaking to curtailing unlimited power, in their writings they are trying to explain (not well enough for you I guess) that not only do they not have unlimited power, the fed does not have unlimited power to tax for whatever it can spin as being for the general wellfare.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> and again, you can't provide a limit on the GW clause,



Sure you can. Its limited to appropriation of funds. It in fact says this. This is what you and Bern I guess just can't fathom. Are you 10 year olds or something?

This is from a Supreme Court case:


> ... the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a* separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. *



General Welfare Clause: Information from Answers.com

Do you understand what this means? The powers which follow the general welfare clause are, for the most part, _regulatory_ in nature. Congress may regulate patents. Congress may establish bankruptcy regulations. Congress may constitute inferior tribunals. Etc. These are powers to REGULATE.

The taxation clause is the power to SPEND MONEY, and yes, that power is very general. But it is only a power to spend money, not to regulate. 

To give a simple example:


Say the Congress decided that it was in the interest of the general welfare if everyone in the nation read Orwell's "1984".

The taxation clause grants them the power to SPEND money to this end - they can tax people, and buy copies of the book, and send those copies to every household in America.

What they would not be allowed to do is REGULATE to this end - they could not pass a law requiring anyone to read the book, for instance.


Do you see the difference?



> like h/c...you already have made up your mind that the specific waterboarding is torture, though no court has said so, and here, you have made up your mind that h/c is not unconstitutional though no court has ruled thusly.



I don't need a court to tell me waterboarding is torture. I'm not a moron. Torture is a federal crime.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

you're a moron spidey....i've never talked about GW in aother other terms except spending

i noticed you cut all that out of my post and avoided the tough parts...

you are a hypocrite on this subject because you have no problem labeling something unconstitutional but whine when others label something unconstitutional because no court has ruled so....

fact is, you have not supplied one limit to GW spending power, you are being totally dishonest by trying to claim i am talking about anything else, the entire time we have talked solely about spending and funds...nice red herring and way to be a coward on addressing what we're actually talking about....you have made the enumated powers meaningless...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> if the above is true that would mean government can tax for whatever it wants to.




IF ITS TO SPEND ON THE GENERAL WELFARE IT CAN




> Surely you aren't so stupid as to believe that's what the framers intended.



Brilliant defense. Just tell me I'm stupid because I can understand plain English better than you.

But you don't have to take my word for it:


Helvering v. Davis (1937)




> Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. *The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton* and strongly reinforced by Story* has prevailed over that of Madison*, which has not been lacking in adherents.



*HAMILTON AND MADISON DO NOT AGREE ON THIS ISSUE
*
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)




> Can you not comprehend the level of tyranny that could result from such an interpretation?



THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY THE SUPREME COURT HAVE INTERPRETED IT SINCE 1936 YOU DOLT. IF YOU THINK THE U.S. HAS BEEN LIVING UNDER TYRANNY SINCE THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD LEAVE.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> you're a moron spidey....i've never talked about GW in aother other terms except spending



Well Ok then. I guess we agree. The Congress can spend money on the general welfare. Good day.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > you're a moron spidey....i've never talked about GW in aother other terms except spending
> ...



thats what i thought coward...run away from the limitless power to spend argument....as i said, your view causes most the enumerated powers listed, to be redundant and meaningless... 

but its much easier for you falsely claim i'm talking about making tobacco illegal, you can't actually defend your view that the GW gives congress carte blanche power to spend for anything, so you create red herrings, cut out huge portions of my post so you don't actually have to debate any substance....

thanks for displaying intellectual dishonesty in such a brilliant fashion, kudos


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> thats what i thought coward...run away from the limitless power to spend argument....as i said, your view causes most the enumerated powers listed, to be redundant and meaningless...



Uhh, no, sorry. Do I have to go by them one by one?

The power to borrow money is not covered by the 1st clause, as the 1st clause only grants the power to tax and spend.

The power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes is not covered by the 1st clause as it is a granting of _regulatory_ power, not spending power.

And yet again, the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States is _regulatory_ in nature, thus is not covered under the 1st clause.

The power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures conveys the ultimate authority to create the money supply and to _regulate_ it as well as weights and measures.


Are you seeing the difference yet? How many difference ways do I have to put it? Have you ever read any actual Supreme Court cases on these issues, or do you get all your answers from whichever right wing blogger is saying what you like to hear?






> but its much easier for you falsely claim i'm talking about making tobacco illegal,



I never claimed that. YOU SERIOUSLY ARE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED AREN'T YOU?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Do you understand what this means? The powers which follow the general welfare clause are, for the most part, _regulatory_ in nature. Congress may regulate patents. Congress may establish bankruptcy regulations. Congress may constitute inferior tribunals. Etc. These are powers to REGULATE.



Wrong yet again. The power to regulate falls under the interestate commerce clause. Taking another item from that list, the government's duty isn't just to regulate the Navy, their duty is to PROVIDE for a Navy for the public defense.



> The taxation clause is the power to SPEND MONEY, and yes, that power is very general. But it is only a power to spend money, not to regulate.
> 
> To give a simple example:
> 
> ...



Yes I see the difference. To believe that the framers intended for the fed to have that level of power is what is ridiculous. They could state it's in the general wellfare for everyone to own a car as well. If you think there is no more check against that the just the ability to vote them out of office you are truly naive.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Yes I see the difference. To believe that the framers intended for the fed to have that level of power is what is ridiculous.


Its what they wrote and its what the courts have held. [/quote]


> They could state it's in the general wellfare for everyone to own a car as well.


They could. But I'd doubt they'd get reelected if they did that. That's the whole point of democracy through elected government. We the People determine what is the 'general welfare' by our will expressed through Congress. If you think public healthcare is not in the 'general welfare' then express that will through your vote (as I'm sure you have). But you personally do not get to determine what is in the general welfare, we as a nation determine that collectively. 


Can you cite any actual court cases to back up your opinion? No, you cannot. I can and I have. You lose.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

gotta love spidey's willful neglect of mentioning any of the spending enumerated powers 

you talked about tobacco use earlier, as if i was thinking in that vein...nice try sporto, but your view makes meaningless most of the enumerated powers, why even bother mentioning anything enumerated powers regarding spending if the GW clause means you can spend for anything, if it is unlimited?

you can't answer that, so you spin madly away and bring abolishing tobacco and typing in large fonts due to your frustration at your inability to defend your position

next


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> gotta love spidey's willful neglect of mentioning any of the spending enumerated powers



gotta love Yurts neglect of mentioning any of them either. Go ahead Yurt, other than the 1st clause, what are the enumerated "spending" powers?




> you talked about tobacco use earlier, as if i was thinking in that vein


Actually I was just making an example, but you're too dim to get it.



> ...nice try sporto, but your view



Its not just my view. ITS ALSO THE SUPREME COURTS



> makes meaningless most of the enumerated powers,



No, it doesn't, and I've explained why on numerous occasions. One can only conclude you are too stupid to understand.



> why even bother mentioning anything enumerated powers regarding spending if the GW clause means you can spend for anything, if it is unlimited?




Which enumerated powers specifically are you referring to?





> you can't answer that



You're too stupid to come up with a single enumerated power that soley grants spending authority other than the 1st clause. Other than the 1st they are all regulatory in nature or grant powers which are more than just spending powers.


For instance - To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; - does not merely confer the authority to spend money, it confers the authority to DRAFT CIVILIANS into service. Does the general welfare clause give congress the authority to force civilians into military service? No.

*
ITS FUNNY HOW I COME UP WITH EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE TO SUPPORT MY CASE, AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS CALL ME STUPID FOR NOT COMING UP WITH EXAMPLES TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE. EVER THOUGHT OF COMING UP WITH YOUR OWN EXAMPLES???*


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



medicare is an unconstitutional progressive idea that we are now stuck with.  

As you can see from its poor balance sheet performance medicare is not a example for making an even bigger government health program.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> medicare is an unconstitutional progressive idea that we are now stuck with.



What makes it unconstitutional?



> As you can see from its poor balance sheet performance medicare is not a example for making an even bigger government health program.



How many payments has medicare missed lately? And can you please name the nation where seniors get better health care.

I wish my personal debts were backed entirely by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > medicare is an unconstitutional progressive idea that we are now stuck with.
> ...



The constition does not give the federal government the power to remove property(money) from one group of individuals (all workers) to provide a service for another group of individuals (medicare receipiants).

I dont have any personal debt so seing a program run in the red by trillions of dollars year after year tells me we can't trust the government to run an even bigger one efficiently.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The constition does not give the federal government the power to remove property(money) from one group of individuals (all workers) to provide a service for another group of individuals (medicare receipiants).



Yes it does. The authority to tax income comes from the 16 amendment. The authority to spend taxes on health care comes from Article I Section 8 Clause 1.




> I dont have any personal debt so seing a program run in the red by trillions of dollars year after year


Medicare does not run trillions in the red year after year. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.


oh, and btw


*PLEASE TELL ME THE NAME OF THE COUNTRY WHERE SENIORS GET BETTER HEALTH CARE*


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 25, 2010)

Markets and Medicare - WSJ.com  medicare has a 74trillion dollar unfunded liability.

I never claimed the constitution didn't have provisions for taxation, you say I did but I didn't.  I specifically said "the constition does not give the federal government the power to remove property(money) from one group of individuals (all workers) to provide a service for another group of individuals (medicare receipiants)."



> 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;*



According to the section of the constitution you quoted our actual progressive tax system is unconstitutional.  

Our opinions will diverge on the meaning of "provide for the common defense and general welfare"


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> ...



aww man i was saving that for next....the fact that they spelled out what the specific responsibilites were.  You ruined my predictable debate


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Brilliant defense. Just tell me I'm stupid because I can understand plain English better than you.
> 
> But you don't have to take my word for it:



There isn't really any other conclusion that can be made. If government can tax for anything in the general wellfare and there are no other qualifiers to general wellfare other than what is stated in that clause then it can also define as it wishes what general wellfare means. If you can't see the problem  with that there really is no helping you.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Brilliant defense. Just tell me I'm stupid because I can understand plain English better than you.
> ...



Spiderman.....to sum it up....he is saying that the federal government can not just take power it was not given under the constitution through legislation.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;




That doesn't confer only spending power, its also regulatory. It gives congress the authority to regulate mail. Examples of regulating the mail include designating what materials may or may not be mailed, specifying federal criminal penalties for tampering with the mail (mail fraud, tampering with mail boxes, etc.) designating postal routes. It also means no system of mail delivery can be established without Congress's consent. 



> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;



What does this have to do with spending? This clause gives the federal government the authority to register and enforce copyrights and patents - that's a regulatory power.



> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;




Do you read anything I'm writing, because I've already told you how this isn't mere spending authority. The above clause gives Congress the authority to force civilians into military service - aka. the DRAFT.



> To provide and maintain a Navy;



Again, this confers more than the power to spend money, it confers the power to enforce the will of the United States at sea. Clause 1 would give them the authority to build ships - but not the authority to send them after pirates.






Again, you don't have to take my word for it. See Butler v U.S. 1936.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Spiderman.....to sum it up....he is saying that the federal government can not just take power it was not given under the constitution through legislation.




That's great. I know that. Congress is authorized to tax and spend money for the general welfare. Its written in Article I Section 8 Clause 1.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 25, 2010)

I dont need a progressive judge's findings in a court case to understand the constitution.

The language in the document is clear and written as intended.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> According to the section of the constitution you quoted our actual progressive tax system is unconstitutional.



See the 16th amendment.

Also, I.8 only requires that the taxes be uniform throughout the States. This means you can't have the top tax bracket be 45% in idaho and 10% in Maine.



> Our opinions will diverge on the meaning of "provide for the common defense and general welfare"



Yes, they will. That's why we have a democracy and an elected national legislature.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman.....to sum it up....he is saying that the federal government can not just take power it was not given under the constitution through legislation.
> ...



And section 8 of article one spells out what those specific things are.



			
				i dont see health care or medicare said:
			
		

> 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;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> There isn't really any other conclusion that can be made. If government can tax for anything in the general wellfare and there are no other qualifiers to general wellfare other than what is stated in that clause then it can also define as it wishes what general wellfare means. If you can't see the problem  with that there really is no helping you.





If you refuse to actually read any court opinions on this case then I don't know what the point of arguing with you is. I guess you're just one of those tax protester nutbags who thinks he is the sole authority on the meaning of the Constitution and that legal precedence is irrelevant, aren't you?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I dont need a progressive judge's findings in a court case to understand the constitution.



The majority opinion writer in Butler v U.S. was Owen Roberts was a Republican nominated by Herbert Hoover.

In Helvering v Davis, it was Benjamin N. Cardozo, who was also a Republican nominee.


You don't actually care about factual reality, do you?




> The language in the document is clear and written as intended.



I know, that's what I've been trying to say.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

plymco_pilgrim said:


> spidermantuba said:
> 
> 
> > plymco_pilgrim said:
> ...



*those are regulatory powers, not spending powers*

*those are regulatory powers, not spending powers*

*those are regulatory powers, not spending powers*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 25, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see. Then forcing people to buy auto insurance is unconstitutional?

And I love how quickly it gets down to the basis of the Conservatives arguement. That the government is only here as a coersive agent. It must never do anything for the citizens, unless, of course, they are very rich.

Government of the corperations, for the corperations, by the corperations, the Conservatives ideal. I already has a name, Fascism.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. Then forcing people to buy auto insurance is unconstitutional?



The federal government doesn't force people to buy auto-insurance, and neither do state governments. You can post a bond with the state equal to the minimum coverage in lieu of buying insurance. Or you can choose to not drive.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> *those are regulatory powers, not spending powers*
> 
> *those are regulatory powers, not spending powers*
> 
> *those are regulatory powers, not spending powers*



No they are not. Does the government just regulate the Navy? No, it PROVIDES the citizenry with a Navy. The government created the Navy. The armed forces are part of the U.S. government thus to be maintained the governmetn must SPEND MONEY ON THEM.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

bern80 said:


> no they are not. Does the government just regulate the navy? No, it created the navy and to do so it has to spend.



that clause also gives congress the authority to use force at sea its not just a spending clause i've already said this you can't read can you?


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

how can you argue with someone who believes the GW means unlimited spending by the government for anything....

to him, general welfare means anything he deems appropriate and of course he gives congress an unlimited definition of general welfare....congress could buy each of a white teach shirt with "i love obama with all my heart" and that would be ok, because its for the general welfare....


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. Then forcing people to buy auto insurance is unconstitutional?
> 
> And I love how quickly it gets down to the basis of the Conservatives arguement. That the government is only here as a coersive agent. It must never do anything for the citizens, unless, of course, they are very rich.
> 
> Government of the corperations, for the corperations, by the corperations, the Conservatives ideal. I already has a name, Fascism.



It can do all kinds of things for people......as long as it is constitutional. It is simply mind boggling how people don't see how dangerous it is for those in power to be able to broadly define the term general wellfare.

The issue surrounding auto insurance is a states rights issue. It is your state that requires you to have it. But even then only if you choose to own your own car and drive.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > no they are not. Does the government just regulate the navy? No, it created the navy and to do so it has to spend.
> ...



I can, Can YOU?



> "NOT SPENDING POWERS



Ring any fucking bells?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

When you're ready to start citing Supreme Court and/or lower court cases to back your opinion up, let me know.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> When you're ready to start citing Supreme Court and/or lower court cases to back your opinion up, let me know.



Now you're just being chicken shit. First you say in big bold letters that the enumerated specific powers of Section 8 don't refer to spending. Then in the very next post you say they aren't ONLY referring to spending (which by extension means you are saying the do indeed refer to spending). Pretty hard to debate someone who can't keep their own lies straight.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

When you're ready to start citing Supreme Court and/or lower court cases to back your opinion up, let me know.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> When you're ready to start citing Supreme Court and/or lower court cases to back your opinion up, let me know.



when you're ready to start citing supremee court and/or lower court ruling to back up your opinion that the specific waterboard treatment is torture, let me know.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > When you're ready to start citing Supreme Court and/or lower court cases to back your opinion up, let me know.
> ...


Well, he is a gullible warming cargo cultist after all, so I guess it only follows.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> when you're ready to start citing supremee court and/or lower court ruling to back up your opinion that the specific waterboard treatment is torture, let me know.



Why? I already know waterboarding its torture. If your a mental retard and can't figure that out, its not my problem.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > when you're ready to start citing supremee court and/or lower court ruling to back up your opinion that the specific waterboard treatment is torture, let me know.
> ...



nice hypocrite....demand others cite court authority for their constitutional reasoning, but don't provide any yourself because "i already know"

you have failed miserably in this thread, you should be embarrassed, well, if yoiu had dignity you would be hypocrite


----------



## maineman (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



again... I ask you yurt... honestly... if you were captured on the battlefield by an enemy that you had been actively engaged in trying to kill... and, after capture, that enemy strapped you to a board, tilted you back and began pouring water down your nose and mouth, and you became convinced that you were drowning, do you think that you might experience what could be called severe mental pain?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Yurt said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...




I never made any constitutional argument related to waterboarding. You are seriously dumb.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

maineman said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...





Yurt is actually just severely mentally handicapped. Don't waste your time with it.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 25, 2010)

Who ever said Medicare wasnt?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 25, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Who ever said Medicare wasnt?



Bern


----------



## KissMy (Feb 25, 2010)

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!! 

- Taxing people who do not use the health care system is a lack of representation. 

- Taxing the entire populace for health care for 5 years & giving them no health care in return is tyranny & a total lack of representation. 

- Government coming between me & my doctor causing both us us to get less from our relationship is tyranny. 

- This is nothing more than forcing all US citizens to pay for the debt already created by the governments socialist ponzi scheme. There is no other reason to take 5 years pay to do nothing.

 THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!


----------



## sboyle24 (Feb 25, 2010)

KissMy said:


> TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!
> 
> - Taxing people who do not use the health care system is a lack of representation.
> 
> ...



For now that's just an opinion. When supreme court cases are made then constitutionality will be decided.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 25, 2010)

sboyle24 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > For now that's just an opinion. When supreme court cases are made then constitutionality will be decided.
> ...


----------



## sboyle24 (Feb 25, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



lool....the liar projects

you're just pissy because you you're a proven hypocrite and can't spin your way out....coward


----------



## Yurt (Feb 25, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



you're a liar...i've repeatedly talked about torture as a constitutional issue and you keep saying torture is a federal crime....the issue, for anyone honest out there, is that you claim something is constitutional because no court has ruled otherwise and you demand others provide court opinions to back up their opinions.....i challenged your hypocrisy because you said the specific waterboarding was torture....YET....no court has ruled thusly, thus you have no court opinion to back up your opinion.....

thus, you are a liar and a hypocrite....

next


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

KissMy said:


> - Taxing people who do not use the health care system is a lack of representation.



I don't think you understand what "taxation without representation" means.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> And I don't get this resorting to the courts to weakly defend your position of constitutionality.



I don't think you understand how our system of government works.




> There is this thing called absolute truth which exists outside of what anyone's OPINION of the truth is, including the opinion of a judge.



Right, and only YOU are privy to this "absolute truth", and the rest of us are all morons for not seeing it your way. Since you know the "absolute truth" and these idiot judges obviously don't, and most of these idiot Congressmen, and obviously the idiot President, we'd probably all be better off if we made you dictator, right?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

Yurt said:


> you're a liar...i've repeatedly talked about torture as a constitutional issue and you keep saying torture is a federal crime....


It is a federal crime.


> the issue, for anyone honest out there, is that you claim something is constitutional because no court has ruled otherwise


On the contrary, I claim that its constitutional because that's what the constitution says, and I back my claim up with courts actually ruling in that manner.



> you said the specific waterboarding was torture....YET....no court has ruled thusly, thus you have no court opinion to back up your opinion.....


Its not a constitutional question. Seriously, dude YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> I don't think you understand how our system of government works.



I do and clearly better than you do since you think our framers intended for congress to have what amounts to unlimited power to tax. I understand that we are a nation of laws and that we elect fallable human beings to make them (legislators) and interpret them (judges).



SpidermanTuba said:


> Right, and only YOU are privy to this "absolute truth", and the rest of us are all morons for not seeing it your way. Since you know the "absolute truth" and these idiot judges obviously don't, and most of these idiot Congressmen, and obviously the idiot President, we'd probably all be better off if we made you dictator, right?



No I just possess an intellect greater than your average junior high student. Most people past that level understand that our framers intended for the federal governments power to be limited such that it couldn't eventually lead to tyranny. Your interpretation of the general wellfare clause contradicts that principle.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > you're a liar...i've repeatedly talked about torture as a constitutional issue and you keep saying torture is a federal crime....
> ...



torture violates the 8th amendment you stupid moron....just because there is also a federal law against torture, doesn't mean you don't also have a constitutional 8th amendment claim.

further, i more narrowly tailored my response to your federal crime scenario and simply added that no court has ruled that the specific waterboarding conducted is torture..........

you claim something is constitutional because the constitution says and courts back it up and then you call others out for not providing court opinions to back up their opinions of whether something is constitutional

yet....you cannot provide a single court case to back up your opinion that the specific waterboarding conduct is torture...thus, you are clearly a hypocrite...

its clear you're in desperate spin mode and melting down


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> I do and clearly better than you do since you think our framers intended for congress to have what amounts to unlimited power to tax.



No, that's not what I think. When you're ready to debate with my actual thoughts instead of the thoughts you make up for me, let me know.



> No I just possess an intellect greater than your average junior high student.



So you're telling me Justice Owen Roberts and Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo never finished high school? Its amazing they were able to get appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just curious, what's the highest level of education YOU completed?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

Yurt said:


> torture violates the 8th amendment you stupid moron....just because there is also a federal law against torture, doesn't mean you don't also have a constitutional 8th amendment claim.




Ok. But I'm not making any constitutional claim. Tell you what, since you are so desperate to argue over the constitutional merits of this, and I'm not, why don't you go have an argument with yourself? I bet you win!



> yet....you cannot provide a single court case to back up your opinion that the specific waterboarding conduct is torture



I just want you to know, I'm fully aware you've been phrasing your question in the form of a trick question every time.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> No, that's not what I think. When you're ready to debate with my actual thoughts instead of the thoughts you make up for me, let me know.



You said that the general walfare clause allows governemnt to tax for what ever is in the general wellfare. You have also stated that said clause is not linked to the following enumerated powers in that clause (despite Madison and Jefferson saying otherwise) powers. You have said it is indeed general. that you can't see the problem with same body deciding it needs tax revenue getting the final say on what is in the general wellfare is mind boggling.



SpidermanTuba said:


> So you're telling me Justice Owen Roberts and Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo never finished high school? Its amazing they were able to get appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.





SpidermanTuba said:


> Just curious, what's the highest level of education YOU completed?



So you follow a quote telling me to not put words in your mouth by putting words in mine. That's almost as bright as say the enumerated powers are not spending power then saying they are. You never did clear that up by the way.

I am saying that political posts are occupied by fallable humans who can and do interpret the law incorrectly.

I will complete my requirements for a masters in the next month or so. You?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

Is your master's degree going to be in law? Because the following was written by someone who has a law degree:




> *Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase*. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. *Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated*, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, [p66] limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [n12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one.* While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress*.* It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.*




United States v. Butler


----------



## Christopher (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> They could state it's in the general wellfare for everyone to own a car as well.
> They could. But I'd doubt they'd get reelected if they did that. That's the whole point of democracy through elected government. We the People determine what is the 'general welfare' by our will expressed through Congress. If you think public healthcare is not in the 'general welfare' then express that will through your vote (as I'm sure you have). But you personally do not get to determine what is in the general welfare, we as a nation determine that collectively.
> 
> 
> Can you cite any actual court cases to back up your opinion? No, you cannot. I can and I have. You lose.



This is where you really lost me on your argument and it seems to be the main basis for your argument.  The fact is we have become in general a more selfish and lazy people.  Many policies are a reflection of this, such as the proposed health care bill.

You are right, we the people decide with our votes.  The problem is that too many of the people today are more selfish and/or lazy.  More people want the government to fix our problems since more people are reliant on the government already for certain things.  More people feel they are entitled to certain &#8220;benefits&#8221; from the government, since they are already part of an &#8220;entitlement program&#8221;.  The more and more entitlement programs the government adds, the more this increases dependence and selfishness, which also promotes complacency and laziness.

While we can discuss whether or not certain health care policies/bills are constitutional, that is not the main problem with health care reform.  The problem is with we the people, our dependence on government, our complacency, our laziness and our selfishness.  I see implementation of the health care bill as a means which will create another increase in these poor qualities of the people.

These are my own personal observations about our country, and many others whom I have talked to about it, so please take them for what they are worth.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

Christopher said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > They could state it's in the general wellfare for everyone to own a car as well.
> ...





You lost me on that one. You're telling me getting to see a doctor makes people lazy?


BTW the U.S. is the 7th hardest working nation in the world

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_2004.jpg/400px-Yearly_working_time_2004.jpg


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> You lost me on that one. You're telling me getting to see a doctor makes people lazy?
> 
> 
> BTW the U.S. is the 7th hardest working nation in the world
> ...



Spidey you are hopeless. You can't even conduct an honest debate. You must just look at a post a go 'what can I take totally out of context and spin this time'. 

Still waiting for you to decide whether the enumurations of section are  8 are spending powers or not. Or are you just to chicken shit to admit when you've jammed your foot down your throat?

With regards to how many hours our country works, so in your world the fact that people put in a lot of hours means we work hard? Get fucking real Spidey. Just because people put in hours doesn't mean they are being productive or that they are challenging themselves.

OF COURSE he isn't saying that you intellectually dishonest piece of shit. It isn't lazy to go to the doctor. If you had a shred of integrity you should have easily grasped that he is referring to our countries groiwing sense of entitlement, next on the list being healthcare. The problem with that is simple: the more directly the cost of something directly impacts you the more likely you are to wise decisions regarding it. If you feel you are entitled to have someone else pick up the bulk of the tab for your health care costs the less likely you are to make good decisions regarding your health.


----------



## Yurt (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > torture violates the 8th amendment you stupid moron....just because there is also a federal law against torture, doesn't mean you don't also have a constitutional 8th amendment claim.
> ...



translation:

yurt is right, so i'll whine its a trick question and i'm not talking about constitutional stuffsss

lmao hypocrite....you demand others provide cases to back up their opinions, yet you will not do so yourself.

thanks for playing

next


----------



## FA_Q2 (Feb 27, 2010)

> You lost me on that one. You're telling me getting to see a doctor makes people lazy?


I is not the act of going to the doctor that makes us lazy but the perception that I should not have to do anything to see that doctor.  It is wrong to expect that doctor to give you a service without giving something in return.  


Spider

I believe that the government may have the right to set up some sort of healthcare under that claim though I see it as a terrible move.  The part where the bill fails constitutionality is under the  shall be uniform throughout the United States where it fails to levy the tax evenly (see unions kickback).  Dont forget the cornhusker agreement as well.  It may have been removed but that was because of the backlash from the people.  Those creating this legislation dont seem to care what the constitution states, as happens during most legislation.  I would also state that the requirement for you to purchase health care is also unconstitutional as that is a behavior not a tax.  You have pointed out similar examples in previous posts and yet not made the connection that the general welfare clause ONLY relates to the levying of taxes and not the requirement for individuals to make a purchase.


----------



## Christopher (Feb 27, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



You've just provided evidence that intellectual dishonesty is a road block in debating health care reform in America; or debating anything for that matter.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 1, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Still waiting for you to decide whether the enumurations of section are  8 are spending powers or not.




The 1st clause of the 8th gives Congress all the spending power it needs for the following clauses. However - were the 1st clause to not exist - some of the following clauses would themselves imply spending power for specific things. This is not "redundant" because the clauses following the 1st also bestow regulatory power, whereas the first only gives spending power for the general welfare and common defense.



> With regards to how many hours our country works, so in your world the fact that people put in a lot of hours means we work hard? Get fucking real Spidey. Just because people put in hours doesn't mean they are being productive or that they are challenging themselves.



Sure. Except for the fact the U.S. is the most productive nation in the world, if you ignore that fact, you're absolutely right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html



> It isn't lazy to go to the doctor. If you had a shred of integrity you should have easily grasped that he is referring to our countries groiwing sense of entitlement, next on the list being healthcare. The problem with that is simple: the more directly the cost of something directly impacts you the more likely you are to wise decisions regarding it.



How is someone who can't afford health insurance and who has cancer supposed to make "wise decisions"  in this case?


----------



## FireGod (Mar 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> How is someone who can't afford health insurance and who has cancer supposed to make "wise decisions"  in this case?



The wise decision is to roll over and die.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 1, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> I is not the act of going to the doctor that makes us lazy but the perception that I should not have to do anything to see that doctor.



Then don't have that perception.





> It is wrong to expect that doctor to give you a service without giving something in return.


 So those without money to pay in need of medical care should do what? Suck doctor dick?



> I believe that the government may have the right to set up some sort of healthcare under that claim though I see it as a terrible move.



Tell that to all the seniors on Medicare.



> The part where the bill fails constitutionality is under the  shall be uniform throughout the United States where it fails to levy the tax evenly



I'm not sure what you mean. The tax is not based on what state you live in. As far as I know the income tax is the same regardless of where you live - with the only exceptions being certain credits allowed for people in federal disaster areas.



> I would also state that the requirement for you to purchase health care is also unconstitutional as that is a behavior not a tax.



I'm already required to purchase healthcare. Its called Medicare. It comes out of every paycheck. I don't get the benefits until I'm old.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > I is not the act of going to the doctor that makes us lazy but the perception that I should not have to do anything to see that doctor.
> ...


That is the perception and the fact of the matter.  Sorry, there is no way that I should have to pay for the crack whore to go to the doctor because she blows all her money on drugs instead of getting off her lazy ass and get a job.  Most people are poor because of poor decisions and I do not want my hard work stolen because of your ineptitude.


> > It is wrong to expect that doctor to give you a service without giving something in return.
> 
> 
> So those without money to pay in need of medical care should do what? Suck doctor dick?


Hmmmm, why so condescending.  We already have some plans in place for the very poor.  I want to know why you think that someone should be obligated without compensation?  My house needs painting, get over here and paint it.


> Tell that to all the seniors on Medicare.


The constitutionality of that can be debatable as you are not required to purchase anything, it is an automatic enrollment whereas you are required to actually purchase a product or be fined.  That is the unconstitutionality of it.  If you had not noticed, Medicare is also in trouble finically, it is not the best model here.  There are systemic issues that NEED to be fixed that simply covering people will not fix and actually make worse.  We need actual reform of the SYSTEM and attack the cost of medical care then we can concentrate on helping those that need that help.  I do like how you completely ignored the rest of my statement though.


> > The part where the bill fails constitutionality is under the  &#8220;shall be uniform throughout the United States&#8220; where it fails to levy the tax evenly
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean. The tax is not based on what state you live in. As far as I know the income tax is the same regardless of where you live - with the only exceptions being certain credits allowed for people in federal disaster areas.


It does change based on where you work.  I STATED THE UNION DEAL AND YOU NOT ONLY IGNORED IT, YOU PURPOSELY DID NOT INCLUDE IT IN YOUR QUOTE.  The United States are not states, it is a country and the tax must be levied evenly throughout the country.  Giving union workers who do the EXACT same job as non union workers a break simply because they are part of a certain group is NOT evenly.  THAT is special inters crap and should not be accepted in any bill.


> > I would also state that the requirement for you to purchase health care is also unconstitutional as that is a behavior not a tax.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm already required to purchase healthcare. Its called Medicare. It comes out of every paycheck. I don't get the benefits until I'm old.


That does not amount to a purchase; it is a tax for a service.  In this plan you are required to P U R C H A S E health insurance.  That is why a public option may well be constitutional but forcing you to buy into it is not.  

Try putting out more than one liner crap with half quotes of my original post.  Put some thought into it and we both may learn something.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 1, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> Sorry, there is no way that I should have to pay for the crack whore to go to the doctor because she blows all her money on drugs instead of getting off her lazy ass and get a job.



So you think most people without HI don't have it because they are crack whores? Interesting. 



> Most people are poor because of poor decisions and I do not want my hard work stolen because of your ineptitude.



Everyone who gets cancer gets it because of their ineptitude? Interesting.




> I want to know why you think that someone should be obligated without compensation?



No one is suggesting doctors work for free. 



> My house needs painting, get over here and paint it.



Are you going to die  if I don't?



> That is the unconstitutionality of it.  If you had not noticed, Medicare is also in trouble finically



Its backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. If you think Medicare is in serious trouble, I'd recommend liquidating all of your assets valued in U.S. dollars and putting it all in foreign currency, bonds, and equity.



> , it is not the best model here.



By all means, name one country where seniors get better medical care.




> There are systemic issues that NEED to be fixed



A government program that is in need of constant updating and tinkering? NO WAY!!!!



> We need actual reform of the SYSTEM and attack the cost of medical care




WE FINALLY AGREE ON SOMETHINGugh.




> It does change based on where you work.  I STATED THE UNION DEAL AND YOU NOT ONLY IGNORED IT, YOU PURPOSELY DID NOT INCLUDE IT IN YOUR QUOTE.  The United States are not states, it is a country and the tax must be levied evenly throughout the country.  Giving union workers who do the EXACT same job as non union workers a break simply because they are part of a certain group is NOT evenly.  THAT is special inters crap and should not be accepted in any bill.



The requirement is that it be even throughout the states, not even throughout the non-union and union workers.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> The 1st clause of the 8th gives Congress all the spending power it needs for the following clauses. However - were the 1st clause to not exist - some of the following clauses would themselves imply spending power for specific things. This is not "redundant" because the clauses following the 1st also bestow regulatory power, whereas the first only gives spending power for the general welfare and common defense.



Dude you can't even keep straight your own arguments. The first clause is not the power to spend for whatever the government wants. It is the power to tax FOR THE PURPOSES later enumerated. Hell we could even operate under your incorrect interpretation of the clause and say that government can tax for whatever it can spin to be for the general welfare. Even then REQUIRING people to purchase health insurance would still be unconstitutional because such a mandate is not a tax.




SpidermanTuba said:


> Sure. Except for the fact the U.S. is the most productive nation in the world, if you ignore that fact, you're absolutely right.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html



Again productive does mean challenged. I can produce a lot of widgets in 8 hours if you want me to. That doesn't make some great contributor to society.





SpidermanTuba said:


> How is someone who can't afford health insurance and who has cancer supposed to make "wise decisions"  in this case?



Best place to start? Stop making excuses. If you want things to be different then they are you have to take account for all of the factors that contribute to your station in life. The one liberals ignore and ironically the easiest one to change is yourself. I swear to go liberals are literally allergic to personal responsibility. They simply can not do it and you prove every single time you post with every excuse you make.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 1, 2010)

Forcing people to buy a product or service they do not want is unconstitutional.  

The example that is oft used of state mandated auto insurance is a red herring.   State's require proof of liability coverage to compensate for harm caused to others, not insurance to protect an individual from his own actions/lifestyle/circumstances.

There's also the issue of special rights for groups due based on geographical location at the expense of others in similar circumstances.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 1, 2010)

Bern80 - I've cited two Supremer Court opinions - both written by men who know far more about the law than you or I. You, on the other hand, have cited no jurisprudence whatsoever. Unless you have any legal precedent you can cite to back your claim up, I'm considering this argument over. You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not prepared to argue over the law in Bern08's Magical Fantasyland Where He Is Always Right About The Law Jurisprudence Be Damned - I'm only prepared to argue over the actual, real law, that actually exists, in practical reality. If you brought a suit before the courts which somehow rested on  the general welfare clause meaning what you say it means - *YOU WOULD LOSE*


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 1, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Forcing people to buy a product or service they do not want is unconstitutional.



Taxation is not unconstitutional. 



> The example that is oft used of state mandated auto insurance is a red herring.   State's require proof of liability coverage to compensate for harm caused to others, not insurance to protect an individual from his own actions/lifestyle/circumstances.



I guess you've never heard of no-fault insurance states.



> There's also the issue of special rights for groups due based on geographical location at the expense of others in similar circumstances.


What geographical location are you referring to?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 - I've cited two Supremer Court opinions - both written by men who know far more about the law than you or I. You, on the other hand, have cited no jurisprudence whatsoever. Unless you have any legal precedent you can cite to back your claim up, I'm considering this argument over. You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not prepared to argue over the law in Bern08's Magical Fantasyland Where He Is Always Right About The Law Jurisprudence Be Damned - I'm only prepared to argue over the actual, real law, that actually exists, in practical reality. If you brought a suit before the courts which somehow rested on  the general welfare clause meaning what you say it means - *YOU WOULD LOSE*



I really don't have to cite any case law. You are relying on the presumption that basically every ruling in every case, about every law gets interpreted correctly 100% of the time. THAT is the reality of YOUR position. 

Besides that, for the sake of argument, I accepted your defintion of the general welfare clause and yet you keep finding ways to dodge even after that. How can you fit something (a mandate to buy health insurance) that is not a tax and arguable not 'general' under the ability to tax for the general welfare?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> I really don't have to cite any case law.



Then this conversation is over. Good day.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't have to cite any case law.
> ...



So long as you're willing to allow the record to show that you failed to make your case. Yeah I'm fine with that.

I'm gonna hook you up with JD I think. You two were made for each other.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> So long as you're willing to allow the record to show that you failed to make your case.



If that makes you feel better in Bern08's Magical Fantasyland of Reality is what Bern08 Dictates it is Instead of Actual Reality, sure, whatever.

If you ever decide you want to talk about the actual U.S. law feel free to come back.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > So long as you're willing to allow the record to show that you failed to make your case.
> ...



And if you ever decide to explain why a mandate (not a tax) would be considered to be consititutional under the ability to tax under the general wellfare, I'll be waiting. 

This is why I said you and JD should hook up. You both have extremely poor debate skills for starters. Look at your premise for a second. It's basically that you are right because a court case opined the same as you did and I'm wrong because I won't show any case law. For that to be true what also must be true is the premise that all cases throughout history interpreted every law correctly. You can't possibly believe that. Which means simply citing cases that have the same opinion you do doesn't really prove much


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> It's basically that you are right because a court case opined the same as you did and I'm wrong because I won't show any case law.



Absolutely correct.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > It's basically that you are right because a court case opined the same as you did and I'm wrong because I won't show any case law.
> ...



I apprecitate you illustrating my point and showing I am indeed correct about your poor debate skills. Much appreciated.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




You are confused. Its not that I have poor debating skills, its that we aren't in the same debate. I wish to debate the actual law as it is applied in the real world - you choose to debate the law in Bern08's FantasyLand World where legal precedent is entirely irrelevant.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Not true, though I understand why you would want to cop to that. Go back and look at how you converse. In every single post all you do is look for the sentence you can most easily manipulate and spin rather than engaging in an actual debate.

If I am in a Fantasy Land with regard to the general wellfare clause then so were Madison and Jefferson. What they said is still in this thread somewhere. Legal precedent is not irrelevant. It is also not always the correct interpreation of the law either. You have a case on your side. I have a couple of dead Presidents who wrote the thing on mine.

Secondly in reality even the case law you did present doesn't support your position. They were about levying taxes for the general wellfare. And for the umpteenth time. MANDATING THAT PEOPLE BUY HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT A TAX. So what it has to do with the the ability to tax FOR the general wellfare is beyond me.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 2, 2010)

No case law yet, huh?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> No case law yet, huh?



Nope and none will be forthcoming for the reasons already stated. You can choose to believe whatever you need to to inflate your ego. The fact remains the information is required for my argument to be true. 

You can believe all you want that you have won the debate. The simple reality is you haven't because everyone else here can see you for what your are the shallow tactics you use. No rationale thinking person is going to look at the last few pages and say 'yes, Spider came up with the most intelligent, persuasive argument. 

They will see what I see. A person who can't carry on an honest conversation. A person who was reduced to making irrelevant, immature demands. A person who instead of making intelligent counter arguments simply takes the most manipulatable statements and twists them into what everyone can obviously see is not true. A person who expects of others what he feels no one may expect of him (aka a hypocrite).

Like I said, I am more than happy to debate you, but I am also more than willing to let a fool stand in front of everyone trying to convince himself he isn't one.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 2, 2010)

Got legal precedent?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Got legal precedent?



Would it cause you to spring to new heights of maturity? Doubtful. Please do keep digging. Good entertainment.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 2, 2010)

No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.



Does your behavior make you proud? Maybe if you can agree to conduct yourself with the maturity level of something above the avg. junior high student.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba  - You are being a complete ass here.  You have misquoted me as well as bern SEVERAL times in this thread and continue with one liners al the while IGNORING the points that you know that you cannot reconcile with your stance.  When you feel like growing up and come back and loge a real debate.  As for now, is anyone else willing to debate this topic or is there no stance that this bill is constitutional at all?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 3, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> SpidermanTuba  - You are being a complete ass here.  You have misquoted me as well as bern SEVERAL times in this thread and continue with one liners al the while IGNORING the points that you know that you cannot reconcile with your stance.  When you feel like growing up and come back and loge a real debate.  As for now, is anyone else willing to debate this topic or is there no stance that this bill is constitutional at all?



I'm not sure one can. Pay attention her Spidey. Even if one accepted Spidey's broader defintion of general welfare (which claims is the Hamiltonian view) mandating that people purchase insurance and even medicare would STILL not be constitutional. Which renders the case law he points to irrelevant. What there is near unanimity on is the notion that the 'general' part of the general welfar clause. It means that the taxes the fed collects must beneifit everyone. 

Hell I could even drop Madison's argument that the ability to tax for the general welfare only applies to the enumerated powers and accept Hamilton's broader view. You would STILL be wrong in calling mandating health insurance or medicare constitutional. Mandating that people BUY something is not a tax so it isn't related to this clause at all.  Medicare also isn't because even Hamilton agreed that what the tax fund must be general in the sense that it benefits everyone in the U.S., but Medicare only pays for a certain group of people, same with SS.


----------



## hjmick (Mar 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



Because a person is not forced to buy Medicare.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.
> ...



Is that the name of a Supreme Court case?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 3, 2010)

hjmick said:


> spidermantuba said:
> 
> 
> > why is obamacare unconstitutional but medicare is not?
> ...



*yes you are check your pay stub*

You are charged 1.45% of your income for Medicare. Your employer pays another 1.45%.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Again none will be forth coming. That you insist on it simply shows how narrowly you must define the debate to make yourself right. That of course presumes you have defined the debate rationally, which you haven't. It assumes that the court cases you cited pertain to the discussion of whether mandating the purchase of health insurance is constitutional under the general welfare clause. It assumes you have accurately characterized the position you claim to support. However even Hamilton agreed that the purpose of any federal tax must remain general. That is the purpose for which the tax is collected must benefit all. Medicare does not benefit all.  Both of those assumptions are simply not true, therefore your court citations are irrelveant. 

You see everytime you post some snide immature remark like the above. I am going to reply back with something that makes a bit more sense, then you will reply back in some completely juvenile manner. The end result is your credibility will continue to go down with each and every juvenile remark you make.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Again none will be forth coming.


'
OK. Then stop replying to my posts.


----------



## hjmick (Mar 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > spidermantuba said:
> ...



I stand corrected. Forgot about that. That being the case, I feel that Medicare is unconstitutional as well, but it's a little late to do anything about that one. The government has no business forcing it's citizens to buy anything.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Again none will be forth coming.
> ...



I'm just hoping against hope I guess to have an intelligent conversation. But if you are comfortable with how you have conducted yourself and the credibility you have displayed here, that's fine with me too.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Any time you wanna talk about the law, let me know.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



The case law has nothing to do with your contention. Requiring people to purchase health care is not a tax. Therefore it has nothing to do with any case law you may site about the general welfare clause.


----------



## The T (Mar 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.


 
What the FUCK does case LAW have for this? Just because Court cases haven't been brought doesn't make it correct you OAF.

And just because certain cases haven't been challanged Constitutionally via Amendment either doesn't make them correct.

YOU need to learn PRINCIPLE...for YOU lack it. SEVERELY.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 3, 2010)

The T said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.
> ...




If you comb back through all the BS, you'll see Bern08 and I having a delightful argument over whether clause 1 of Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution constituted a separate enumerated power, or was merely an introduction to the following enumerated powers. I proved to him that according to the actual law in use, he was wrong, and he decided to try to change the argument instead of admitting he was wrong.

But thanks a lot for butting in on a dead conversation!


----------



## The T (Mar 4, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


 
The "ACTUAL LAW IN USE" has ZERO to do what is JUST/Correct *IN PRINCIPLE*

All it means is that it HASN'T BEEN CHALLANGED in COURT as to Constitutionality.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 4, 2010)

The T said:


> The "ACTUAL LAW IN USE" has ZERO to do what is JUST/Correct *IN PRINCIPLE*



Yeah, you're right. One is real and actually matters in real life, and the other one isn't real and doesn't matter one bit.



> All it means is that it HASN'T BEEN CHALLANGED in COURT as to Constitutionality.


Actually, Mr. Buttindouchebaghead, the particular question at hand - the question of how to interpret I.8 clause 1 - has been addressed by the Supreme Court twice. But you'd already know that if you'd read through the thread and didn't just butt in at the end like a total prick.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 4, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



What do we know Spidey? We know we have Madison and Jefferson who iterpretted it one way. The way I would. And we have Hamilton who you think favors yours (which probably isn't real accurate). The most major case discussing the issue was the Butler case that favored Hamilton's view. The question is why were they right? What inherently makes the opinion they came to the right one? They quoted Hamilton's intent. Would they not have been just as right had they quoted Madison's? That it is the flaw in your presumption and why citing court cases is ridiculous, because you rest under the assumption that every court case interprets every law correctly. THAT is the impass in this debate Spidey.

And you are the one who took the low road in turning the debate into just about the intent of the clause and following enumerated powers. YOU started the thread Spidey asking why Obama's proposal's are unconstititional. YOU are the one who dodges around the fact that mandating the purchasing of health insurance is unconcstitutional and can't be argued as such under the general welfar clause. Instead of trying to formulate a reasonable answer as to how it can you play juvenile games.



> Actually, Mr. Buttindouchebaghead, the particular question at hand - the question of how to interpret I.8 clause 1 - has been addressed by the Supreme Court twice. But you'd already know that if you'd read through the thread and didn't just butt in at the end like a total prick.



LOL, you really are the quintissential hypocrite aren't you.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 4, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> What inherently makes the opinion they came to the right one?




They are the Supreme Court, that's what makes it the "right" one. If you were to argue a case before the court today which went against that opinion, you'd lose. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what the real, actual, practical law is. The Constitution does not have one "correct' interpretation and this is made abundantly clear by the fact that the very people who _wrote_ the document disagree over what it means. So we have a Supreme Court to decide which interpretation shall be the one binding in law - and your interpretation LOST. So too fucking bad.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 4, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Under the Constitution, Congress isn't authorized to run, regulate, or subsidize our health care. Because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't expressly authorize it to do, federal intervention in health care is unconstitutional.
> ...



Then why did Obama state that the mandate for all to buy healthcare was "not a tax"? If it is indeed not a tax, how is it still constitutional?
Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax - George's Bottom Line


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 5, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > What inherently makes the opinion they came to the right one?
> ...



So you what you are saying had they decided it the other way they would also have been correct?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 5, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...






Unless they are overturned in the future, then by practical definition, yes.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 5, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Then what I said about your position earlier is true (whether you admit it or not) courts interpret the law correctly 100% of the time. Glad we finally cleared that up.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 5, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...





Only the Supreme Court


----------



## manu1959 (Mar 5, 2010)

why not just open medicare up to everyone and allow interstate purchase of insurance...


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 5, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



You've dug yourself quite a hole spidey. I really don't think you get what you're saying. That or your just plain too pig headed to admit the ridiculosuness of it. Do you understand that what you just said is that the reason they made the correct decision is because they made _A _decision? You don't find it just amazing given how the court has been politicized both ways that every single time they rendered an opinion the majority opinion just happened to be the one's to get it right. Not even your buddy Obama believes that.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...






Bern08, you need to go back to high school civics class. The Supreme Court's ruling on a case is final, there is no higher authority.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 6, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



And you need to go back to english class and learn the difference between opinion and truth. That is what the court renders, AN OPINION. Yes it is the final word. None of which means their OPINION will be the correct interpretation of the law.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...





Their opinion is the only opinion that matters.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 6, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Also true. Still doesn't change the fact that there opinion may not coincide with the intent of the law. Now that that's out of the way perhaps you can mature past puberty, grow a pair, and answer the question:

How is mandate requiring the purchase of insurance considered constitutional under the general welfare clause?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 7, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...






Have you conceded that taxation for health insurance is constitutional? Because I can't explain it without that.


----------



## Ame®icano (Mar 7, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> This is the first clause of article I section 8:
> 
> 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;
> 
> ...



Let's start with preamble:



> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, *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.



When the Founding Fathers said that We The People established the Constitution to promote the general Welfare, they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the "general welfare".

You said Article 1. Section 8. gives power to Congress to do exactly that, and that's where you're wrong. If our Founding Fathers meant to say what you are saying, then "general welfare clasue" wouldn't need to give Congress specific powers to establish courts, maintain the army, mint coins etc, they would simply include all that in all inclusive phrase "promote the general welfare".

If you read the preamble, you will notice that one of the reasons to write the Constitution is to "promote general welfare" for all the people. It doesn't say it should favor special interest groups or certain class, it doesn't say there should be privileged individuals or groups. It's simply says that nobody is favored in this society where everyone would enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" rights written in the Declaration of Independence. 

Everything clear now?


----------



## Ame®icano (Mar 7, 2010)

Dude said:


> I don't believe SCOTUS has ever ruled because suit hasn't been filed.
> 
> Gubmint has basically been playing "we'll do as we please and you can sue if you don't like it" since FDR.



Nobody has challenged the constitutionality of Medicaid and Medicare. Johnson had super-super-majority in the Congress (67 democrats) when Medicare was passed, with all but 17 republicans voting for it. Who would challenge that majority anyway?


----------



## Ame®icano (Mar 7, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe because the framers had an intuition that smarmy know-it-all authoritarian thugs would do their dead-level best to interpret "general welfare" as generally as they possibly could, more than likely to their particular political benefit?
> ...



Don't you think that common defense IS part of general welfare? Why to list is separately?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 7, 2010)

Ame®icano;2071257 said:
			
		

> Nobody has challenged the constitutionality of Medicaid and Medicare. Johnson had super-super-majority in the Congress (67 democrats) when Medicare was passed, with all but 17 republicans voting for it. Who would challenge that majority anyway?



They should have, but it's not surprising they didn't.  The Republican Party has a long history of having a jelly spine and running away from a challenge.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 7, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



They are BOTH Unconstitutional.

But scumbag FDR threatened to abolish the SCOTUS if they didn't approve his statist scams.

.


----------



## Ame®icano (Mar 7, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
> ...



Are you talking about Social Security of Medicare?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 7, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Whether I do or not is irrelevant. For the 100th time or so mandating that people buy something is not a tax. So how exactly can it be constitutional under a clause that only deals with taxes?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 7, 2010)

Ame®icano;2071551 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



They both would be, even under the broader definition of the general welfare clause because they don't meet the criteria of 'general' - as in everyone - of the general welfare clause. Even broadly defined the intent still remained that federal taxes had to be for the benefit of everyone. This is not true of Medicare or SS. Every is taxes for them, but only specific groups of people get to use the benefits from those taxes.


----------



## Ame®icano (Mar 7, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



We are mandated to pay into Social Security, with that payment we're buying it. Mandating to pay for anything is a tax.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 7, 2010)

Ame®icano;2071551 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Both.

No authority was ever granted to the federal government to tax "A" in order to support "B".

.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 7, 2010)

Ame®icano;2071852 said:
			
		

> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



I just find this baffling. Why are you trying so hard to make excuses for government to require you to do something? Broadly by this logic government can get away with requiring you to purchased pretty much anything then. It is just boggling how badly you want government to control your life.

You are wrong on so many levels it's not funny. If the above is true than pretty much everything you consumer is a tax, which it isn't. Secondly, no you are not buy social security. The money you put in is not going to be transferred to you or saved for you.  SS is not your own personal bank account. It is going to pay for benefits of others now.


----------



## Ame®icano (Mar 7, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Ame®icano;2071852 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



@ red - That's exactly what government is trying to do.

@ blue - SS is unsustainable ponzi scheme that government use as their own personal bank account.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 7, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Ame®icano;2071551 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






I have no idea to what you are referring, its not possible to tax letters.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 7, 2010)

Ame®icano;2072157 said:
			
		

> @ blue - SS is unsustainable ponzi scheme that government use as their own personal bank account.




The government by definition does not have a personal bank account. 

Ponzi schemes aren't backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America.


----------



## driveby (Mar 7, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



Do you get fined and/or go to jail if you don't participate in Medicare ? ......


----------



## Ame®icano (Mar 7, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Ame®icano;2072157 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Think again. Where SS money is now? IOU?

What else SS is then one giant ponzi scheme. You pay into it now, while someone else getting money. You also don't know if you'll ever be able to get any money. Think, dammit.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 7, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Ame®icano;2072157 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Neither is Social Security


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 8, 2010)

Give it up; spidermantuba is incapable of actual thought.  I cannot believe that after all this time there is still some question as to the difference between a tax and a purchase.  TAXING TO SUPPORT GOVERNMENT PROJECTS ARE NOT THE SAME AS A REQUIREMENT TO PURCHASE.  If you cannot at least admit this then you are incapable of a debate as rational thought escapes you.  It is absolutely tyrannical to give the government the right to require you to purchase anything it feels is necessary.  In this respect, a public option does not violate this and _could_ be construed as constitutional but even in this case I believe it is not as that power is not enumerated within the constitution.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 8, 2010)

driveby said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
> ...




If by "participate" you mean "pay for" - then yes. Not paying your Medicare tax is a crime.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 8, 2010)

Ame®icano;2072379 said:
			
		

> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;2072157 said:
> ...





Ponzi schemes by definition are backed by no assets. If you think the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government is worthless, WTF are you doing posting here?!?! You should be busy liquidating you all assets valued in U.S. dollars, buying foreign assets, and adjusting your tinfoil hat, because if treasury obligations fail, so does the entire dollar.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 8, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;2072157 said:
> ...




The IOU's in the SS fund carry the same level of faith and credit as any other treasury obligation.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 8, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> If you cannot at least admit this then you are incapable of a debate



Translation - "you don't agree with me, therefore, you are stupid."



Sorry bub, but that thing that shows up on your pay stub every week called "FICA"  - it stands for "Federal Insurance Contributions Act" - that means you're being forced to buy insurance in the form of a tax.

Live with it.


----------



## Terral (Mar 8, 2010)

Hi Spiderman:



SpidermanTuba said:


> Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?



The Text of U.S. House's ObamaCare Bill is here. The unconstitutional apsect of the House/Senate Bills pertains to the *'Individual Mandates'* (townhall.com) requiring every American to go out and buy health insurance. In case you are unaware (and you are), the president and his czars are part of the Executive Branch of our *Three-branch Govt* and the *"Legislative Branch"* (Senate and House of Representatives) is responsible for initiating this kind of 'Legislation' WITHOUT any arm twisting and STUPIDITY from ANYONE inside the corrupt Executive Branch. 

In short: Obama is NOT supposed to have a health care bill and all of this ObamaCare STUPIDITY points to a *'broken government'* in Washington DC ...

If Obama really wanted to create one job in the USA, he would deport one Illegal Alien Foreign National that is right now 'displacing' U.S. Workers from their JOBS. That is the responsibility of the out-of-control and corrupt Kenyan Foreign National now squatting in the White House. The fact that he even has an ObamaCare Bill speaks VOLUMES about our corrupt U.S. Federal Govt ...

These corrupt idiots in Washington D.C. allow millions and millions and millions of Illegal Aliens to run around loose EVERYWHERE to take our JOBS, then they have the nerve to force Americans to buy health insurance cuckoo ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## sboyle24 (Mar 8, 2010)

You shall not pass!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 8, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Which is as worthless as the paper they are printed on.  The U.S. is going bankrupt and not too soon down the road will eventually default on our debt if we don't get the deficits under control.

Social Security has been on an unsustainable path for years and the baby boomers will completely destroy the program once they are all drawing from it.  There aren't going to be enough of the younger generation to sustain the benefits that are currently paid out and it will eventually collapse.

You forget that Social Security is a government program and like any government program can be scaled back or completely eliminated at any time by a simple vote of the Congress.  There is no guarantee they won't do that some day.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 8, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi Spiderman:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Have you even read the bill? This is enforced through a 2.5% tax on income, not to exceed the average cost of a health-care plan. See section 401 of the bill you linked.


 It is Constitutional to tax income.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 8, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Which is as worthless as the paper they are printed on.



Seriously, if you think U.S. Treasury obligations are worthless, why are busy posting here instead of shorting treasury ETF's ?!?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 8, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Spiderman:
> ...



IT IS NOT A TAX. When you are you going to get that through your skull? It is a law requiring you to do something. No tax is being collected for it and no tax pertains to it's enforcement. How does levying a tax on a mandate enforce said mandate?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 8, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> IT IS NOT A TAX. When you are you going to get that through your skull? It is a law requiring you to do something. No tax is being collected for it and no tax pertains to it's enforcement. How does levying a tax on a mandate enforce said mandate?



It is a tax. Says so right here, in the bill that lays it out:




> 15 PART VIII&#8212;HEALTH CARE RELATED* TAX*ES
> SUBPART A. *TAX* ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
> SEC. 59B. *TAX* ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
> (a) *TAX* IMPOSED.&#8212;In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the *tax*able year, there is hereby imposed a *tax* equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of&#8212;
> ...




There you go buddy. Its a tax, levied on income, under the authority of the 16th amendment. Suck on it.


But hey, I know you're not one to let FACTS get in your way!


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > IT IS NOT A TAX. When you are you going to get that through your skull? It is a law requiring you to do something. No tax is being collected for it and no tax pertains to it's enforcement. How does levying a tax on a mandate enforce said mandate?
> ...



Wrong yet again. The PENALTY for not COMPLYING with the mandate is a tax. congress can tax FOR the general welfare. Meaning they would somehow have tax people FOR the purpose of funding the mandate. They aren't doing that. YOU are paying for the mandate, the penalty for which is a tax.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;2071551 said:
> ...



Parasites don't typically care where "their" income redistribution money come from.

.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 9, 2010)

Everything I've read in the Constitution leads me to believe that the founders did not want the Govt to have to much control or limitless power. 

I can't believe that the founders, who seemed to be pretty wise men, would approve of Meidcare, SS, Welfare and Medicaid. Taking money away from one group of folks and giving it to another??? These programs smack of Govt control and way too much power. 

Just doesn't make much sense to me. How can they produce a document that frowns heavily on Govt  having to much control and power and then put in a GW clause?

Unless the GW clause has nothing to do with Govt programs that provide money or services to anyone??  Wonder what would have happened if the SC had called FDR's bluff back int he 40's. Very interesting to think about.

It will also be very interesting to see if their are suites filed if the hc clusterfuck gets passed and the Govt tells people they have to buy insurance. Very interesting. It surely will be.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 9, 2010)

Claudette said:


> Everything I've read in the Constitution leads me to believe that the founders did not want the Govt to have to much control or limitless power.
> 
> I can't believe that the founders, who seemed to be pretty wise men, would approve of Meidcare, SS, Welfare and Medicaid. Taking money away from one group of folks and giving it to another??? These programs smack of Govt control and way too much power.
> 
> ...



The marxists will impose their will no matter what . Resistance is futile and it makes you sound like you are mentally ill.

God bless the hammer and sickle.

.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




Exactly. Its a tax. Glad you agree.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 9, 2010)

Claudette said:


> Everything I've read in the Constitution leads me to believe that the founders did not want the Govt to have to much control or limitless power.



The authority to tax for health care is Constitutional. The authority to tax for the general welfare is provided for in Article I Section 8 clause 1, and the authority to levy that tax on income is in the 16th amendment.



> I can't believe that the founders, who seemed to be pretty wise men, would approve of Meidcare, SS, Welfare and Medicaid.



It doesn't really matter, they don't get a vote, they're dead.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Everything I've read in the Constitution leads me to believe that the founders did not want the Govt to have to much control or limitless power.
> ...




Yes. Your right. They are dead and being dead they can't cast a vote. I just wonder how they would view how the GW clause has been used in our Govt?? It does seem to be open to interpritation. Depending on who's looking at it of course.

I just wonder what they would think of our Govt today?? 

Somehow I don't think they would be pleased at all.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



mandating that people purchase health care IS NOT A TAX. which is different from taxing people for not purchasing it. They are not taxing FOR the purpose of funding the mandate, which is what the general welfare clause says they can tax for. They are taxing you if you don't comply with the mandate. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Everything I've read in the Constitution leads me to believe that the founders did not want the Govt to have to much control or limitless power.
> ...



Which is NOT what they would be doing by mandating that people purchase health insurance.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2010)

Claudette said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Look at the Federalist papers. You don't have to wonder what they would think. They said what they think. Jefferson and Madison viewed it very strictly, while Hamilton took a somewhat broader view. Madison believed that the clause applies specifically to the enumreated powers immediately following it. Makes sense, otherwise why make a general statement followed by very specific statements?  Hamilton's view was broader but he did believe general welfare meant just that. It allowed government to tax for more than what was enumerated, but the purpose of the tax still had to be literally for the general welfare that is for the benefit of all. SS doesn't fall into that criteria, nor does medicare and nor would mandating that people purchase health insurance.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 9, 2010)

Thanks Bern. 

I definetely need to read the Federalist Papers. I have a copy of the Constitution and have read that a few times. 

The founders were very wise men who wanted to liimit Govt. Very wise indeed.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Hamilton's view was broader but he did believe general welfare meant just that. It allowed government to tax for more than what was enumerated, but the purpose of the tax still had to be literally for the general welfare that is for the benefit of all. .



Really?

Which federalist?

.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Hamilton's view was broader but he did believe general welfare meant just that. It allowed government to tax for more than what was enumerated, but the purpose of the tax still had to be literally for the general welfare that is for the benefit of all. .
> ...



This is from way back on page 6 of this thread: The following is a quote from Hamilton, though I don't believe it is from the Federalist papers

T





> hat the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
> 
> No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.



Next the interpretation of what was said by Michael Meyersom, author of Liberty's Blueprint



> In other words, Hamilton says, don't object to the funding part of it by improperly inferring that I think the federal government can legislate on anything it might deem to be in the general welfare. Or--more simply--just because you can fund it doesn't mean you can legislate it. Maybe Madison and Hamilton were more in agreement about the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution than has been generally thought.
> 
> Regardless of whether the Founders disagreed on the "general ability" of the federal government to legislate as regards the General Welfare, it seems easy to intuit that the Founders, were they alive today, would be unanimous in bemoaning that a great deal of what the federal government funds today is of a very un-general nature, and is therefore unconstitutional.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 9, 2010)

Claudette said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...





THe court's have adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the gw clause.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> mandating that people purchase health care IS NOT A TAX.



If you're referring to the changes to the IRS code in the health care bill that would impose a tax on people who did not have health care - then you're wrong, it is a tax.

A tax is a tax. How fucking hard is that to understand?



> which is different from taxing people for not purchasing it.



That's EXACTLY what they are doing you fuck - taxing people for not buying healthcare, have you read the relevant part of the bill? NO. Of course not. Bern08 isn't concerned with factual reality.




> They are not taxing FOR the purpose of funding the mandate, which is what the general welfare clause says they can tax for.


The tax revenue doesn't have to be for anything in particular as long as it is spent on something Constitutional. They could take it and buy health care under the GW clause, or they could take it and buy a stealth bomber, or toilets for the U.S.S. Nimitz, or spend it on highways.





> They are *tax*ing you if you don't comply with the mandate. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.






> mandating that people purchase health care IS *NOT A TAX.*




Jeezus make up your fucking mind!


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Look at the Federalist papers. You don't have to wonder what they would think. They said what they think. Jefferson and Madison viewed it very strictly, while Hamilton took a somewhat broader view.



And the court has adopted Hamilton's view. End of story.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the Federalist papers. You don't have to wonder what they would think. They said what they think. Jefferson and Madison viewed it very strictly, while Hamilton took a somewhat broader view.
> ...



The problem is you think Hamilton would agree with you.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> If you're referring to the changes to the IRS code in the health care bill that would impose a tax on people who did not have health care - then you're wrong, it is a tax.
> 
> A tax is a tax. How fucking hard is that to understand?



How fucking hard is it to understand that the only way the tax can be collected is if people don't do something the government decided it gets to make everyone do?





SpidermanTuba said:


> That's EXACTLY what they are doing you fuck - taxing people for not buying healthcare, have you read the relevant part of the bill? NO. Of course not. Bern08 isn't concerned with factual reality.




Does it say something different then what I have said here? 





SpidermanTuba said:


> The tax revenue doesn't have to be for anything in particular as long as it is spent on something Constitutional. They could take it and buy health care under the GW clause, or they could take it and buy a stealth bomber, or toilets for the U.S.S. Nimitz, or spend it on highways.



Yes it does. It has to be for the general welfare. Meaning it has to be for the betterment of everyone. If collecting the tax is constitutional anyway doesn't it sort of beg the question why they need someone to violate a mandate to collect it?


You just plain don't get it spidey. It isn't about the tax for violating the mandate. It's about the mandate in the first place. The only way government can collect this tax is if people violate it. Essentially what you are arguing is that the mandate is constitutional because the tax that will be collected in violation of the mandate MAY be used constitutionally. But if government can collect taxes for the general welfare anyway it certainly doesn't need a mandate in hopes that people will violate to collect this tax. They could just say we're increasing income tax rates by 2.5%. Which means the mandate really is separate from the tax. The question is not whether the penalty for violating the mandate constitutional,. The question is whether the mandate itself is constitutional. 

Answer this question. What if the penalty was different. What if instead of tax (and let's get real, it's really a fine) it was illegal and they could throw you in jail for not purchasing health insurance. Would mandating that people buy it still be constitutional?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So does the Supreme Court in U.S. v Butler. But I forget that in Bern08's Magical Fantasyland the Supreme Court is irrelevant.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> How fucking hard is it to understand that the only way the tax can be collected is if people don't do something the government decided it gets to make everyone do?



So what? Its still a tax.




> Meaning it has to be for the betterment of everyone.




And we the people are about to decide through our duly elected Congress that if everyone had health care we'd all be better off.



> If collecting the tax is constitutional anyway doesn't it sort of beg the question why they need someone to violate a mandate to collect it?



Uhh, because that's what the bill says? 



> Answer this question. What if the penalty was different. What if instead of tax (and let's get real, it's really a fine) it was illegal and they could throw you in jail for not purchasing health insurance.



Obviously, that would be unconstitutional shit for brains. That's why they are using a tax, its the only constitutional way to do it.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> And we the people are about to decide through our duly elected Congress that if everyone had health care we'd all be better off.



So would a lot of things make us better off. But either you believe in freedom or you don't. We know which is the case for you.




SpidermanTuba said:


> Obviously, that would be unconstitutional shit for brains. That's why they are using a tax, its the only constitutional way to do it.



So the constitutionality of a mandate is determined by the penalty for violating it? You want to talk about make believe worlds. Here's what you just said: 'Government can make me do whatever it wants to as long as the penalty for me not doing it is just a tax.' In other words what government mandates is really irrelevant the only thing that matters is that the penalty for violating the mandate is constitutional. 

You continue to miss the point or you're just too chicken shit to address it. The question is not whether the PENALTY for violating the mandate is constitutional. It's whether the mandate ITSELF is constititonal. The penalty is irrelevant. WHERE DOES CONGRESS DERIVE THE POWER TO MAKE CITIZENS BUY SOMETHING? PERIOD. No if it's this penalty or if it's that penalty.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 10, 2010)

> WHERE DOES CONGRESS DERIVE THE POWER TO MAKE CITIZENS BUY SOMETHING?




The power to tax is in the main body of the Constitution and the 16th amendment. 

You really are stupid, aren't you?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 10, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> > WHERE DOES CONGRESS DERIVE THE POWER TO MAKE CITIZENS BUY SOMETHING?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The authority to tax the people is COMPLETELY different then what you can make them do moron.

How are YOU so stupid as to not get that what government can make you do is different then what they can tax you for? The tax is dependant on the mandate, no the other way around. Again what you have just stated is that government can make you do anything it wants as long as they tax you for it. You're logic is so fucked up it's unreal. Yes government can collect taxes. That doesn't mean they can make up any mandate they feel like in hopes that someone will violate it in order to collect that tax.


Laws on anything must be constitutional on there own merit. Whether a law is constitutional or not is not dependent on the penalty for violating it. I'm pretty sure that's a concept even you get. Otherwsie again what you are arguing is that government can make you do whatever they want as long as the penalty for it is a tax. You really want to stick with that ridiculous contention?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 10, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> The authority to tax the people is COMPLETELY different then what you can make them do moron.



This bill doesn't_ make _ anyone do anything, you're free to not purchase health-care on your own and pay the tax instead.



> How are YOU so stupid as to not get that what government can make you do is different then what they can tax you for?



Its still a tax.



> Again what you have just stated is that government can make you do anything it wants as long as they tax you for it.



They can't make you do anything they want. But they can tax your income.



> That doesn't mean they can make up any mandate they feel like in hopes that someone will violate it in order to collect that tax.



It isn't just something they felt like doing.




> Whether a law is constitutional or not is not dependent on the penalty for violating it



The penalty, in this case, is a tax, which is constitutional.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 10, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> This bill doesn't_ make _ anyone do anything, you're free to not purchase health-care on your own and pay the tax instead.



Semantics Spidey.



SpidermanTuba said:


> They can't make you do anything they want. But they can tax your income.



According to YOUR argument as long as they can collect a tax if you violate it, yes they can.





SpidermanTuba said:


> The penalty, in this case, is a tax, which is constitutional.



That is being a bit disingenuous. You argued that the mandate was constitutional under the general welfare clause. In which case the PURPOSE of the tax must be to improve the general welfare. That isn't the purpose of this tax. It's purpose is to serve as a penalty an no information is given as to what the tax will be used for. If the purpose of this tax is really to improve the general welfare there isn't any need for the mandate at all. Man up and just say your raising income taxes 2.5%


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 11, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > The penalty, in this case, is a tax, which is constitutional.
> ...



Not really. The 16th amendment gives Congress broad authority to tax income.



> In which case the PURPOSE of the tax must be to improve the general welfare. That isn't the purpose of this tax.



You're not the arbiter of what is in the general welfare or not.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 11, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Not really. The 16th amendment gives Congress broad authority to tax income.



It does NOT grant them power to make people do whatever they feel like in order to collect said tax. It is noted that you pussied out of addressing the reality of your position. Again according to YOUR argument government can mandate that people do whatever they want as long as the penalty for violating the mandate is just a tax. Own it chicken shit.




SpidermanTuba said:


> You're not the arbiter of what is in the general welfare or not.



I am saying that because no purpose is stated in the excerpt you posted. Any tax levied at the very least must fit the definition of general welfare. The benefits derived from it must benefit everyone.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 11, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Again according to YOUR argument government can mandate that people do whatever they want as long as the penalty for violating the mandate is just a tax.



You're absolutely correct, Congress has broad authority to tax income. 



SpidermanTuba said:


> Any tax levied at the very least must fit the definition of general welfare. The benefits derived from it must benefit everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 11, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> You're absolutely correct, Congress has broad authority to tax income.



Spidey you finally descended to the point in the debate where you are just saying things to be disagreeable. You can't possibly believe that government is granted the powed in the constitution to make  any mandate it wants as long as the penalty for violating it is a tax. 

Nevermind that such a position rests on the other false presumption that the constitionality of a law itself is only dependent on the penalty for violating it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 11, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> You can't possibly believe that government is granted the powed in the constitution to make  any mandate it wants as long as the penalty for violating it is a tax.



You can phrase it however you want, the Congress has broad authority to tax income. The 16th amendment does not place any restrictions on that power.


> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.






> Nevermind that such a position rests on the other false presumption that the constitionality of a law itself is only dependent on the penalty for violating it.



I have no idea WTF you're talking about. You've been babbling for pages now. The authority to tax income is clear. Stop arguing in circles.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 11, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> I have no idea WTF you're talking about. You've been babbling for pages now. The authority to tax income is clear. Stop arguing in circles.



I'm not. You are the one who apparently doesn't recognize the falacy of their position because the above is the reality of it. 

You are arguing that laws in of themselves do not have to meet any standard of constitutionality as long as the penalty for violating them is the collection of a tax. Government could require everyone to buy a car, everyone to go to college, everyone do attend parenting classes, require you to only vote for democrats, WHATEVER THEY WANT TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO, as long as the penalty for non-comopliance is the collection of a tax. If you can't see how conveneint such a position would be for a power hungry government there is no helping you. You can pretend Hamilton agrees with you all you like, he and none of the other framers would even entertain such a ridiculous position.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 11, 2010)

Sorry Bern80, I can't read what you said. What did you say?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 11, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Sorry Bern80, I can't read what you said. What did you say?



Probably because you have decided to remain willfuly ignorant and purposfully obtuse. Problems only you can fix. I'll take the above as waving the white flag. It's quite sad to see someone who would rather focus on being on immature then recognize the danger their postion holds to their own freedom. On the other hand I'm sure the Dems in congress just love people like you to death. People who are not only too stupid to realize their freedoms are being removed but will actually argue FOR their removal.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 12, 2010)

Huh? What's with the blank messages?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 13, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Huh? What's with the blank messages?



At the end of the day the only person that has to answer to you is you. If you've descended to the point where you just need the last word, go for it. I'm pretty sure the record of this thread speaks for itself. You're inability to objectively and intelligently discuss the obvious problems with your position are already fully on display here. 

If you are fine with maintaining the assertion the constitution allows for and the framers intended for centralized government to be able to mandate what people MUST privately purchase, as long as they collect a tax if don't, I'm really fine with letting you dig that hole. 

You have a horribly warped interpretation of the 16th ammendment. Yes they are granted the power to tax income. That does not mean they have the power to control your behavior in order to collect. Hell they don't need to. If they can tax income, they can tax income. They don't need to a create a mandate, which is separate from the act of creating a tax for violating it btw, in hopes that people will violate it in order to collect it.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 13, 2010)

> bern
> Government could require everyone to buy a car, everyone to go to college, everyone do attend parenting classes, require you to only vote for democrats, WHATEVER THEY WANT TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO, as long as the penalty for non-comopliance is the collection of a tax.


And of cource here is the question that no one can answer.  That is why spider will not answer.  I am awaiting the tax if you are not regestered a democrat.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 14, 2010)

Bern08 do you have something you wanna say?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 14, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> > bern
> > Government could require everyone to buy a car, everyone to go to college, everyone do attend parenting classes, require you to only vote for democrats, WHATEVER THEY WANT TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO, as long as the penalty for non-comopliance is the collection of a tax.
> 
> 
> And of cource here is the question that no one can answer.  That is why spider will not answer.



Its not a question, there's nothing to answer. If you want to know what the Constitution says, though, I'd recommend reading it and reading what the Supreme Court has said about it, rather than hanging out with Bern08 and pondering what it should mean in a hypothetical right wing reality.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 14, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > > bern
> ...



I have read it several times. Which is probably why I understand that while congress has the ability to tax income, they do not have the ability to require people to make any type of private purchase in order to tax income. Such an interpretation would allow congress to mandate whatever it wanted which is level of power the constitution doesn't allow for the fed. We all know for a fact that the framers intended for the federal government to have limited powers. Yet your interpretation would give them nearly UNlimited power. You have no supreme court case on your side where this issue is concerned because such a requirement of the citizenry is frankly unprecedented. The federal government has never required every single citizen to privately purchase anything....EVER.  

If you still support the position that that the fed can require you to do whatever they feel like requiring you to do, as long as they can collect a tax if you don't, YOU show me the court cases that would support that. The 16th ammendment doesn't work as an argument for that simply because if they have the right to tax income then they most certainly don't need a mandate for people to violate in order to justify doing so. Which means the constitutionality of what government can mandate people do and the constitutionality of what they can tax for are two entirely different things.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 14, 2010)

???? What?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 14, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> ???? What?



Translation: I have no rationale argument so I'm going to resort to acting like a 12 year old.

The government can mandate people to do or buy pretty much anything as long as they can collect a tax if you don't. That is the reality of your position. You have never denied this position. Unfortunately you also have not evidence for it. 

The constitution doesn't support it.

The framers would not have supported it.

And no supreme court case has ever addressed the subject of what government can require people to privately purchase.

The more juvenile responses you make the more you lose the debate and look like immature idiot. From a debate stand point when you can reduce your opponent to the level you've stooped it means he is out of rationale counter arguments and has lost the debate.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 14, 2010)

Why do you keep replying?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 15, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why do you keep replying?



Why are you acting like a 12 year old? You're welcome to address the problems with your position in an intelligent manner any time you like. So far you have not done so. Probably because you're inflated ego will not allow you to admit to the obvious problems with your position. In the meantime, I keep replying because I know you'll keep replying with ever more juvenile responses and at this point it's just fun watching you make a complete ass of yourself in front of a lot of people.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 15, 2010)

Looking at all I've ever read about the men who framed the Constitution and trying to gauge their thinking I can only conclude that all these Govt entitlements granted through that GW clause would never had been granted in their day. Never in a million years.

In fact if I had to take a guess my guess would be that those very same founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they could see the power  our Govt has today as opposed to what they envisioned Govt to be with their document. Oh yes. I think they would all be sadly dissappointed.

Of course thats just my opinion but one I think is true.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Mar 20, 2010)

Claudette said:


> Looking at all I've ever read about the men who framed the Constitution and trying to gauge their thinking I can only conclude that all these Govt entitlements granted through that GW clause would never had been granted in their day. Never in a million years.



The men who framed the Constitution also would have never granted you the right to vote, Claudette, not in a million years. So since the Founders didn't care what you had to say, why should we?


----------

