# Constitution doesnt mention health care



## CaféAuLait (Jul 9, 2009)

Constitution doesnât mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

I have asked my liberal friends, If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people? They usually answer, Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.

My question then is, So was I born with an obligation to work to pay for someone elses health care? At this point, they will say something like, Youre already paying for other peoples health care, or, Thats the wrong way to look at it, or, That sounds selfish, or just Yes.

If health care is a right, then the government must provide for it, as it does national defense and public safety and a judicial system. If it is not, then government has no more business being involved in it than it has in grocery stores or hotels or automobiles. So is health care a right?

More at link..


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 9, 2009)

Please don't try to confuse us with facts.  Also don't cite the Constitution.  That document isn't widely followed by our leaders anymore.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 9, 2009)

I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2009)

That's why we have the CDC and  health clinics.

Health care is not a right. Any more than home ownership is.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jul 9, 2009)

Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!  Are you okay with families going bankrupt, with people (this one's for you BBD and _children_ dying despite paying for health insurance because the insurance company drops their coverage due to a pre-existing condition of because the it eats into the multi-billion dollar insurance companies' profits?  Where's the humanity, the compassion in allowing that to happen?  Why is it all about money with you conservatives?  WWJD?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 9, 2009)

CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
			
		

> Constitution doesnât mention health care - Las Vegas Sun
> 
> I have asked my liberal friends, If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people? They usually answer, Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.
> 
> ...



The Constitution also doesn't grant corporations the same status as individual citizens. The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 9, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> That's why we have the CDC and  health clinics.



Which cost the taxpayer's money, which means that we are in fact already paying for other people's healthcare. 

(And no, that fact doesn't necessarily make healthcare a right. Nor did I ever state that it was or wasn't.)


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds like as good a reason to repeal the 14th Amendment as any.



MaggieMae said:


> The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.


That's the Gettysburg Address, not any document involved in the founding.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!


Maybe because the people usurping that document are the ones who swore an oath to uphold it??

But I guess little trifles like honesty, integrity, adherence to principle and character can go right down the shitter as long as you get yours, huh??


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jul 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!
> ...



No, that's not it at all, Dude.  Times change.  Why shouldn't we change with them?  I mean, c'mon!  How would it feel to know that you paid tens maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to you health insurance provider only to be dropped or not treated for a fatal disease or condition simply because it eats into the companies profits?  What if that happened to your wife or kids?  I mean, that's inhumane!

Not all of our laws and rights are covered in the Constitution i.e. the Clean Air Act, the Right to Privacy, the Wilderness Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc.

I don't see what that has to do with honest, integrity, or adherence to principle or character?  Obama said he would reform health care, and he's trying to do it.  I would say the program that the Whitehouse and the Dems are pushing is more dishonest, lacks integrity and adherence to principle and character because it doesn't really ensure healthcare universally.  But, they are politicians so what can you expect?!

I think this has to do more with the conflicting philosophies of a static, unchanging Constitution and a living Constitution subject to interpretation as times change.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 9, 2009)

CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
			
		

> Constitution doesnât mention health care - Las Vegas Sun
> 
> I have asked my liberal friends, If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people? They usually answer, Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.
> 
> ...



I didnt read your link just so you know.

However, I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care.  It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.

the federal government needs to handle social security properly before they try to expand into things like the auto industry, industrial production, and health care.

Thats my challenge to all govt officials....show us you can handle social security effectively and then we can discuss them handling health care.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 9, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> ...I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care.  It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.


Then again, the Constitution does say that the government is responsible for "provid[ing] for the common defense" and "promot[ing] the general welfare." I've already shown how a certain basic level of healthcare applies to the former.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
> ...



Oh, sorry, scuse me all to hell.

_*We the People of the United States*, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] 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._


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...


Times may change, but the principles of de jure government limiting itself to protecting the citizenry against aggression and fraud remain the same. Becoming the aggressor is completely counter to adherence to that principle.

As for what Little Lord  Obammy promised, if it's not in Article II of the Constitution he swore an oath to preserve and protect, then he's promising that which exceeds the scope of his lawful authority.

And don't _*even*_ give  me any of that idiotic "living Constitution" bullshit. "Living rules" are in fact no rules at all....Talk about anarchy.

But, again, as long as those usurpations and exceeding of proper authority meet with your approval, it's all good.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > ...I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care.  It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.
> ...



I'm sure if the framers had any idea that by the 21st Century, "we the people" would be plagued with a host of new diseases, treatments that extend our lifespans way beyond theirs, that we would be maiming ourselves on superhighways and a myriad of other unforeseen events that need medical treatment, they would have been more specific as to the meaning of "general welfare." They got specific over "common defense" because we had just fought for our independence and they were determined we should be well armed from then on against invading forces. I don't think the framers believed that the family unit would dissipate to the point where a person's "general welfare" wasn't basically taken care of by family and community.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > ...I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care.  It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.
> ...



As you so adeptly pointed out it is responsible for providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.

Promoting is not the same as providing.   yes the govt can advocate for universal health care but they are not allowed to provide for it as they are for the common defence.   At least not in the language you quoted.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


Horseshit.

Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision (Review)


----------



## Paulie (Jul 9, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!



Spoken like a true liberal.  

Un fucking real.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 9, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!
> ...




I care a lot about the government taking and using powers they were not granted and even restricted from in/by the constitution.


I suppose Coloradomtnman is totally cool with the Patriot Act too


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Horseshit? Do you channel Madison and Jefferson? How do you _KNOW_ what they would believe TODAY? Which is what I'm talking about. They certainly weren't stupid, and if the world in the 1700's looked like it does today, do you seriously believe The Constitution wouldn't have had better defined conditions?


----------



## Soaring (Jul 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


No, the framers of our constitution left enough room open for future generations to add to and take away from the constitution with admendments and such, but the basic constitution is written so that the country would not be taken over by over zealous and greedy politicians.  Obama and our current democratic politicians are quickly reaching that limit.  I look to see the SCOTUS interfering before too long in how Obama is proposing all these money spending schemes.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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


I don't have to channel Madison, I can read Federalist &#8470; 41, which are his exact thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 9, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> Please don't try to confuse us with facts.  Also don't cite the Constitution.  That document isn't widely followed by our leaders anymore.



we have leaders?.....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.



And hey!  We already have public health departments whose job is to handle specific occurrences like that.  It hardly justifies changing the entire healthcare system and providing taxpayer money to cover every single person for every single aspect of medical care.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 9, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!



Well, that just says it all about you, doesn't it?  "Fuck the law, I think THIS is good, so everyone else can just shove THEIR rights up their asses and shut up!"


----------



## DamnYankee (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.



That would be a public health issue, not a "health care" issue.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.
> ...


Neither of which I advocated, by the way. Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## caela (Jul 9, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't try to confuse us with facts.  Also don't cite the Constitution.  That document isn't widely followed by our leaders anymore.
> ...



No. What we have are parasites too damned busy trying to push their own version of a social agenda (no matter the side of the isle) and get re-elected, to bother doing their damned jobs. These people have forgotten that they are supposed to work for US...and worse, so have we to a large degree.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


Perhaps, although a person's "general welfare" (or "general well-being" in today's language) has always included access to medical services, then as now. Of course, the pioneers were voluntarily sacrificing this part of their well-being by settling so far away from the nearest doctor...


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.
> ...


Perzactly.

De jure government's proper role is to protect the general populace from aggression, whether that be from a burglar or an aggressive pathogen.

_*That's *_what "general welfare" is all about.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jul 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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



There is a mechanism for amending the Constitution, which has been used on a few occasions -- to keep up with TODAY. 

Now, I'm not taking a position against health care access for all our citizens, but I am taking the position that there is no Consitutional provision for it, nor is there a viable plan to provide such access.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 9, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.
> ...



And that would be a distinction without a difference.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...




There is a very big difference. PUBLIC health -- communicable disease, epidemics, food safety, and a host of other specialized areas, impact the WHOLE.  Health care, as is being debated, impacts individuals and their families only -- their heart disease risk factors, their immunization status, their fertility and childbirth concerns. None of their health issues have an impact on society as a whole.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > That's why we have the CDC and  health clinics.
> ...



We also give poor people food stamps, in essence buying them food.  Does that mean we should start providing groceries for everyone via taxpayer money?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> The Constitution also doesn't grant corporations the same status as individual citizens. The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.



For good reason, that's a state issue. The Constitution only gives the federal government its power. Not the states.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 9, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...



I believe the existence of federal laws without a basis in the Constitution proves the illegitimacy of those laws, not what a good idea it is to pass more like them.



Coloradomtnman said:


> I don't see what that has to do with honest, integrity, or adherence to principle or character?  Obama said he would reform health care, and he's trying to do it.  I would say the program that the Whitehouse and the Dems are pushing is more dishonest, lacks integrity and adherence to principle and character because it doesn't really ensure healthcare universally.  But, they are politicians so what can you expect?!
> 
> I think this has to do more with the conflicting philosophies of a static, unchanging Constitution and a living Constitution subject to interpretation as times change.



That's about it.  Do we want a steady playing field with rules everyone can know and plan for ahead of time, or do we want to make them up as we go along, leaving everyone with no consistency and no rights, just a bunch of handouts (at least until the government runs out of money because no one's bothering to earn any to be taxed, that is)?

This is the federal government we're talking about, not a game of Calvinball.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 9, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> ...


I didn't realize the terms of the health care debate were defined so narrowly. That aside, however, how can you contain a communicable disease without providing some type of health care to those who have it? (I'm presuming you don't want to kill them.  )


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> This is the federal government we're talking about, not a game of Calvinball.



LMFAO!! 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cecilie1200 again


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


I think you already know that I never said anything remotely like this, either in a grocery context or a health care one.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > We also give poor people food stamps, in essence buying them food.  Does that mean we should start providing groceries for everyone via taxpayer money?
> ...


It's called follwing the same flawed premise to its natural conclusion.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 9, 2009)

How is it in my general welfare to pay for other peoples health problems? Why should I work to have to bend over for someone to take what Ive created just because someone in Washington says so?

No one has a right to someone elses labor. Im not your slave. You're not mine.


----------



## Dante (Jul 9, 2009)

CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
			
		

> Constitution doesnât mention health care - Las Vegas Sun



The Constitution does not mention many things we take for granted. 

so dear stupid fuk---a history lesson:

*Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.* -wikipedia


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

DevNell said:


> CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the stupidest and most out of context interpretation of the 9th Amendment I've ever seen.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 9, 2009)

> Who cares if its not in the Constitution?! Are you okay with families going bankrupt, with people (this one's for you BBD and children dying despite paying for health insurance because the insurance company drops their coverage due to a pre-existing condition of because the it eats into the multi-billion dollar insurance companies' profits? Where's the humanity, the compassion in allowing that to happen? Why is it all about money with you conservatives? WWJD?



The United States government does not exist to take care of people from the womb to the tomb.  What ever happened to personal responsibility?  I think one of the biggest problems that this country has these days is everybody has their hand out wanting a slice of the pie when they did nothing to help bake it.  We have fostered this "welfare state of mind" by all the government giveaway programs and politicians who promise the moon in order to get elected. WWJD?  What does that have to do with the US Constitution, and besides, you don't believe in religion anyway?  Free medical care, health insurance, a house, and all the other stuff such as a free college education are not something that the Constitution states is a "right".  Politicians would do well to follow the Constitution instead of trying every way they can come up with to circumvent it.  They swore an oath to uphold it or doesn't that oath mean anything?


----------



## DamnYankee (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...




You do understand the concept of "communicable" don't you?

What is a Communicable Disease?

Treatment of the infected is but one small piece in the process required to protect the health of the ENTIRE public. The protection of the public is Constitutional and is funded -- but not nearly enough. Don't hear much bitchin' about that though.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 9, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> ...


In other words, we do have to provide treatment. Thank you; that was my only point.


----------



## Dante (Jul 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
> ...



really?  

*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.* 

look at a piece of text from the findlaw site (one of my favs) 





> while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well



so again you stupid fuk: "The Constitution does not mention many things we take for granted. "


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


That means that the people have the rights as a matter of course, not that it's Big Daddy Big Gubbament's job is to dole out said rights.



DevNell said:


> so again you stupid fuk: "The Constitution does not mention many things we take for granted. "


Where, stupider fuck, is the enumerated power of congress or the executive to foist any of the things that "we take for granted" upon us??

That they're "taken for granted", in and of itself, is irrelevant.


----------



## Dante (Jul 9, 2009)

oh, now we are being foisted on by the big bad guvment? sorry dude, but the government acts in our name. It's a democratic republic we live in. Don't like it? Try and get others to agree with you for some changes.

and lottsa luck you stupid little fuk face.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

It acts in our name to protect us from aggression and fraud, not _*to be*_ the aggressor and fraud.

And fuck you, asshole.


----------



## Dante (Jul 9, 2009)

you need a reality check


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

You need an IQ greater than your shoe size.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 9, 2009)

Dude - You can't do a battle of wits with a guy that has no ammo!!!  Same way with stupid.  You can't fix stupid.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jul 9, 2009)

]





Centrism'sVoice said:


> I'd say that, if someone has a very communicable condition and can't afford treatment, giving them enough care to stop an epidemic is a defense expenditure.





ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> That would be a public health issue, not a "health care" issue.





Centrism'sVoice said:


> And that would be a distinction without a difference.






ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> There is a very big difference. PUBLIC health -- communicable disease, epidemics, food safety, and a host of other specialized areas, impact the WHOLE.  Health care, as is being debated, impacts individuals and their families only -- their heart disease risk factors, their immunization status, their fertility and childbirth concerns. None of their health issues have an impact on society as a whole.





Centrism'sVoice said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Not exactly!  
Did not say we didn't. What I did say was that we are under no obligation to treat EVERYONE because not all treatment falls under the auspices of PUBLIC health.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



There's still a huge difference between having the CDCP come in and handle an epidemic of something, and the government providing everyday medical care for everyone in the country.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 9, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Actually, you did.  You brought up a one-time, specific crisis scenario in a conversation concerning the idea of the government providing routine, everyday healthcare for every person in the country.  So yes, that is VERY comparable to saying that because we provide assistance with food to people too poor to buy it all themselves, that means we should just go whole hog and buy groceries for everyone.  It's also comparable to abortion defenders who want to pretend that the debate is only about women who are raped or about to die:  hiding the whole, monstrous plan behind the skirts of the "hard cases".

We already take care of crisis epidemics that threaten the public health.  They have no place in a debate about whether or not to socialize medicine for everyone.


----------



## jillian (Jul 9, 2009)

CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
			
		

> Constitution doesnât mention health care - Las Vegas Sun





> 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



Perhaps you want to set forth the caselaw you rely on to state that Congress cannot rely on the general welfare clause in regard to health care?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's called common sense, which is dying in America.  And you, Jillian, would be one of the bystanders who can't even identify the victim.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 9, 2009)

Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.

For those of you for whom English is your first language, I give you Federalist &#8470; 41 to debunk this truly asinine assertion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2009)

CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
			
		

> Constitution doesnât mention health care - Las Vegas Sun
> 
> I have asked my liberal friends, If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people? They usually answer, Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.
> 
> ...



Constitution does not mention the CDC, NASA, or many other institutions that we have created for our benefit. 
...................................................................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
..........................................................

*Seems to me that The Constitution has Health Care System covered in just those four word in red.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2009)

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS
The Federalist #41

I see nothing in this paper that says that we cannot, for our general welfare, create a National Health System. Or a Health System on the Canadian example that is based on individual states.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

If you can't see that, then you have _*serious *_trouble reading for comprehension.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

"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, the "father of the Constitution"

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

~James Madison


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 10, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution also doesn't grant corporations the same status as individual citizens. The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.
> ...



IMO the constition only limits the powers of the federal government and does not grant any specific power to it.  I know its semantics but I had to get that out there.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Call me quirky, but it seems to me that "Does the Constitution allow the government to provide health care?" and "Should the US have socialized medicine?" are two very different questions. 

(With two very different answers, no less.)


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.
> 
> For those of you for whom English is your first language, I give you Federalist &#8470; 41 to debunk this truly asinine assertion.



Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?


get a grip you girlyman/boy


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> Dude - You can't do a battle of wits with a guy that has no ammo!!!  Same way with stupid.  You can't fix stupid.



ammo? gusy like fuk-face-dude are shooting blanks.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Which would mean that it has any power not so limited, correct?

So the correct question would be "where in the Constitution does it say the feds CANNOT create socialized healthare" in your view?


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
> ...



Can you provide a cite for that?  

Ah, good ol common sense.  The standby for idiots who believe things, but can't justify their beliefs with any actual evidence.

"Its so true its self evident!"


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> ...




Why?  Because if its an epidemic it might effect rich people?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.
> ...



Exactly.  Why did they give us the amendment process if the Congress and President could simply pass any law that it wants?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



That's not how the Constitution works.  It explicitly states the powers of the federal government, and those are the only powers the federal government has.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.
> ...


Yes...Yes...

Why would _*anyone*_ want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Principal architect? Oh please, another myth?


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


LAws must pass constitutional muster..

sorry


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


Have any links to back up your big mouth??

I do: James Madison: Biography from Answers.com


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



Then we're in agreement.  The problem is that the federal government just ignores the Constitution, and getting into the healthcare business is certainly unconstitutional.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 10, 2009)

DevNell said:


> LAws must pass constitutional muster..
> 
> sorry



Does this pass?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Then we're in agreement.  The problem is that the federal government just ignores the Constitution, and getting into the healthcare business is certainly unconstitutional.



Once upon a time, black people who were slaves were only considered 3/5th of a person by the Constitution. Guess we shouldn't of changed that either huh?

Or hey, once upon a time, Prohibition was in full force because of the Constitution. Guess we shouldn't of changed that either?

Since going against those two things would of been considered unconstitutional.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Then we're in agreement.  The problem is that the federal government just ignores the Constitution, and getting into the healthcare business is certainly unconstitutional.
> ...



The Constitution was amended in both instances to change those situations.  Are they going to amend the Constitution to pass this healthcare "reform?"


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Shhh, I know.  I was mostly making fun of Dude and pointing out the natural result of the post he thanked


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I'm not sure.  Why would you?  Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



How is it certainly unconstitutional?  We can give it the power under the commerce clause, easily.  Or hell, even the general welfare clause people were discussing before.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Yes...Yes...
> ...


When said "interpretations" stand in direct opposition to those elaborations of the architect, yes.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



If the past 200 years of constitutional interpretation has gone against the original intent of the Constitution it is meaningless, and it is in the works of the founders, such as the Federalist Papers, that we find more information about what the founders originally intended the Constitution to mean.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

If the Constitution were so unequivocal, there would be no need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Constitution was amended in both instances to change those situations.  Are they going to amend the Constitution to pass this healthcare "reform?"



Well it was felt at the time that both those things were wrong to have in the Constitution. They don't need to amend the Constitution to pass healthcare reform.

What I don't get is the fact we are the ONLY country that is a wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. (Maybe Turkey too)

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

Total Health Expenditures as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2000-2005 - Country Rankings

Lets see, countries with Universal Health Care in some form that beat us:

Australia, Canada, Finland, Israel, UK, (CUBA almost has us beat), Chile, SINGAPORE, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, France, Italy, Norway, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Austria, and Malta.

Gee, not a short list by any means huh? 25 countries I found in a few minutes of research and a couple others who are nearly beating us.

This is an interesting tidbit: http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

Back in 1997 (12 years ago I know but I'll explain why I'm posting this.) We're only three away from IRAQ.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



The commerce clause meant that the federal government had the power to make trade regular between the states, meaning that the federal government could stop the states from erecting trade barriers.  Healthcare "reform" does not fall under the commerce clause at all.  The general welfare clause, as has already been shown in this thread, did not give any powers to the federal government.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution was amended in both instances to change those situations.  Are they going to amend the Constitution to pass this healthcare "reform?"
> ...


What does playing a global game of "keep up with the Joneses" have to do with the Constitutional validity of a fascistic takeover of the medical care industry??


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> If the Constitution were so unequivocal, there would be no need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.



You will note, I hope, that the Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The general welfare clause, as has already been shown in this thread, did not give any powers to the federal government.


Besides that, the general welfare clause is an introductory concept to the specific powers which are subsequently listed.

Anyone with even a junior high school level of English comprehension should be able to figure that out.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > If the Constitution were so unequivocal, there would be no need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.
> ...


Looks like history is as poorly taught as reading comprehension in tha gubament schools!!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution was amended in both instances to change those situations.  Are they going to amend the Constitution to pass this healthcare "reform?"
> ...



Clearly people felt those two things were wrong to have in the Constitution, that's why they amended it.  Of course the Constitution has to be amended to allow the government to get in the healthcare business considering the Constitution does not currently give them the power to do so.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



The Constitution was signed and ratified by more than the "architect" and they had a variety of different thoughts on what it meant.  Why do you think its vague?  Its the same reason US bills are vague, and the same reason treaties are often vague.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Sorry, but this is nonsense.  The founders wrote a vague document so that people could interpret it in different ways.  If they wanted to spell out something in crystal clear detail, they could have done so.  They knew how to write.  Their opinions as expressed in documents other than the Constitution are irrelevant.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


Then why have a constitution at all??


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



The point of the Federalist Papers was to get New York to ratify the document.  The ones who were questioning the Constitution were those who had to be convinced that the Constitution did indeed limit the power of the federal government.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



No, actually it says "regulate" trade.  Not make trade regular.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Vague is different than nonexistant.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



No, they most certainly are not irrelevant.  They made their intentions clear in these documents.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


Total bullshit.

The entire purpose of the Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist Papers, and BoR were to make clear that the vagaries of the Constitution weren't meant as a blank check for the feds to "interpret" their way into absolute rule.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Yes, regulate meant to make regular at the time.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Well actually I misspoke before.  Its quite clear that the Constitution gives some powers to the federal government, and limits overs.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > If the Constitution were so unequivocal, there would be no need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.
> ...



And, you know, it says it in the Constitution.



> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 10, 2009)

The constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either, does that mean it does provide for it?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> The constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either, does that mean it does provide for it?


It's overtly implied in the 4th Amendment.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Yes, they are irrelevant.  As I said, if they wanted to make their intentions clear *they could have put them in the Constitution*.  They didn't.  They left them purposefully vague.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> The constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either, does that mean it does provide for it?



9th amendment.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Not quite.  Thats what the Bill of Rights was for, not the other documents.  And if they wanted clear, specific delineations of what the fed could do, why didn't they specify them?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



They did put them in the Constitution, and when people began trying to twist what they put in there they saw fit to clarify their original intentions through the Federalist Papers and other writings.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


They did specify them in Article 1, Section 8.

The BoR didn't "give" anyone any rights at all...It listed the rights that the framers considered to be inherent to everyone.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Really?

So where in the Constitution does it say government can infringe upon speech?

And if it doesn't give the government the right to do that, than why a need for a first amendment?

Or was it, perhaps, that they recognized that it was vague, but wanted some rights to be absolute despite the vaguaries of the constitution?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Well if you must question the legitimacy of the Federalist Papers then perhaps the 10th Amendment will clarify the issue.

"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."

This means that since Healthcare is not delegated to the federal government then the federal government may not get into the business of Healthcare.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



That was precisely the argument of the Federalists.  They said a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution already protected those rights by not giving the government the power to suppress them.  However, the Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights explicitly guaranteeing certain inherent rights was promised to them.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



No, it didn't.  It had nothing to do with inherent rights, it had to do with rights that the federal government couldn't infringe upon.  You have no right to speak, you just have a right to not have the government keep you from speaking.

And where does it say that Congress shall have these powers, and no other powers?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



The 10th Amendment.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Again, its a vague document.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Seems the Anti-Federalists knew the document a bit better than the Federalists did.  Its a vague document, there is no arguing that.


----------



## Nik (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



There's nothing vague about the 10th Amendment.  It says that the states and the people reserve all the powers that they have not ceded to the federal government through the Constitution.  The states nor the people gave the federal government the power to create a universal healthcare policy in the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



The Anti-Federalists had a healthy and well-founded distrust of government and didn't want the government to use the excuse of a "vague document" to be able to suppress the freedoms of the people.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> "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, the "father of the Constitution"


The operating phrase here being "whatever in their discretion." No doubt a lot of ex post facto laws would promote the General Welfare, but the Constitution forbids them. 


> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson


You realize, I hope, that this quote is meaningless without any context. 

Article 1, Section 8 is very explicit about Congress' duty to provide for the general welfare, yet it does not enumerate a single way in which Congress must, or even should, do so.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Article 1, Section 8 is very explicit about Congress' duty to provide for the general welfare, yet it does not enumerate a single way in which Congress must, or even should, do so.


I've been to a world's fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I've seen posted anywhere..._*counting*_ sillybooboo.



> 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 defense 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;
> 
> ...


They only failed to add: _*"PERIOD!"*_


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 10, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I just re-read this post and am wondering just how you show that a basic level of healthcare becomes the governments responsiblity through the language of the constitution.  

I am open minded so lay it out there for me and maybe I'll accept what you are saying.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I just re-read this post and am wondering just how you show that a basic level of healthcare becomes the governments responsiblity through the language of the constitution.
> 
> I am open minded so lay it out there for me and maybe I'll accept what you are saying.


I can think of several arguments that support this theory, but for simplicity I'll start with one and we'll see on which side things fall when we come to an agreement. 

Let's begin with the tie between healthcare and the economy. In the 18th and early 19th century, when modern medicine as we know it was barely in its infancy, the cost of healthcare was a fairly fixed expense. A farmer might have paid for a doctor's house call with a few chickens, for example, and everything would have been balanced. With the explosion of new drugs, electonic equipment, lab techniques, and on and on, the historical economy of health care has obviously become obsolete. Costs are far too high and continue to climb.

In response, people began to regard insurance as a solution, and perhaps it would be if health insurance were strictly non-profit (but that's a completely different discussion). But the concept of applying a free-market, profit-oriented model to healtcare is, to put it bluntly, insane. Patients can't exactly shop around for the best hospital for the dollar when they have a broken leg to set. 

In response to the need of profit-making insurers - especially the publicly traded companies - to grow their profits every quarter, their premiums get higher and they provide less service (often by dropping clients from their rolls). The economic impact is obvious: consumers have less to spend on the rest of the economy with an increasing proportion of their budgets going to healthcare. Not to mention that (according to a recent Harvard study) about 50% of personal bankruptcies are the result of major medical expenses.

So the question becomes whether the government has a responsibility to bolster the economy - by providing health care or by any other means - through the language of the constitution. To be honest, I'm not enough of a con-law expert to answer this thoroughly, but I believe it's safe to say that the government at least has the right to bolster the economy, given the language of the constitution. Aside from the recent bailout, there have been federal loan programs for small businesses, federal home loan programs, and a variety of other economic incentives over the last 40 years or more, none of which have been deemed unconstitutional.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > I just re-read this post and am wondering just how you show that a basic level of health-care becomes the governments responsibility through the language of the constitution.
> ...



I'm following you at the moment but I'm still not seeing where the constitution makes it the federal government's responsibility.   As a disclaimer I want to tell you I feel the bailouts, federal home loan programs (fanny/Freddy), TARP, the take over of auto industry, etc are all actions by the federal government which the constitution did not give them the authority to do.  

The only economic "incentives" that i feel the govt is allowed to give out are in the form of tax breaks for individuals or corporations.   So the rest to me is an abuse of power by the federal government.

Now if your town or state government wanted to do some of the stuff that the feds have been up to I may be more accepting of it.  As long as the citizens of the state get to vote on the decision.

The federal government has no authority under the constitution, in my opinion, to do anything but protect us from foreign threats militarily and oversee international trade relations.   All things in country, again in my opinion, were intended by the founders of our country to be handled by local governments and at the extreme the state governments.


I know you said your not a constitutional law expert and neither am I so if you have more to say back please do.   I thoroughly enjoy good, decent, and respectable discussions like this.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Well, the majority of Americans believe your interpretation is completely full of shit. We will get a real Health Care System. If not this go round, then the next. What we cannot achieve in one stroke, we shall acheive incrementally.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 10, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > Dude - You can't do a battle of wits with a guy that has no ammo!!!  Same way with stupid.  You can't fix stupid.
> ...



you have shot a few yourself Dev....i would not get to excited....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



What is the percentage of Americans that believe that we would be better off with a single payer Health Care System?

Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer - Healthcare-NOW!

Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer
February 5, 2009 by Healthcare-NOW!   
Filed under Single-Payer News 



A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.

The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, 59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.

Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.

The Doctors' Revolt | The American Prospect

The Doctors' Revolt 

Doctors, the traditional advocates for the medical status quo, are increasingly in favor of major reforms to the U.S. health-care system.  

Roger Bybee | July 1, 2008 | web only  



Doctors have historically been the watchdogs of the U.S. medical system, with the American Medical Association scaring New Dealers into dropping national health coverage from the Social Security Act and then the AMA shredding Harry Truman's reform efforts in the late 1940s. But a new poll and other significant indicators suggest that doctors are turning against the health-insurance firms that increasingly dominate American health care. 

The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals. These plans are typically funded by a mix of general tax revenues and payroll taxes, and essential health-care is administered by nonprofit government agencies rather than private insurers.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

The majority of Americans couldn't tell you how many articles there are in the Constitution, let alone be well versed enough on it, the BoR, and the Federalist/Anti-federalist Papers to have any kind of interpretation on what those writings mean.

And Fabian socialist scumbags like you are counting on that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Article 1, Section 8 is very explicit about Congress' duty to provide for the general welfare, yet it does not enumerate a single way in which Congress must, or even should, do so.
> ...



They failed to add Period, because they were not as unintelligent as you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> The majority of Americans couldn't tell you how many articles there are in the Constitution, let alone be well versed enough on it, the BoR, and the Federalist/Anti-federalist Papers to have any kind of interpretation on what those writings mean.
> 
> And Fabian socialist scumbags like you are counting on that.



Ah, you dingbat wingnuts certainly get excited when someone calls your hand.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 10, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



another myth Dev?.....this says he was....are we shooting blanks?

The original Constitution, as proposed in 1787 in Philadelphia and as ratified by the states, contained very few individual rights guarantees, as the framers were primarily focused on establishing the machinery for an effective federal government.  A proposal by delegate Charles Pinckney to include several rights guarantees (including "liberty of the press" and a ban on quartering soldiers in private homes)  was submitted to the Committee on Detail on August 20, 1787, but the Committee did not adopt any of Pinckney's recommendations.  The matter came up before the Convention on September 12, 1787 and, following a brief debate, proposals to include a Bill or Rights in the Constitution were rejected.  As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder (legislative determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10).  *The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution p*rotected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities.  Delegates also probably feared that a debate over liberty guarantees might prolong or even threaten the fiercely-debated compromises that had been made over the long hot summer of 1787.

In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification.  Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, you dingbat wingnuts certainly get excited when someone calls your hand.


You didn't call jack shit, comrade.

In order for someone to have any interpretation on anything, they have to know what it says in the first place.

If anyone got called on their wingnuttery, it was you.


----------



## caela (Jul 10, 2009)

I haven't read the whole thread and am not going to pretend I have. I have some pretty strong opinions on this subject (most healthcare workers do) but I'm going to leave those aside for the moment as well. What I want to comment on is those people that keep talking about how we are the only _wealthy_, industrialize, nation in the world that doesn't have some form of Nationalized Health Care.

If you think we're a WEALTHY nation then you are clearly not bothering to turn the news on of late. Our debt continues to grow by leaps and bounds (it was already bad when he was elected but Obama and his Congress have worked to make it exponentially worse in short order) and other industrialized nations (read China and India) are already in talks about moving to a reserve currency other than the dollar.

We're still pretending to be a rich nation but the fact is we are beyond broke and simply don't have the money in the cookie jar to pay for another entitlement program.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I'm following you at the moment but I'm still not seeing where the constitution makes it the federal government's responsibility.   As a disclaimer I want to tell you I feel the bailouts, federal home loan programs (fanny/Freddy), TARP, the take over of auto industry, etc are all actions by the federal government which the constitution did not give them the authority to do.
> 
> The only economic "incentives" that i feel the govt is allowed to give out are in the form of tax breaks for individuals or corporations.   So the rest to me is an abuse of power by the federal government.


Okay, now that you've established your opinion, perhaps you could provide something to support it. 

Have there been any constitutional challenges to any of the above programs? Can you cite the cases? Can you explain why you disagree with the final decision of the highest court the case got to? 



> The federal government has no authority under the constitution, in my opinion, to do anything but protect us from foreign threats militarily and oversee international trade relations.   All things in country, again in my opinion, were intended by the founders of our country to be handled by local governments and at the extreme the state governments.


To a large extent, the Articles of Confederation (which predated the Constitution) were meant to ensure this kind of scenario. As it turned out - in today's parlance - they were an "epic fail." The Constitution allowed the federal government to do much more in country while still delegating much of the legal authority to the states.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Doctors have historically been the watchdogs of the U.S. medical system, with the American Medical Association scaring New Dealers into dropping national health coverage from the Social Security Act and then the AMA shredding Harry Truman's reform efforts in the late 1940s. But a new poll and other significant indicators suggest that doctors are turning against the health-insurance firms that increasingly dominate American health care.
> 
> The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals. These plans are typically funded by a mix of general tax revenues and payroll taxes, and essential health-care is administered by nonprofit government agencies rather than private insurers.



Rocks you do realize that the great majority of the people polled in these stupid polls....think that National Health Insurance means they can go to doctor,produce a card,and get any kind of treatment for anything that ails them no matter what it is,no matter how minor or how major,not get rejected for ANYTHING....and its ABSOULUTLY FREE...so yea i guess most would say "yes i want it"
and in Canada if you want to buy your own ins. that might be better than what the govt. has...by Canadian law...you cannot do it....your stuck with the federal shit...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



None of this has anything to do with the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



They added "Period" at a later date.  It's the 10th Amendment.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution also doesn't grant corporations the same status as individual citizens. The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.
> ...



well, yes....and...no.

the mechanisms of incorporation are a status issue. same as age of majority. however, if the mechanisms of incorporation of a particular state impact on interstate commerce (such as a state creating overly onerous requirements for out of state corporations to register to do business in the state), then the commerce clause takes precedence.  By the same token, if such "status" rules are discriminatory or otherwise violate the constitution, then the feds take precedence under the supremacy clause.

it isn't one-size-fits-all... it's case by case and the supreme court isn't a fundie congregation applying a literal interpretation to the bible.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> I don't have to channel Madison, I can read Federalist &#8470; 41, which are his exact thoughts on the matter.



All well and good, but you do know that Madison's opinions have no force of law, right? We have 200 years of caselaw interpreting the Constitution since then which DOES have force of law.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Cite which case law repealed the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8??

Take your time.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to channel Madison, I can read Federalist &#8470; 41, which are his exact thoughts on the matter.
> ...



Yes, but Madison's insight allows us to know what the founders intended when they drafted the Constitution, and tells us whether that 200 years of caselaw has any actual basis in the Constitution.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> They added "Period" at a later date.  It's the 10th Amendment.


Totally wrong. No paragraph in Section 8 beyond the first one is defined as a requirement for providing for the general welfare of the United States. In fact, there are no such defined requirements.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > They added "Period" at a later date.  It's the 10th Amendment.
> ...


The Federalist doctrine of enumerated powers dictates that if the power isn't spelled out, it doesn't exist.

If it's not in Article 1, Section 8, it's beyond the pervue of congress to act.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



irrelevant unless you don't understand constitutional construction.

sorry kevin,we've been this route... play the constitutional "expert" after you've studied some constitution with people who know what they're talking about.

and while you're at it, read this.. .learn something because 200 years of precedent IS the Constitution.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > They added "Period" at a later date.  It's the 10th Amendment.
> ...



I'm not even sure what you're saying here.  The founders listed the powers of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, and it was with these powers that the government was intended to promote the general welfare.  The 10th Amendment made clear that only those powers listed were legitimate powers of the federal government.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Sorry jillian, but if the caselaw goes against the original intent of the Constitution then it has no basis in the Constitution.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



It should be fairly obvious that "providing for the general welfare" can - and usually has - involved many, many other federal goverment actions that were not otherwise explicitly defined in the rest of section 8. That fact does not in any way diminish the powers affirmed as reserved for the states under the 10th amendment.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> The Federalist doctrine of enumerated powers dictates that if the power isn't spelled out, it doesn't exist.
> 
> If it's not in Article 1, Section 8, it's beyond the pervue of congress to act.



That's actually totally and completely incorrect.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

No, I'm afraid this:

FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution

Is the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Absolutely it does.  If the federal government does something not listed as its power then the federal government is usurping the powers of the individual states.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

"General welfare" is an aim, not the mechanism in and of itself.

You don't need anything more than rudimentary English reading comprehension skills to see that.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> No, I'm afraid this:
> 
> FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution
> 
> Is the Constitution.



You're intentionally obtuse, aren't you?

Cause once again, you're a waste of bandwidth...


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Absolutely it does.  If the federal government does something not listed as its power then the federal government is usurping the powers of the individual states.


Has any state ever brought such a challenge to the federal court system? They would have ample opportunity almost any time a bill was signed by the president.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> "General welfare" is an aim, not the mechanism in and of itself.
> 
> You don't need anything more than rudimentary English reading comprehension skills to see that.



really? then why do you think you need to be a constitutional SCHOLAR to interpret the Constitution and even then the SCHOLARS don't agree?

Hint: it's because these are complicated issues and you diminish the document by trying to make it some ridiculous literalist piece of paper.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > "General welfare" is an aim, not the mechanism in and of itself.
> ...


Speaking of purposefully obtuse!!!

Wanna play a little 7-card stud with your "living rules"???


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm afraid this:
> ...



Sure.  But I'd consider not realizing that original intent is essential in deciding what is and is not constitutional is obtuse.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Sure.  But I'd consider not realizing that original intent is essential in deciding what is and is not constitutional is obtuse.



Ultimately, original intent can only be guessed at, unless you're a necro-telepath.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely it does.  If the federal government does something not listed as its power then the federal government is usurping the powers of the individual states.
> ...



Back in the days of nullification a state could simply vote to not enforce any laws it felt were unconstitutional.  We need to re-establish the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and nullification.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Sure.  But I'd consider not realizing that original intent is essential in deciding what is and is not constitutional is obtuse.
> ...


Nobody need to guess, if they can read and comprehend the English language.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Sure.  But I'd consider not realizing that original intent is essential in deciding what is and is not constitutional is obtuse.
> ...



Or you can read the Federalist Papers and other writings from the founders.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Speaking of purposefully obtuse!!!
> 
> Wanna play a little 7-card stud with your "living rules"???



why would i waste my time doing that? you have some lessons on brain surgery that you want to give to practicing physicians, too? or do you want to tell the dentists on the board how to pull teeth?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Why? According to your consitutional interpretation, the states could sue the feds and prevail very easily.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Fully Informed Jury Association


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



They're a help, yes, but they obviously don't cover every conceivable constitutional scenario.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Because the federal Supreme Court does not accept my constitutional interpretation or any interpretation that may overly limit the power of the federal government.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



No, but luckily the Constitution was written to be understood by the average layperson, not just lawyers and scholars as jillian seems to believe.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



i tried,too ... he's a waste of breath. refuses to read Marbury v Madison or anything else... and has no understanding of what is law and what isn't...


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



you think much of your uninformed and uneducated OPINION... because that's totally bogus.

it's not ME who thinksthat, little one,it's what the law IS... 

why do you refuse to educate yourself? seriously.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of purposefully obtuse!!!
> ...


Irrelevant red herring and an appeal to authority.

Besides, nobody needs anything more that basic English reading comprehension skills, to understand the Constitution and the publications that elaborated upon the reasons and intended limits behind its provisions..


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



If I didn't think much of my own opinion it probably wouldn't be my opinion, now would it?

That being said, it's not just my opinion.  It is the opinion of government officials, judges, professors, etc...


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> No, but luckily the Constitution was written to be understood by the average layperson, not just lawyers and scholars as jillian seems to believe.



If it were truly so easily understood, law schools wouldn't devote an entire semester to it. Parts of it are even gramatically vague and have multiple possible meanings.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


And you apparently are blissfully unaware that many of the framers found Marbury v. Madison an abomination.

FYI....The "Madison" in that case was James Madison....I think he'd know a whole helluva lot better than you what he intended when setting up the framework for the judiciary.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > No, but luckily the Constitution was written to be understood by the average layperson, not just lawyers and scholars as jillian seems to believe.
> ...



You're correct, but luckily that's not the case in this instance.  We can clearly see from all the evidence gathered that it would be necessary for the Constitution to be amended to allow for the government to enact universal healthcare.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Appeal to authority? You mean my bona fides are irrelevant to my knowledge? I don't think so. If you were an auto mechanic, I'd think your knowledge of cars would be superior to my own. 

If what you were saying were true, then why would I have had to be admitted to practice law for 3 years (after 3 years of study) before I could be admitted to practice before the USSC? And why do you think our greatest constitutional scholars argue among themselves?


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> And you apparently are blissfully unaware that many of the framers found Marbury v. Madison an abomination.
> 
> FYI....The "Madison" in that case was James Madison....I think he'd know a whole helluva lot better than you what he intended when setting up the framework for the judiciary.



who thought it an "abomination", Madison? And? You're blissfully unaware that what the framers thought was irrelevant... because Marbury v. Madison is LAW (check out the definition of that word) and what some politician THOUGHT isn't.

it's a pretty big distinction.

And given that Marbury is the first case studied in con law because it sets the standard for constutional construction and judicial review, I'm pretty familiar with it.

do you know what the holding of the case was and how it got there?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Somewhere, somehow...Both Ayn Rand and George Orwell are looking down and having the biggest laugh!


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



In this thread, you mean? 
Unfortunately I haven't found a connection between any established facts so far and this conclusion. Perhaps you could put together a solid proof using the principles of Aristotelian logic and enlighten me.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > And you apparently are blissfully unaware that many of the framers found Marbury v. Madison an abomination.
> ...



We understand what the law is, but we believe the government is breaking the restraints we placed on it in the Constitution by enacting certain laws.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



We've already shown in this thread that the Federalist Papers, the Constitution itself, and the 10th Amendment make clear that the government does not have the right to enact universal healthcare without an amendment to the Constitution giving them that power.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Somewhere, somehow...Both Ayn Rand and George Orwell are looking down and having the biggest laugh!



why? were they self-professed constitutional scholars, too?

As a societal analyst, Ayn Rand was a great author.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> We've already shown in this thread that the Federalist Papers, the Constitution itself, and the 10th Amendment make clear that the government does not have the right to enact universal healthcare without an amendment to the Constitution giving them that power.



You've said those things, but you haven't proved them. Nor has anyone else so far.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> We've already shown in this thread that the Federalist Papers, the Constitution itself, and the 10th Amendment make clear that the government does not have the right to enact universal healthcare without an amendment to the Constitution giving them that power.



and the caselaw you rely on for that assertion?

oh right... you got nada...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > We've already shown in this thread that the Federalist Papers, the Constitution itself, and the 10th Amendment make clear that the government does not have the right to enact universal healthcare without an amendment to the Constitution giving them that power.
> ...



We've shown that the general welfare clause gives no powers to the federal government and that the government has no powers not explicitly stated in the Constitution.  Since the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to enact universal healthcare we can say that they do not have that power unless the Constitution is amended.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> We understand what the law is, but we believe the government is breaking the restraints we placed on it in the Constitution by enacting certain laws.



your "beliefs" are not constitutional scholarship. if you were before the court, you would be asked to provide them with precedent in support of your assertions.

saying "we believe" isn't that...

and the fact that you think it is disproves your assertion that you "understand what the law is".

do you understand that?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > We've already shown in this thread that the Federalist Papers, the Constitution itself, and the 10th Amendment make clear that the government does not have the right to enact universal healthcare without an amendment to the Constitution giving them that power.
> ...



Caselaw should be based on the Constitution, not vise versa.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > We understand what the law is, but we believe the government is breaking the restraints we placed on it in the Constitution by enacting certain laws.
> ...



My beliefs are based on the Constitution itself, not the caselaw or precedents that violate the Constitution.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



it is. but the constitution isn't some fundie's bible... we have a common law system based on precedent. if the court says it's constitutional, then it's constitutional... even if you disagree with it. personally,i think FISA should have been unconsitutional, but the court didn't think it was... 

so, you wait for a different court that maybe reconsiders like they reconsidered Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v Bd of Ed ... but it's law right now.

tell me, does the constitution say that you have the right to buy ammo?


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



why do you think your "beliefs" are more correct than the scholars who have determined these issues for 200 years? a bit arrogant and self-serving wouldn't you say? kind of like a child who's told there's no such thing as santa claus but still stamps his feet and whines that "there IS a santa claus because I know there is". 

silliness...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



The Constitution doesn't have to tell me my all my rights.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Constitution doesn't have to tell me my all my rights.



no... the COURT does.

and if you want those "rights" enforced, you'd better hope and pray it says you have those rights.

i asked you a question. where *in the constitution *does it say you have the right to buy ammo, you know, since you're all about literalism and all?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Because for 200 years the Constitution has been subverted to give us the leviathan state that passes for our government these days.  That's why I look at what the founders actually said about the document they gave us as opposed to those who ignored the Constitution or twisted its meaning.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



says who? you?


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

come on, kevin, where in the constitution does it say you have the right to buy ammo?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution doesn't have to tell me my all my rights.
> ...



The Constitution only states the powers of the government, it doesn't have to list the rights of the people.  That's why the Federalists didn't think a Bill of Rights was necessary.  I'm sure you already know this, however.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



stop avoiding the question. where in the constitution does it say you have the right to buy ammo?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Is there a record for red herrings and appeals to authority in one thread here??

_*Argumentum ad verecundiam*_ (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so. 

*Red herring*. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



No where jillian, go ahead and make your point.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



the POINT is that for the Court to arrive at the conclusion that you have a right to ammo, it would have to look at the 2nd amendment and see what it intended you to be able to do. it would then have to EXTRAPOLATE that to EFFECTUATE that right, you would have to have the right to ammo.

THAT is constitutional construction... NOT this BS that you "think" the court has been wrong for 200 years.

The arrogance of that is astounding.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Is there a record for red herrings and appeals to authority in one thread here??
> 
> _*Argumentum ad verecundiam*_ (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.
> 
> ...



In other words, you can't respond to any of the points raised.



nice chatting. cya.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Or they could look to the 9th amendment.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> The arrogance of that is astounding.





> 2a. Freudian Projection
> 
> The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.
> 
> ...



Basic Human Psychology 1: Neurosis, Projection and Freudian Projection


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2009)

good that you self-diagnosed. in the meantime, let us know when you have a cogent legal argument to make that doesn't consist of "but i said so".


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

If I didn't know better, I'd swear that I was talking to tha Malignant

You two have so much in common it's frightening.


----------



## Valerie (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> If I didn't know better, I'd swear that I was talking to tha Malignant
> 
> You two have so much in common it's frightening.



You know him well, do ya?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> good that you self-diagnosed. in the meantime, let us know when you have a cogent legal argument to make that doesn't consist of "but i said so".


I would settle for a cogent logical argument!  

As a lawyer you obviously are aware of this, but it's always a red flag when someone says that the law/constitution "clearly" supports one side over the other. I can only hope that one day Kevin will realize that there are legal merits to both positions in any such issue.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > good that you self-diagnosed. in the meantime, let us know when you have a cogent legal argument to make that doesn't consist of "but i said so".
> ...


The cogent logical argument is read for comprehension, and quit pretending that you can "interpret" words to mean the opposite of what those who penned and explained those words meant.

Also. appeals to authority are, by definition, not cogent logical arguments, either.


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Somewhere, somehow...Both Ayn Rand and George Orwell are looking down and having the biggest laugh!



I will buy this argument. Seeing you run in circles like some kind of Objectivist nitwit spouting double speak must be hilarious to those two.


what is it with you and the need to use old dead people as an authority to justify everything you believe in\?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



You state that it is. I think it is not. So, after the beginning of a real Health Care package is passed, we shall see where the Supreme Court stands. I bet that it never even goes to teh Supreme Court.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Well, as we can see from the prior administration a Bill of Rights was absolutely neccessary.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



OK, here is the real arguement. We have 60 Senators and 265 Representatives. If the Supreme Court says what they pass is Constitutional, all of us posters out here in the virtual world will have to live with it until the issue is changed again at the legislative level. And getting used to living without nearly a million Americans a year going bankrupt because of medical bills would be a nice thing.

We are trying a case where a mother and father let their baby daughter die of easily curable infections because doctors were against their religion. I see people like Dude and Kevin as the political stereotypes of that philosophy. Roosevelt tried to get a National Health care plan for the nation's children a hundred years ago, and the same objections were made that are being made today. Time to steamroller right over these dinosaurs just as we did the people that fought civil rights for all citizens of this nation.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > The constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either, does that mean it does provide for it?
> ...



Implied yes! Directly stated NO! Case law was needed to provide for a constitutional right to privacy!

_Griswold v. CT_ and _Roe v. Wade_ established privacy as protected by the constitution!

In _Griswold_ you have the famous Douglas wrote the famous lines that "a right to privacy can be found in the penumbras (shadows) of the bill of rights!" Specifically, 1st (assembly), 3rd amendment (not housing soldiers), 4th (unlawful search and seizure), 5th (Due process clause and Taking clause) and 9th amendment (rights of the people)!

The point is just because the constitution doesn't state it doesn't mean it can't be inferred. Ask any libertarian and he will hold scared right to privacy, but he WILL NOT be able to show you direct wordage in any part of the constitution that states, "We as American citizens have a *RIGHT TO PRIVACY!*"

Therefore even thought the constitution doesn't mention health care there are many parts of the constitution were healthcare can be inferred. 

Example: 
Constitution Preamble:
...provide for the common defense, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty in ourselves and our Posterity...

Section 8 Clause 1 (Powers Granted to Congress):
"The Congress shall have Power to...provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States.

Amendment V:
No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of the law. 

Amendment XIV:
Due Process Clause redux, Privilege and Immunity Clause and Equal Protection Clause.


The point is if your argument is that the state shouldn't provide healthcare (something I am not sure I don't support), because that is what the constitution doesn't directly provide for it, then you are wrong. Get a different argument, because there are many rights that we as Americans cherish that are stated directly in the constitution, such as a right to privacy, but are found in the penumbras of the constitution.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 12, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



If the founding fathers intended to imply a right of privacy beyond what they explicitly wrote in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments, why didn't they explicitly guarantee this greater right of privacy that the SCOTUS claims to have located in the "penumbra"?  Isn't more likely they intended to imply nothing beyond what they explicitly wrote, and the SCOTUS has decided it can manufacture or deny any "right" the Constitution has not explicitly forbidden them to tamper with?


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 12, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I have nothing but respect for the founding fathers they were nothing less then geniuses, however, no one can account for everything. They provided freedom of speech, but never set limits! Do you really thing the founding fathers intended to allow people to yell fire in a crowded building causing panic and ultimately dead people. They allowed for free press, but again with no limits, do you think they allowed from careless and knowingly false defamation? 

Hell, acknowledged right there in _Marbury v. Madison_ it was basically admitted that the founding fathers neglected to give the Federal Courts powers to hear federal questions. The founding fathers were smart, but no one can create something to incorporate everything. Not to mention that at the birth of the nation, the union was very very fragile and politics still played a part - just see the allowing of slavery!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



Can you find for me the passage in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to enact universal healthcare?  Keep in mind that the Constitution explicitly states the powers of the federal government.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



The current administration as well.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 12, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



That is exactly my point, the founding fathers never intended to solve all our issues/problems in the Constitution, so when the SCOTUS pretends to see rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution in the mysterious "penumbra" they are acting in contempt of the spirit and intention of the founding fathers who clearly intended to leave those matters not explicitly decided in the Constitution to the Congress, the states or the amendment process, not to nine political appointees to divine from the entrails of the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 12, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Our rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to exist, the 9th Amendment makes that clear.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 12, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



The issue I was addressing is whether the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS is restricted to matters explicitly stated in the Constitution or other federal laws and treaties, or if they can freely rule on matters not explicitly stated, such as privacy.  The 9th amendment states that the Constitution does not deny those rights not explicitly protected by it, but it does not say Congress or the states lack the authority to limit or deny those rights not explicitly protected by the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 12, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



The federal Congress certainly could not have restricted any rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but once upon a time the states, theoretically, could have.  The U.S. Constitution did not limit the states, other than those restrictions in Article 1, Section 10, up until people began saying that the 14th Amendment made it so that the Constitution does apply to the states.


----------



## Dante (Jul 14, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



watch what you say. rationality has no place with people like K. he reminds me of the dolts who are challenging the legality of the existence of the Federal Reserve Bank and Obama's 'natural' birth.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 14, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 14, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Explain better what you mean, since you proclaim yourself as a constitutional scholar!


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?


Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on  the feds.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2009)

Maybe someone can tell me what I'm missing.  

The 10th ammendment says the powers not delegated and enumerated to the fed are left to the states. 

The powers that ARE delegated to the Fed are in Article 1; Section 8. Provide health care aint there. 
Seems fairly cut and dried.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 14, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Well it's funny how that charge keeps getting laid at my feet considering I have never said that I am a constitutional scholar nor consider myself as such.  I have read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and many other writings of the founding fathers and have come to form my opinion based on those readings.

Now as it pertains to my actual statement, the Constitution must explicitly state the powers of the federal government but doesn't necessarily have to state the powers of the people or of the individual states.  The 9th and 10th Amendments make this clear.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

This clearly says that despite the Constitution enumerating certain rights of the people it does not mean that there are no other rights except for those.

"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." - 10th Amendment

This amendment states that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution, and not prohibited to the states in Article 1, Section 10, are reserved to the individual states or to the people.  That means that the federal government's only legitimate constitutional powers are explicitly stated in the Constitution, and anything else the government does is unconstitutional and a usurpation of power.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?
> ...



This is correct.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Maybe someone can tell me what I'm missing.
> 
> The 10th ammendment says the powers not delegated and enumerated to the fed are left to the states.
> 
> ...


Not to people who conveniently ignore basic English composition, in order to "interpret" the general welfare clause to mean whatever they want it to.


----------



## Dante (Jul 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?
> ...



The Constitution for Kids
*
How it all works*

The Constitution sets up three main branches of government. These are called the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Each one has its own role in how the law is made and used.



> The Constitution consists of a preamble, seven original articles, twenty-seven amendments, and a paragraph certifying its enactment by the constitutional convention.
> 
> 
> Preamble: Statement of purpose
> ...



Imagine that. The founders themselves had thought there was no need to have a bill of rights because things should've been evident. Imgaine you arguing with them if a bill had NOT been added. 

you are officialy a dunce.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 14, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



The Federalists didn't feel a Bill of Rights was necessary because they argued that the federal government would be constrained by what the Constitution actually said, the Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe them and refused ratification unless a Bill of Rights was promised.  Of course, the Anti-Federalists have been vindicated because as we know the Federalists did not limit themselves to what the Constitution actually said when in power.


----------



## chanel (Jul 14, 2009)

Apparently "the general welfare" of the people has been interpreted yo include free healthcare, free and affordable housing (and unaffordable too for those that purchased over priced  McMansions) and of course digital TV convertors. Unfortunately their interpretation trumps liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those of us stuck with the bill.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 14, 2009)

chanel said:


> Apparently "the general welfare" of the people has been interpreted yo include free healthcare, free and affordable housing (and unaffordable too for those that purchased over priced  McMansions) and of course digital TV convertors. Unfortunately their interpretation trumps liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those of us stuck with the bill.



Well, if paying taxes makes you so unhappy, I'm sorry to say that you'll be sad wherever you go.


----------



## jillian (Jul 14, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Federalists didn't feel a Bill of Rights was necessary because they argued that the federal government would be constrained by what the Constitution actually said, the Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe them and refused ratification unless a Bill of Rights was promised.  Of course, the Anti-Federalists have been vindicated because as we know the Federalists did not limit themselves to what the Constitution actually said when in power.



*yawn*

Again, what they gave as their OPINIONS when the constitution was written has no force of law. And, in any event, again, we're not talking about some fundie's version of the bible.

Didn't getting spanked on this subject the other night teach you anything?

But why learn anything that contradicts your pre-determined OPINIONS?


----------



## jillian (Jul 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?
> ...



what limits? the general welfare clause is pretty expansive and was always intended to allow government to grow and operate. and if you'll note, there is a supremacy clause that subjugates state law to conflicting federal law.

If any of what you say were accurate, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.


----------



## del (Jul 14, 2009)

jillian said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



sounds good


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 14, 2009)

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > The Federalists didn't feel a Bill of Rights was necessary because they argued that the federal government would be constrained by what the Constitution actually said, the Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe them and refused ratification unless a Bill of Rights was promised.  Of course, the Anti-Federalists have been vindicated because as we know the Federalists did not limit themselves to what the Constitution actually said when in power.
> ...



The states ratified the Constitution based on their "opinions," so if you change the meaning of the Constitution after the fact then you are committing fraud.  The caselaw you love to cite is supposed to be based on the Constitution, and when it is not based on the Constitution then it is unconstitutional.  Since the founders of the Constitution believed in a strictly limited federal government we can assume that's the correct interpretation.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 14, 2009)

jillian said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



The general welfare clause was not meant to allow the government to grow and operate, as the Federalist Papers tell us.  Also, if that were the case the amendment process would be completely unnecessary.

As to the Supremacy Clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

The federal laws must be "made in Pursuance thereof" the Constitution.  So federal laws are only supreme if they have any basis in the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 14, 2009)

del said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



With a few changes I would certainly agree with this.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2009)

jillian said:


> what limits? the general welfare clause is pretty expansive and was always intended to allow government to grow and operate. and if you'll note, there is a supremacy clause that subjugates state law to conflicting federal law.
> 
> If any of what you say were accurate, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.


If what you say were true we'd need neither, in lieu of mob rule and the judicial oligarchy  just making shit up as they went along.

Oh yeah, that's right....They already do.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 14, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!  Are you okay with families going bankrupt, with people (this one's for you BBD and _children_ dying despite paying for health insurance because the insurance company drops their coverage due to a pre-existing condition of because the it eats into the multi-billion dollar insurance companies' profits?  Where's the humanity, the compassion in allowing that to happen?  Why is it all about money with you conservatives?  WWJD?



Why is it always about MY money with you leftwingers?  Save your appeal to emotion, and I'm not Jesus.

Since you lefties are so generous, you pay double and let the rest of us get our own.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 14, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 14, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > ...I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care.  It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.
> ...



Which means nothing.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 14, 2009)

Gunny said:


> And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.



Except that the federal government CAN reach into YOUR wallet and mine to pay for almost whatever the hell it wants to. And, by the way, the Constitution does in fact say it can do that.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 14, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Lame projecting.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 14, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Which means nothing.


Well *that *was an intelligent, insightful, and superbly reasoned analysis...


----------



## Gunny (Jul 14, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.
> ...



Not for whatever the Hell it wants, it most certainly doesn't.  Try again.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 14, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Which means nothing.
> ...



Of nothing?  I'd say so.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 14, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



You forgot the word "almost." But don't worry; it's a short list.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 15, 2009)

I'm surprised no one in here picked up on my challenge to the government.

Challenge:   United States Govt Officials take care of social security and make it a solvent program instead of the current ponzie scheme it has  become.

If the govt can fix social security so that it is solvent THEN maybe I will support them getting involved in health care....but only after they show by example that they can handle something as simple as a general savings account.


----------



## Dante (Jul 15, 2009)

Gunny said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...




Gunny, you must admit...lame projecting is highly underrated by society. just look around.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > And still doesn't say you can reach into my wallet to pay for someone else's healthcare.
> ...



You need to go get your copy of the Constitution checked. It does not say that.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 15, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.

Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?

Here in case u need a link The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 15, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.
> 
> Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?


Offhand, I can think of two places: Article 1, Section 8, and the 16th amendment. These appear to cover most situations.

(I hope you don't mind my conserving bandwidth by using only those two references.)


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.

The Constitution "lives and breathes" no more than a contract does. You enforce the Constitution in the same way you enforce a contract. You don't change the terms of a contract because they become inconvenient for one party or the other and the same goes for the Constitution. The parties in both cases have the ability to amend what is in the document. If they are no longer satisfied with the contents of the four corners of the agreement, then they should avail themselves of the amendment process.

That said, is health care an item than can be shoe honed somewhere in Article I, Section 8? (or anywhere else). I don't think so. I think it is an impermissible expansion of federal power. (Leaving aside whether it's a good or bad thing to do). Madison was quite clear on how Article I, Section 8 should be read at the bottom of Federalist 41.

I suppose health care can be shoved down our throat by some additional specious construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Since Wicker v. Filburn, limitation on federal power has been meaningless. But, it is important to remember that the character of the government that was set up by the Constitution was federal. That power given to the national government was limited and constrained.

On a philosophical level, when we violate the nature of the compact that created the social contract by unceasingly thwarting the constraints on federal power, we endanger the existence of that social contract. I believe we do so at our peril. But perhaps I think more of the intellect of common people than I should. Maybe they'll stay asleep while they are robbed of their birth-right and subjugated.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.
> ...



Here's where interpretation comes into play. The first thing in Article 1 Section 8 is that the government can collect taxes. But that's kind of where it stops. Doesn't really get into what for. I think you can easily interpret that the framers did not intend for the government to gouge the populace for whatever they want by looking at the rest of the things outlined that government can do. The rest of that list is pretty specific (i.e. establish a Navy) so if the framers had intended to allow government to collect taxes for the purpose of running the countries healthcare I would thing one of the things in there would be 'to provide the nation with health care'.  Anyone think I'm way off base here?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


This argument has already been debunked earlier in the thread. The framers clearly could not have "intended" to allow the government to collect taxes for the pupose of space exploration. It does not follow that NASA is unconstitutional.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.
> ...



What, in Article I, Section 8, do you think gives the government the ability to do "almost anything?"


----------



## jillian (Jul 15, 2009)

del said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Perhaps. But it isn't the system of government under which we live.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?
> ...



That is really a convenient doublt talk. Who makes up the government people! It prevents PEOPLE (along with the government) from infringing on peoples right to speech and press! If an office conducts an unreasonable search and seizure, its a PERSON who is prevented from doing this!


----------



## jillian (Jul 15, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.
> 
> The Constitution "lives and breathes" no more than a contract does. You enforce the Constitution in the same way you enforce a contract. You don't change the terms of a contract because they become inconvenient for one party or the other and the same goes for the Constitution. The parties in both cases have the ability to amend what is in the document. If they are no longer satisfied with the contents of the four corners of the agreement, then they should avail themselves of the amendment process.
> 
> ...



do you still have my response? i did, but then got delete happy and ended up getting rid of the discussion by accident. ;oS


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 15, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> What, in Article I, Section 8, do you think gives the government the ability to do "almost anything?"


And what I actually said was that the government has the _ability to spend its tax revenue_ on "almost anything."


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.
> ...



LOL....yes. Do you want me to post it or send it to you so you can?


----------



## jillian (Jul 15, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.
> 
> Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?
> 
> Here in case u need a link The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



y'all still aren't getting it.. THAT isn't the way one determines what is and isn't constitutional. please tell us what caselaw you assert in support of your position?


----------



## jillian (Jul 15, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



if you don't mind, it would be great if you'd send it to me. thanks so much.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.
> ...



Is this what you are referring to?  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;

If so I agree but you must also understand that under section 8 the taxes must be equal for all income classes making the current system unconstitional.

I've heard theories that ammendment 16 wasn't ratified properly, then again i've heard theories that Bush planned 9/11


----------



## jillian (Jul 15, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.
> 
> The Constitution "lives and breathes" no more than a contract does. You enforce the Constitution in the same way you enforce a contract. You don't change the terms of a contract because they become inconvenient for one party or the other and the same goes for the Constitution. The parties in both cases have the ability to amend what is in the document. If they are no longer satisfied with the contents of the four corners of the agreement, then they should avail themselves of the amendment process.
> 
> ...



you know i have a more expansive view of the federal government because i don't think the thigs that it's doing in regard to societal welfare are impermissible. I do think it impermissible for anyone to abridge my individual rights... and I rely on the feds to kick the states' butts when they do racist, sexist, pro-dogma things. maybe because i'm quite fond of the penumbra eminating from the bill of rights...

as for health coverage, it strikes me that we're the only civilized in the nation that doesn't care for its people; 50% of our bankruptcies result from unanticipated health care expenses (not including what happens to people's consumer credit when they get sick and have to pay med bills). i can't imagine that anyone would have issues with us providing options, particularly if they're cost neutral, as we hope they'll be.

as for federalist 41, i guess i don't think the founders, individually are anything more than politicians with differing opinions... unless the opinions are specifically codified. in fact, i'd point out that as smart as the founders were, they compromised on the issue of slavery and denied women sufferage. so they sure weren't perfect and their every word isn't gospel.

and our 200 years of caselaw doesn't treat them as though they were gospel.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 15, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Is this what you are referring to?  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;
> 
> If so I agree but you must also understand that under section 8 the taxes must be equal for all income classes making the current system unconstitional.



Even if you're correct about that last sentence (which is an entirely separate topic of discussion), I'm glad we agree that Section 8 does not place limits on things that tax revenue can be purchased with.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > What, in Article I, Section 8, do you think gives the government the ability to do "almost anything?"
> ...



By spend, I assume you mean that it has the ability to "do" things with it. Not merely spend it. It is the very crux of the matter what a government, that was limited by its very construction in the legitimate purposes of its function, spends the money on.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> as for federalist 41, i guess i don't think the founders, individually are anything more than politicians with differing opinions... unless the opinions are specifically codified. in fact, i'd point out that as smart as the founders were, they compromised on the issue of slavery and denied women sufferage. so they sure weren't perfect and their every word isn't gospel.


In those two instances, constitutional amendments were passed, rather than using the intellectually disingenuous argument that the general welfare clause is a defacto green light to do what any and every do-gooder wants to do.

There's a great difference.



jillian said:


> and our 200 years of caselaw doesn't treat them as though they were gospel.


Ahhh...The documents that provided the fremework for the caselaw aren't gospel, but the subsequent caselaw is.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.
> ...



I'm a little surprised about the Jewish aspect in supporting the concentration of power. It seems to me that if you give the central government all the power you take away all the safety if the central government turns tyrannical which of course they have to. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. At least with a federal system, the chances are you'd have some sanctuary some place in the country. The federal government is no source of comfort when they have suspended Habius Corpus, conducted mass internments without cause, protected Jim Crow laws and on and on. Their most recent bender has been in failing to respect private property rights. I think that any trust in government is misplaced. I would only trust a government that is set against itself by its internal processes. Hopefully, the Supremes with put a tooth or two back in Federalism by the cases that will work their way through court as the states are pushing back this year.

On the health care issue. I think there are things the federal government could do within its limits that would dramatically change things for the better. I'm unimpressed the "everybody else does it" argument. Everyone else has a board that decides who lives and dies based on a process of rationing care and treatment. Comparing the moral imperatives of covering everyone or proactively denying care to some of the covered, I'm not at all sure who has the upper hand.

I think the government should pull down the false wall that prevents everyone in the country from having access to the same policies. I think there is a role for the government to create a pool of insurance and treat it as a regulated utility. If insurers which to provide health insurance, they may participate in the pool. The government will ensure a profit of some kind. The insurance companies cannot deny anyone coverage. All policies will be high deductible policies. Poor people will have their deductible covered. Everyone will have an HSA that allows them to save, tax deferred, monies for medical care usage. Doctors must make the cost of every treatment transparent so that consumers can shop for their medical care. Lastly, the policy is paid by taxes.

Concerning the founders, I know what you are saying, however, I'll bet that if we start talking about the separation of church and state, you'll place an awful lot of emphasis in a private letter that Jefferson wrote to some guy saying that their should be a "wall of separation between church and state." Again though, I think the more powerful argument concerns the reading of and the nature of a written Constitution. It is written for a reason. It is not just legislation. This document was approved by the people as an agreement to by them to be governed in a specific manner. This is binding on future generations. There is an amendment process and indeed the Constitution has been amended in significant ways over the years. If the Constitution truly doesn't fit way the governed wish to currently be governed, the solution is amendment or dissolution of the Constitution, not ignoring it.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



In the words of Madison:    Federalist 41



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



He goes on:



> 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 any 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.*



So, while some can say that the founders words are not gospel, I think we have a pretty clear and straight forward textual construction issue. Madison is quite clear that if you read the Article I, Section 8 that way that some of you want to, what he thinks of you and your ability to read. For my part, I'll stick with the guy who wrote the damned thing. I'm pretty sure he knew was he was trying to say.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Is this what you are referring to?  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;
> ...



Its kinda hard to misinterpret what it says there, unless looking through blue or red shaded glasses .

General welfare is a very general term open to much interpretation IMO.   Now if we go back to another place in the constiution....deja-vu....we had this discussion already


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



So which are you saying Madison is?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 15, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> So, while some can say that the founders words are not gospel, I think we have a pretty clear and straight forward textual construction issue. Madison is quite clear that if you read the Article I, Section 8 that way that some of you want to, what he thinks of you and your ability to read. For my part, I'll stick with the guy who wrote the damned thing. I'm pretty sure he knew was he was trying to say.


_*HUBBA-HUBBA!!*_ 

I see you got pretty high marks on the reading comprehension part of your SATs!!


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 15, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Its kinda hard to misinterpret what it says there, unless looking through blue or red shaded glasses .


Actually, extremists of every stripe misinterpret it all the time. In practice, what the government spends money on is limited only by what the latest Court rulings says it can't.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 15, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> By spend, I assume you mean that it has the ability to "do" things with it. Not merely spend it. It is the very crux of the matter what a government, that was limited by its very construction in the legitimate purposes of its function, spends the money on.


Odd assumption, that. Apart from saving it and paying off debts with it, there is very little else that an organization can do with money other than spend it.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Its kinda hard to misinterpret what it says there, unless looking through blue or red shaded glasses .
> ...



That is a different question altogether.

That question centers around what to do when the judiciary has run amok and begun to produce nonsensical decisions such as Wicker v. Filburn and United States v. Darby Lumber Co. that set the entire Constitution on its ear for the rest of time or until they are overturned.

We still haven't answered that question, but IMHO we better and soon.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > By spend, I assume you mean that it has the ability to "do" things with it. Not merely spend it. It is the very crux of the matter what a government, that was limited by its very construction in the legitimate purposes of its function, spends the money on.
> ...



Did you read past the first sentence. You'll find that my post makes a lot more sense when you read the whole thing. Let me know if you need me to explain it to you. Based on your apparent reading skills from what you think Art. I Sec. 8 says, you may need a lot of help.

(See Madison's comments)


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 15, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Did you read past the first sentence. You'll find that my post makes a lot more sense when you read the whole thing. Let me know if you need me to explain it to you. Based on your apparent reading skills from what you think Art. I Sec. 8 says, you may need a lot of help.
> 
> (See Madison's comments)



Madison's comments do not and have never had the force of law, so based on your apparent argumentation skills, I'm overjoyed to have other options for legal representation.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 15, 2009)

Or, you know, maybe we could use some common sense here.  If the Framers had intended the so-called "general welfare clause" to mean ". . . or, you know, do whatever you feel like with the money, it's all good", why did they go to so much trouble and effort to delineate all those specific powers of Congress for several paragraphs beforehand?  Why not just say, "Congress shall have the power to collect taxes to spend on whatever seems like a good idea to them" and save the sheepskin and ink?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 15, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Or, you know, maybe we could use some common sense here.  If the Framers had intended the so-called "general welfare clause" to mean ". . . or, you know, do whatever you feel like with the money, it's all good", why did they go to so much trouble and effort to delineate all those specific powers of Congress for several paragraphs beforehand?  Why not just say, "Congress shall have the power to collect taxes to spend on whatever seems like a good idea to them" and save the sheepskin and ink?



First, common sense and the law often have no relationship to each other. Sad but true.

Second, someone in Philadelphia probably said, "we'd better explicitly mention a Navy, so that some crackpot won't say that it's unconstitutional to organize one."


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Then what stops the fed from collecting as much as they want for whatever they want? Surely you don't believe the framers overlooked that minor detail given the reasons many fled from Europe.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Or, you know, maybe we could use some common sense here.  If the Framers had intended the so-called "general welfare clause" to mean ". . . or, you know, do whatever you feel like with the money, it's all good", why did they go to so much trouble and effort to delineate all those specific powers of Congress for several paragraphs beforehand?  Why not just say, "Congress shall have the power to collect taxes to spend on whatever seems like a good idea to them" and save the sheepskin and ink?
> ...



that is not much of a response. Perhaps you could actually answer the question. See above.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> you know i have a more expansive view of the federal government because i don't think the thigs that it's doing in regard to societal welfare are impermissible. I do think it impermissible for anyone to abridge my individual rights... and I rely on the feds to kick the states' butts when they do racist, sexist, pro-dogma things. maybe because i'm quite fond of the penumbra eminating from the bill of rights...



This all too basic Jillian. The framers weren't retarded, they knew their history and where they came from. Everything is great when one centralized power is doing the things you like. But who is going to stop them should they become more tyranical? if things were the way you want them there would be no defense against that. 



jillian said:


> as for health coverage, it strikes me that we're the only civilized in the nation that doesn't care for its people; 50% of our bankruptcies result from unanticipated health care expenses (not including what happens to people's consumer credit when they get sick and have to pay med bills). i can't imagine that anyone would have issues with us providing options, particularly if they're cost neutral, as we hope they'll be.



Considering the tax rates in many other modernized countries and the much more colectivist nature of most what _should_ strike you is a how low a standard every other country sets for its citizens. 



jillian said:


> as for federalist 41, i guess i don't think the founders, individually are anything more than politicians with differing opinions... unless the opinions are specifically codified. in fact, i'd point out that as smart as the founders were, they compromised on the issue of slavery and denied women sufferage. so they sure weren't perfect and their every word isn't gospel.



In some cases yes, but broadly the point was to keep too much power from being consildated in anyone place lest it become tyranical and unable to be overthrown.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



I think you hit on the simplist way to explain it. Yes the government can collect taxes, but if what they're planning on spending it on isn't somewhere else in section 8 then they really can't be collecting taxes for it. Maybe the framers tried to make this simpler than we think and anyone trying to make it more complex is thinking too hard or trying to pull one over.

and hey thanks for post 272. Madison would be proud of me that I figured that out all on my own.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I wouldn't worry about it.  I have that lackwit on ignore, anyway, so it's not like I was expecting a response from the likes of him.

But since you quoted his ignorant post so I could see it, let me say that that was EXACTLY my point.  They explicitly mentioned the things they did because they explicitly wanted Congress to do THOSE things, not whatever it damned well pleased and thought it could jam under the heading of "general welfare".  The sentence that mentions "general welfare" isn't intended to be an enumeration of something Congress has the power to do; it's intended to be an explanation of the purpose of those powers that ARE enumerated.  The Framers were saying, "We are giving Congress the power to levy taxes for all this stuff we just listed because we believe them to be good for the general welfare of the nation as a whole."


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Then what stops the fed from collecting as much as they want for whatever they want? Surely you don't believe the framers overlooked that minor detail given the reasons many fled from Europe.


There are many things the government is explicitly not allowed to do, and of course the fed cannot collect anything for those purposes. Detail addressed.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Then what stops the fed from collecting as much as they want for whatever they want? Surely you don't believe the framers overlooked that minor detail given the reasons many fled from Europe.
> ...



That would be a misinterpretation of the constitution according to the 10th amendment.  Again the framers weren't dumb, which you do think would take more time and makes the least sense; trying to guess and read into the future all of the things government can't do or list the things it can do and then stipulate the rest via the 10th amendment?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 15, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> *The sentence that mentions "general welfare" isn't intended to be an enumeration of something Congress has the power to do; it's intended to be an explanation of the purpose of those powers that ARE enumerated.*  The Framers were saying, "We are giving Congress the power to levy taxes for all this stuff we just listed because we believe them to be good for the general welfare of the nation as a whole."


Someone else who can bother themselves to read for comprehension...A rarer trait than I had thought.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



And provide a mechanism by which later generations can change the Constitution to suit any unforeseen circumstances.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > you know i have a more expansive view of the federal government because i don't think the thigs that it's doing in regard to societal welfare are impermissible. I do think it impermissible for anyone to abridge my individual rights... and I rely on the feds to kick the states' butts when they do racist, sexist, pro-dogma things. maybe because i'm quite fond of the penumbra eminating from the bill of rights...
> ...



Low standard? You do realize that many of these countries citizens enjoy a standard of living higher than ours, don't you? And that even little Costa Rica, with one tenth the per capita income we enjoy, has a health care system that has given it's citizens the fourth longest life span in the world? Well ahead of us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > *The sentence that mentions "general welfare" isn't intended to be an enumeration of something Congress has the power to do; it's intended to be an explanation of the purpose of those powers that ARE enumerated.*  The Framers were saying, "We are giving Congress the power to levy taxes for all this stuff we just listed because we believe them to be good for the general welfare of the nation as a whole."
> ...



Really? Well, Social Security is one of those things you regard as Unconstitutional, but we have it. So someone with a bit more power and comprehension than you is making the decisions. And that is a very good thing.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 16, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



SINCE you brought up social security.....just how does the same government who cant even make a simple savings program like social security solvent think they can handle a health care plan that they themselves set up like this






if thats too small to read on here for you here is a link to the pdf


----------



## Barb (Jul 16, 2009)

U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> That would be a misinterpretation of the constitution according to the 10th amendment.


Explain how you arrive at this conclusion.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



As far as I can tell, nobody in this thread has claimed that the above is a wonderful panacea of a plan. Only that it isn't unconstitutional.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You're not serious? You believe it is a countries health care system that is responsible for it's citizen's life expectancy?

I guess I'm not surprised. You are a flaming lib after all, who apparently beleives the individual has nothing to do with their outcomes.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That would be a misinterpretation of the constitution according to the 10th amendment.
> ...



I think I already said that. Does it make for sense for the framers to write an endless list of things the fed can't do or tell the people (via the 10th) That if something is not in the enumerated list (Art. 1, sect. 8) then the fed can't do it. Federalist 41 backs this up (it's in one of the threads). Common sense for another (another thing you don't believe in). Why start a ist with someone general and broad followed by a bunch more much more specific items if you meant for the Fed to have relatively unlimited power in what it can do and tax for?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Did you read past the first sentence. You'll find that my post makes a lot more sense when you read the whole thing. Let me know if you need me to explain it to you. Based on your apparent reading skills from what you think Art. I Sec. 8 says, you may need a lot of help.
> ...



What a meaningless snippet of tripe that is. Madison was explaining to you that if you thing the Article I, Section 8 means what your say it does, you either suffer from some form of illiteracy or your are being intellectually dishonest.

You sir, need to answer the charge made by Mr. Madison, are you illiterate or dishonest?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


First, I never said that I don't BELIEVE in common sense, only that the law often does not take advantage of it. 

Second, the 10th amdendment as written is basically a truism: it doesn't add any meaning to the Constitution that it doesn't already have. That being said, it certainly doesn't supersede the Commerce clause in Section 8. So unless you can show me that the commerce of providing healtcare on a federal level is somehow detrimental to the sovereignty of the sates, your argument doesn't hold water.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Or, you know, maybe we could use some common sense here.  If the Framers had intended the so-called "general welfare clause" to mean ". . . or, you know, do whatever you feel like with the money, it's all good", why did they go to so much trouble and effort to delineate all those specific powers of Congress for several paragraphs beforehand?  Why not just say, "Congress shall have the power to collect taxes to spend on whatever seems like a good idea to them" and save the sheepskin and ink?
> ...



Why, you are just full of mindless diddies aren't you?

Why aren't you familiar with what a semi-colon means in a sentence? Why is this such a mystery to you?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


In the words of Groucho Marx: "What else have you got?" 

Let's be crystal clear about this: Madison's paper is *nothing *other than his own opionion. Nobody is under any obligation to agree with his reasoning, nor is anybody answerable to him.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Why aren't you familiar with what a semi-colon means in a sentence? Why is this such a mystery to you?


I suppose it's never occurred to you that there is more than one way in which to use a semicolon; I suspected as much.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



I thought it was simple too. Some folks just aren't able to grasp it though. I sometimes wonder if the inability is real or contrived.

You're welcome and I'm sure he would!


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Why aren't you familiar with what a semi-colon means in a sentence? Why is this such a mystery to you?
> ...



Another mindless post. Then state which of the MANY ways there are to use a semi-colon that allows you to read the Constitution in the way you are expounding. Maybe you can find it here Strunk and White


----------



## Oddball (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> In the words of Groucho Marx: "What else have you got?"
> 
> Let's be crystal clear about this: Madison's paper is *nothing *other than his own opionion. Nobody is under any obligation to agree with his reasoning, nor is anybody answerable to him.


And we all know how irrelevant the opinions of the author are as to his motivations for and elaborations on his writings.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



I see, so you admit Madison is right and you have no argument to present him with. You just want a different outcome. 

Therefore your answer is to be intellectually dishonest and read it any way you damned well please to get the result you want. Is that about it?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Sadly, after Wicker v. Filburn, and Uunited States v. Darby Lumber Co. destroyed the Constitution, your interpretation of how health care will be Constitutional is probably correct.

Having said that, the SCOTUS was wrong to interpret the Constitution in such a fashion and both Darby and Wicker should be overturned with all due speed. If we don't we're about to board a bullet train for bottom. The 21st Century will be the century of Chinese hegemony throughout the world.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> I see, so you admit Madison is right and you have no argument to present him with. You just want a different outcome.


Even if we were to suppose, just for arguments' sake, that Madison were correct, it still doesn't trump the high court's collective interpretation. The real world of American civics deals with precedents, not private writings.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > I see, so you admit Madison is right and you have no argument to present him with. You just want a different outcome.
> ...



You are such a light-weight disingenuous SOB. Here, let me demonstrate your hypocrisy:

So, I guess I should take it from your statement about the founders and their private writings that you disavow the separation of  church and state, right? After all, this only emanates from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church that contains:



> I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus *building a wall of separation between Church & State*.



It appears no where else. Thus, in your eyes, and in order to remain consistent on the subject, it is utterly meaningless. 

So, Mr. "Centrist" what is your current position?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


Looks like an enumerated list to me. More importantly, this does NOT in any way state or imply that the Congress has no powers other than those enumerated. 
Nor does it explicitly state the opposite, of course, but the last part about "all other powers vested" easlily can be (and has been) construed as an implication.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



The First Amendment is very specific about the state not being involved with the trappings of religion. Try again.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



You are making an argument for an unconstrained central government and nobody thinks that. I think you need to take that line back to the workshop and work on it some more.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Don't need to. By the same token Art. I, Sec. 8 is exceedingly clear except to the intellectually dishonest. It is a general statement of intent followed by specifics that give it voice. Remember _Expressio Unis est Exclusio Alterius_


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



EUEA is also not the law, aside from which, it presumes a clear legislative intent. If the intent is not clear, the courts are free to make their own interpretations.

By the way, how far does it get you with the judges when you accuse the opposing counsel of intellectual dishonesty?


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Simple, the government doesn't have the ability to conduct commerce. It can regulate it according to secition 8, it says nothing about conducting, which again means it can't do that. Now I would not be totally oppossed to government making the insureance industry part of interstate commerce. that way they would have to compete on a national level, which should drive the cost of premiums down.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > In the words of Groucho Marx: "What else have you got?"
> ...



39 delegates from 13 different states signed the Constitution.  How many of them signed Madison's paper?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...


To say this, a guy to be this stupid on purpose!!

Madison was the _*principal author*_ of the Constitution, which those 39 delegates from 13 different states signed, meathead.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



The 10th Amendment is there to tell us how the Constitution works and is only considered a truism to those opposed to a government limited by the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



The Federalists would have agreed with Madison's interpretation and the Anti-Federalists didn't believe that the Constitution by itself would remain as limited as Madison intended.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



And?

They didn't sign his other opinions.  They signed the Constitution.  His other opinions and writings mean jack shit.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



His interpretations were the basis of how people interpreted the Constitution and what he intended the Constitution to mean as its principle author.  Since people ratified the document with that interpretation in mind it is fraud to try and change the interpretation after it was ratified as Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall tried to do.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Were you thinking because they didin't sign into law what basically amounts to essays (something kind of tough to make specific laws out of) they don't agree with them?


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Really?

Your claim is that they all knew what he intended?


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



You don't think they could have incorporated the ideas in those essays into laws?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Yes.  As I said before, the Federalists would have supported Madison's interpretations whereas the Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution gave too much power, even under Madison's limited-government interpretation, to the federal government.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



I never had occasion to. Guess it's a good thing you don't practice here. 

If you can't get clear legislative intent from the writings on the Constitution, you are an idiot. Further, the Federalist Papers are evidence of that intent and have been cited as such by SCOTUS. Since Madison spent 6 paragraphs expounding on what an idiot you must be to read it the way you claim, even the SCOTUS should be able to figure it out.

I don't know why you are bothering to bat this dead horse around when you already cited the way this stupidity is going to be deemed constitutional. It's through the Commerce clause. There isn't anything in the entire world that isn't Interstate commerce after Wicker.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Nothing to see here. Take a legislation class next semester.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Which would be FDR's Supreme Court in 1941. United States v. Darby Lumber Co. that did not respect Supreme Court precedent and overruled Hamer v. Dagenhart.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Which is why the SCOTUS believes the Federalist Papers are worthy of citation, because they usually cite jack shit as authority right?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Which is why the SCOTUS believes the Federalist Papers are worthy of citation, because they usually cite jack shit as authority right?



The Federalist Papers are the equivalent of the Pirate Code of Conduct. "They be more like...guidelines."


----------



## Oddball (Jul 16, 2009)

This Fabian asshole gets stupider with every post!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



But silly, why should his written explanations of what he put in the Constitution, what it meant to him, and why he put it there be considered to be relevant to a discussion of what the Constitution says?  Or, for that matter, the written explanations of what the people signing it thought they were agreeing to?  What possible interest could we have in knowing what the arguments were that convinced the majority of the country to ratify the darned thing, either?  Why would we need to know any of THAT shit, when we can just sit around and guess at their intent?  Pffft.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



At this point it is quit clear that it isn't that the Federalist papers mean 'jack shit'. It's that, that is what you would like them to mean because that is the most convenient for you.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> At this point it is quit clear that it isn't that the Federalist papers mean 'jack shit'. It's that, that is what you would like them to mean because that is the most convenient for you.


And of course nobody on this thread who happens to share your interpretation of the Federalist Papers thinks anything of the sort.


----------



## Dante (Jul 16, 2009)

loser.



Dude said:


> This Fabian asshole gets stupider with every post!



Dude? who calls themselves Dude these days?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

DevNell said:


> loser.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Take no notice of him; he's just obsessed with me. First he pitched a hissy-fit when I put him on ignore, and now he's stalking me to the point of homoeroticism. (Which, BTW, isn't my style at all.)


----------



## Dante (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > loser.
> ...



my sympathies


----------



## Oddball (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > loser.
> ...


I threw no hissy fit about being on your iggy list, you lying phony baloney cockbag.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## editec (Jul 16, 2009)

Consitution doesn't mention bullets either.

So?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 16, 2009)

editec said:


> Consitution doesn't mention bullets either.
> 
> So?


It doesn't mention bullets because the Constitution isn't about doling out rights from on high.....It's about delineating the _*extremely limited*_ areas where the feds may act.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.


If you have any opinion whatsoever, some people will think you're full of shit. Big surprise there...


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.
> ...



Yes they will. The problem with you, as with most liberals, is your inability to directly address challenge to your position. You change the subject, You're make statement that are so ridiculously stupid they almost bare no attention. Hell you have yet to answer one of the original questions as to what limits the federal government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants if the Section 8 is not to be interpreted to mean those are the things and the only things the fed can do.  

When pressed on how we know that is how it was intended to be interpreted and presented with Madison's thoughts on the subject, you basically copped to Nik's response that the federalist papers mean 'jack shit'. Since you can't come up with reason why the constitution shouldn't be interpreted the way the author meant it to be interpreted (and ratified as such) that would leave the option that you just plain disagree with the constitution. That's just fine, because the framers gave us the ability to change it if we don't like it, but if that's the case, man up, grow a fucking pair and say so.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I was just reading a quote from Thomas Jefferson on this subject.  He said:

"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."

But, of course, people like Centrist know more than Jefferson did, I guess.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


"And the trouble with you neocons is that you perpetually lie about what everyone else says." 

Seriously, however, I did in fact answer the question you brought up: several times. Either you missed it (in which case man up, grow a pair, and admit to being wrong) or you're choosing to ignore it, in which there's not much point in continuing this particular back-and-forth. 

So for the umpteenth time now:


> Hell you have yet to answer one of the original questions as to what limits the federal government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants if the Section 8 is not to be interpreted to mean those are the things and the only things the fed can do.


*What limits the government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants is in the things it is expressly forbidden to do (as enumerated in Section 9,* which comes right after Section 8).  The government is cannot tax anyone for the purpose of doing anything in Section 9. 



> When pressed on how we know that is how it was intended to be interpreted and presented with Madison's thoughts on the subject, you basically copped to Nik's response that the federalist papers mean 'jack shit'.


Wrong again. The Federalist Papers are a guide that COULD be legitimately used for interpreting some parts of the Constitution; they just don't have any force of law. Nor are they the *only *guide for interpretation, nor do they supersede every other interpretation. 

Please tell me that you understand the above. If you can prove me wrong, by all means do so, but understanding the argument has to come first.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect.  The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 16, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect.  The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.


You keep saying this and you never prove it. Aside from which, if your claim is correct, why would the framers have bothered with Section 9 in the first place?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect.  The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.
> ...



Well I'm sure I've already posted the text of the amendment in this thread as proof, but I'll be glad to do so again.

"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." - 10th Amendment

As to why they bothered with Article 1, Section 9 in the first place, the simple explanation is that it came before the 10th Amendment.  Though I assume Section 9 was an idea of the Anti-Federalists considering the Federalist position was that the Constitution already limited the federal government to do only what was stated explicitly in the Constitution without a Bill of Rights.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> So for the umpteenth time now:
> 
> 
> > Hell you have yet to answer one of the original questions as to what limits the federal government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants if the Section 8 is not to be interpreted to mean those are the things and the only things the fed can do.
> ...



If that is your answer it would be your position that framers intended for the fed to be able to tax what they want for whatever they went except for:

_No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken._

_No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state._

about right?



Centrism'sVoice said:


> Wrong again. The Federalist Papers are a guide that COULD be legitimately used for interpreting some parts of the Constitution; they just don't have any force of law. Nor are they the *only *guide for interpretation, nor do they supersede every other interpretation.
> 
> Please tell me that you understand the above. If you can prove me wrong, by all means do so, but understanding the argument has to come first.



Then we will have to agree to disagree. Madison was the primary author of the constitution and the words cited in the federalist papers tell us how he intended the document to be interpreted. That is a bit more forceful than saying 'gee I would sure like it if you interpreted it this way, but go ahead and do what you want'. If the federalist papers were mere guidelines of how we _could_ interpret the document there would be little reason to write it in the first place.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



First, you probably wouldn't know a neo-con if he bit you on the ass.

Second, you have an ass-backward view of Art. I, Sec. 8 and 9.

Third, you are correct that the Federalist Papers should be read to inform and elucidate and have no power of law. However, when the Federalist Papers speak directly on a point being considered, you ignore them at your peril. If you take a position directly contra the expressed view of the people who wrote the Constitution and that view was expressed and challenged at the time of adoption, you have the highest of walls to climb. 

You are like the president acting alone in a Youngstown Sheet and Tube analysis. So far, you have yet to get your first foot off the ground to climb that high wall.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect.  The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.
> ...



The nature and character of the Constitution is to create a limited government. To that end, there is an enumerated list of particulars that this limited government can do. All else is prohibited to it. If you insist on reading it as you do, I have a note from Mr. Madison to you:



> 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*.



In plain language, (paraphrasing Dickens) "If 'Centrist' says that, Centrist is a ass."


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect.  The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.
> ...



To expound on this point. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84 deals with the lack of a "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution. His defense of the Constitution includes the rights and protections accorded the people of the United States under Article I, Section 9. Why? Because these were particularly obnoxious features of rule by Great Britain. If you need any example of why royal titles were prohibited, review the movie Braveheart. The same thing could have happened in the US as happened to Scotland. Coopting of leaders by the King granting title and lands.

But, Hamilton says something else, much more important about the very Constitution itself and how it should be considered:



> Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. *Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing,* they have no need of particular reservations.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> The nature and character of the Constitution is to create a limited government. To that end, there is an enumerated list of particulars that this limited government can do. All else is prohibited to it. If you insist on reading it as you do, I have a note from Mr. Madison to you:



The nature and the character of the Constitution is to protect individual LIBERTIES from governmental interference. And that is why there is a right of privacy that logically flows from the Bill of Rights. As for Madison, again, intersting in terms of history, it isn't law. As you know, the caselaw would better set forth the limits that exist or do not.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> But, of course, people like Centrist know more than Jefferson did, I guess.



I'd say he knows more than Jefferson's opinion did about our caselaw.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.



the people who actually know something about the law don't....


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



See, Kev, I don't know why anyone bothers with your meritless crap... '

i think they humor you.


----------



## JimJones (Jul 17, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Who cares if its not in the Constitution?!  Are you okay with families going bankrupt, with people (this one's for you BBD and _children_ dying despite paying for health insurance because the insurance company drops their coverage due to a pre-existing condition of because the it eats into the multi-billion dollar insurance companies' profits?  Where's the humanity, the compassion in allowing that to happen?  Why is it all about money with you conservatives?  WWJD?



Dude you have no clue.  Do you actually know of a case where a child was dropped due to pre-existing?  The reality (not your pie in the sky dream world)  is every little pre-existing issues come up since the laws were changed to allow 60-90 days laps of coverage.  As for the question, "is it all about the money?  YES when your banking account is empty you don't run out and max out your credit card, thats exactly whats happening.  As for compassion I WAS giving a good amount each year to the Childrens Home based out of Tampa Fl and St Jude Medical, which both do gr8 work.  However, since Obama is taking my tax credits away becuase I worked hard to get over a certain income bracket I will now be forced to pay for my employees healthcare or charge me a penalty. I'll have to see what's left to give.  Is it about the money...in DC it's all about the money.  What country do you live in?  The Dems in Congress don't want this plan so why do you? CONGRESS SCARED OF HEALTHCARE | BorderlineIQ


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > The nature and character of the Constitution is to create a limited government. To that end, there is an enumerated list of particulars that this limited government can do. All else is prohibited to it. If you insist on reading it as you do, I have a note from Mr. Madison to you:
> ...



I don't think you can ignore that the Constitution sets up a system of government. And, while it is protective of individual liberty, it is not nearly as protective as what it replaced. Remember the arguments of the Anti-federalists, as Kevin has been pointing out. These new and increased powers of the central government gave them no comfort at all. Indeed, the only way the Constitution was ratified was the promise of an actual Bill of Rights.

I'm only citing Madison for the limited purpose of explaining the actual mechanics of the sentence that he wrote. I'm not citing him for any legal purpose or for his view on what the law is. In my view, some are guilty on here of improperly construing this sentence and reading it in a manner that was never intend nor could it properly be read that way. In this particular case, we have Madison defending the actual construction of the the sentence against the anti-federalist charges that it give the central government too much power (power that is now claimed by Centrist and Nik). I think for the limited purpose of clarifying any misconception concerning how the sentence should be read, Madison's explanation should be given great weight.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> I don't think you can ignore that the Constitution sets up a system of government. And, while it is protective of individual liberty, it is not nearly as protective as what it replaced. Remember the arguments of the Anti-federalists, as Kevin has been pointing out. These new and increased powers of the central government gave them no comfort at all. Indeed, the only way the Constitution was ratified was the promise of an actual Bill of Rights.



It does set up a system of government. I'm afraid, though, that I disagree 100% that the Articles of Confederation were more protective of individual rights. That would presume that the State of New York, somehow protects my individual liberties better than the Federal Government does. I think that's a fallacious assumption. Were it not the case, it wouldn't have taken the *FEDERAL* government to strike down Jim Crowe laws and force racists to end segregation.... of keep the State of VA from outlawing interracial marriage, or the state of Connecticut from trying to keep people from buying condoms.



> I'm only citing Madison for the limited purpose of explaining the actual mechanics of the sentence that he wrote. I'm not citing him for any legal purpose or for his view on what the law is. In my view, some are guilty on here of improperly construing this sentence and reading it in a manner that was never intend nor could it properly be read that way. In this particular case, we have Madison defending the actual construction of the the sentence against the anti-federalist charges that it give the central government too much power (power that is now claimed by Centrist and Nik). I think for the limited purpose of clarifying any misconception concerning how the sentence should be read, Madison's explanation should be given great weight.



Fair enough... again, I find the whole "originalist" way of thinking a bit counter-intuitive and it certainly hasn't been reflected in the caselaw since Marbury v Madison.

Until Scalia decided to try to pervert the Constitution to advance a right wing objective, anyway.

And speaking of Scalia, I find the whole "activist judge" concept so misleading... Activism is striking down the legislative action of a state; overturning a ruling made by the highest court of a state; and directing a state to act or not act.'

It is the JOB of the high court to do those things when the action of a state, highest court of a state or inaction (or action) by a state provides a person with lesser protections than the Federal Constitution (or other law) does.

And the Court is supposed to be the last bastion of "liberalism" because our Founders were RADICALS and is supposed to get in the way of infringement of OUR rights.

Sayig that the point of the constitution is for small government ignores the REASON that our government was supposed to be kept small... SO IT COULDN'T INFRINGE ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. So to construe the constitution in any way that impairs the right of the individual and rely on "originalism" to do so, violates the inherant nature of the document.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > But, of course, people like Centrist know more than Jefferson did, I guess.
> ...



"Centrist" is arguing that there are no functional limits on Congressional power. I don't think you are arguing that are you?

While I have you on the line, was SCOTUS correct in overruling Hamer v. Dagenhart? If so, why? Are the interests of limited government and protect of the rights of individual liberty better served by a government whose only end of power is that which it gives itself?


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.
> ...



People who 'know' things, more often than not, over complicate things for the purpose of showing people how much the 'know'. As I said before, the constitution is a bit simpler than people like yourself would like it to be. Anyone trying to read between the lines, or come up with off base interpretation is simply trying to justify what they would like to see government do.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> People who 'know' things, more often than not, over complicate things for the purpose of showing people how much the 'know'. As I said before, the constitution is a bit simpler than people like yourself would like it to be. Anyone trying to read between the lines, or come up with off base interpretation is simply trying to justify what they would like to see government do.



yeah, you're right... people who study the constitution know far less about the constitution than self-professed "experts". 

Not even the people on the bench agree on it's meaning.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Is Centrist arguing that there are no functional limits? I could be wrong, but that's not what I'm getting. I do think he's saying that there's great leeway in what government can do between the commerce clase and the general welfare clause and the supremacy clause.

Technically, nowhere in the constitution does it say that government can protect us from discrimination by private employers. It says GOVERNMENt can't disparately treat people, but individual companies? Yet, our CONSTITUTIONAL laws, like the enabling legislation for the EEOC, do just that (notwithstanding recent attempts to eviscerate those laws a la Ledbetter v. Goodyear)

Damn right they were correct in overturning Dagenhart based on the commerce clause. They relied upon Justice Holmes' dissent in in that case to do so.



> Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a dissenting opinion joined by three other justices, could barely contain his Contempt for the majority's interpretation. He faulted the Court for imposing personal values "upon questions of policy and morals." In a famous statement, Holmes declared: "I should have thought that if we were to introduce our own moral conceptions where, in my opinion, they do not belong, this was preeminently a case for upholding the exercise of all its powers by the United States."Holmes rejected the idea that Congress could not prohibit the movement of goods in interstate commerce, whether the products were judged harmful in themselves or the result of a harmful practice. He stated that "Regulation means the prohibition of something," and then referred to prior rulings where the Court had upheld federal laws that had prohibited actions contrary to the wishes of Congress. In his view, Congress had sufficient authority to regulate child labor. The states were free to regulate their internal affairs, but once goods crossed state lines, the Commerce Clause gave Congress the authority to regulate these shipments.
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Dagenhart in United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 312 U.S. 657, 61 S. Ct. 451 (1941). In its ruling, the Court acknowledged the "powerful and now classic dissent of Mr. Justice Holmes.



Hammer v. Dagenhart legal definition of Hammer v. Dagenhart. Hammer v. Dagenhart synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'm not sure I understand why you would object to Dagenhart being overturned any more than one would object to Plessy v Ferguson being overturned. There is a greater societal interest in both that states do not always protect.

Since it offends you that Dagenhart was reversed, implying that it should have been binding precedent, do you never think cases should be reconsidered a la Plessy?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> It does set up a system of government. I'm afraid, though, that I disagree 100% that the Articles of Confederation were more protective of individual rights. That would presume that the State of New York, somehow protects my individual liberties better than the Federal Government does. I think that's a fallacious assumption. Were it not the case, it wouldn't have taken the *FEDERAL* government to strike down Jim Crowe laws and force racists to end segregation.... of keep the State of VA from outlawing interracial marriage, or the state of Connecticut from trying to keep people from buying condoms.



When it comes to Jim Crow, remember, the central government was for it before it was against it. Remember also that most states didn't have Jim Crow laws, only about 13 did. So, from 1900 to 1955 who was a better protector of rights the 35 states without Jim Crow laws or the central government who gave us Plessy?

A couple of examples where states have violated rights compared to the mass internment of Japanese Americans whose only crime was they were of Japanese decent? You can't even claim the high ground for the central government on slavery.

Currently, they are justifying takings for commercial interests. How does that protect individual liberty?

Specious argument on Griswold. You know as well as I do that was a case made up by law professors at Yale. You also know that they failed to get Connecticut to enforce that law on several occasions. The fact of the matter is that until the Yale law professors over a period of years concocted a way to force the state to enforce the law, nobody was enforcing a law on purchasing condoms. Should it have been taken off the books? Probably. But do you suppose the laws regulating what barbers can eat for lunch should be taken off the books also? Yeah.....dead weight gets left on the books. It's no reason to "invent" shit the Constitution doesn't have in it so you can justify striking an unused law down.



> Fair enough... again, I find the whole "originalist" way of thinking a bit counter-intuitive and it certainly hasn't been reflected in the caselaw since Marbury v Madison.
> 
> Until Scalia decided to try to pervert the Constitution to advance a right wing objective, anyway.



I think your perverts are Brennan and Marshall, the bobsie twins of making up the law as you go along. As Thurgood said, "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

Some would say that's no way to run a railroad and sure way to start a tyranny!


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



The reason I oppose the Supreme Court's failure to follow Stare Decisis in the Darby case, is that in the process of doing some little good, they completely eviscerated one of the concepts that is fundemental to checks and balances -- federalism. By Overruling Hammer the way it did and pronouncing the 10th Amendment little more than a truism and unenforceable, the Supreme Court opened the door wide to an unstoppable growth in central government power which must end in a tyranny. The only question is how long it takes to get there.

So, I completely disagree that the interest served a greater social purpose. Holmes may have been right about regulating tainted milk, but that rectitude does not spread to the court in Darby as much as they would like to wrap themselves in it.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> When it comes to Jim Crow, remember, the central government was for it before it was against it. Remember also that most states didn't have Jim Crow laws, only about 13 did. So, from 1900 to 1955 who was a better protector of rights the 35 states without Jim Crow laws or the central government who gave us Plessy?



I'd say it depends on whether you lived in one of the 13 states and needed the federal government to intervene.



> A couple of examples where states have violated rights compared to the mass internment of Japanese Americans whose only crime was they were of Japanese decent? You can't even claim the high ground for the central government on slavery.



I think we both know there are good and bad courts when it comes to protecting individuals. It's impossible not to recognize that who is appointed to the bench by a sitting president matters.... same as it's absurd to pretend that EVERY judge isn't activist. I liked what was said at the hearing... "activist judges are the judges you disagree with". And yes, cases like Plessy and Dred Scott and Korematsu are national disgraces.



> Currently, they are justifying takings for commercial interests. How does that protect individual liberty?



Those cases, while the results suck, are a logical extension of every zoning case since Euclid.



> Specious argument on Griswold. You know as well as I do that was a case made up by law professors at Yale. You also know that they failed to get Connecticut to enforce that law on several occasions. The fact of the matter is that until the Yale law professors over a period of years concocted a way to force the state to enforce the law, nobody was enforcing a law on purchasing condoms. Should it have been taken off the books? Probably. But do you suppose the laws regulating what barbers can eat for lunch should be taken off the books also? Yeah.....dead weight gets left on the books. It's no reason to "invent" shit the Constitution doesn't have in it so you can justify striking an unused law down.



Griswold was dead on right. No one forced the State of Connecticut to enforce those laws. And no one forced them to put those laws on the book. Same as the anti-miscegenation (sp?) laws struck down in Loving.



> I think your perverts are Brennan and Marshall, the bobsie twins of making up the law as you go along. As Thurgood said, "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."



Again, given that I believe the Court is supposed to be the last line of defense between us and our government (not the "state"... but US), I think you'll have to find other judges to hate. 



> Some would say that's no way to run a railroad and sure way to start a tyranny!



How so? By telling state governments they can't discriminate or interfere in people's personal lives?

I don't want government in my bedroom......


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



The Court had already upheld the Mann Act and other restraints on what could be moved through interstate commerce.

And I guess what you think the Court has the right to do, ultimately comes down to the type of society you wish to live in.

And that's why there are 9 Justices..... so each brings to the court their worldview and experience and knowledge.

As for stare decisis, I think you'll find that Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in it at all.

And if what troubles you is "activist judges" I think you'll find that  &#8220;from 1994 to 2005....Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in 31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/o...n=Top/Opinion/Editorials and Op-Ed/Editorials


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> The reason I oppose the Supreme Court's failure to follow Stare Decisis in the Darby case, is that in the process of doing some little good, they completely eviscerated one of the concepts that is fundemental to checks and balances -- federalism. By Overruling Hammer the way it did and pronouncing the 10th Amendment little more than a truism and unenforceable, the Supreme Court opened the door wide to an unstoppable growth in central government power which must end in a tyranny. The only question is how long it takes to get there.



This is beginning to sound like fodder for the Conspiracy Theories thread.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
			
		

> Constitution doesnât mention health care - Las Vegas Sun
> 
> I have asked my liberal friends, If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people? They usually answer, Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.
> 
> ...


The government doesn't answer to the people any longer, We lost control a long time ago when  they lied  and the people did nothing.
Now we will have to burn down  DC  before  they burn down everyones homes.

Thomas Jefferson On The Central Bank System - The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Which would be FDR's Supreme Court in 1941. United States v. Darby Lumber Co. that did not respect Supreme Court precedent and overruled Hamer v. Dagenhart.



Should the Court have upheld Plessy, too?


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> It seems to me that if you give the central government all the power you take away all the safety if the central government turns tyrannical which of course they have to. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. At least with a federal system, the chances are you'd have some sanctuary some place in the country. The federal government is no source of comfort when they have suspended Habius Corpus, conducted mass internments without cause, protected Jim Crow laws and on and on. Their most recent bender has been in failing to respect private property rights. I think that any trust in government is misplaced. I would only trust a government that is set against itself by its internal processes. Hopefully, the Supremes with put a tooth or two back in Federalism by the cases that will work their way through court as the states are pushing back this year.



I'm not going to get into the power corrupts thing.. of course it does, but not allowing child labor isn't that. And I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about Roe v Wade, you'd be laughing at slippery slope arguments.

You say you understand that we are bound by stare decisis... yet you object to the decisions you disagree with and say they ruined the constitution. Don't you think that's a bit self-serving.

As for the property rights issue, as I think I've already said, I don't like the recent results of those cases, but they were absolutely consistent with all of the caselaw on zoning since Euclid. 



> On the health care issue. I think there are things the federal government could do within its limits that would dramatically change things for the better. I'm unimpressed the "everybody else does it" argument. Everyone else has a board that decides who lives and dies based on a process of rationing care and treatment. Comparing the moral imperatives of covering everyone or proactively denying care to some of the covered, I'm not at all sure who has the upper hand.



Insurance companies have claims reps who decide "who lives and dies based on a process of rationing care and treatment"

17-Year-Old Cancer Survivor Dies After Transplant Is Finally Approved By CIGNA - cbs2.com

Teen Dies after CIGNA Refuses To Pay for Transplant



> I think the government should pull down the false wall that prevents everyone in the country from having access to the same policies. I think there is a role for the government to create a pool of insurance and treat it as a regulated utility. If insurers which to provide health insurance, they may participate in the pool. The government will ensure a profit of some kind. The insurance companies cannot deny anyone coverage. All policies will be high deductible policies. Poor people will have their deductible covered. Everyone will have an HSA that allows them to save, tax deferred, monies for medical care usage. Doctors must make the cost of every treatment transparent so that consumers can shop for their medical care. Lastly, the policy is paid by taxes.



Sounds like you're saying that the government should tell the corporations how to operate but not get involved themselves. That's fine in terms of what you think should be done as a policy. But certainly there's no constitutional requirement that they do things the way you want.



> Concerning the founders, I know what you are saying, however, I'll bet that if we start talking about the separation of church and state, you'll place an awful lot of emphasis in a private letter that Jefferson wrote to some guy saying that their should be a "wall of separation between church and state."



The Constitution is very specific that government have nothing to do with religion. To effectuate that, there can't be anything BUT separation of church and state, regardless of what Jefferson wrote. I happen to agree with him, but since you also know the founders were largely deists who hated mixing religion and government, you should be supporting that pov.



> Again though, I think the more powerful argument concerns the reading of and the nature of a written Constitution. It is written for a reason. It is not just legislation. This document was approved by the people as an agreement to by them to be governed in a specific manner. This is binding on future generations. There is an amendment process and indeed the Constitution has been amended in significant ways over the years. If the Constitution truly doesn't fit way the governed wish to currently be governed, the solution is amendment or dissolution of the Constitution, not ignoring it.



We aren't a "code state" like france... we have a body of caselaw and a common law system that construes statutes... even the Constitution.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

CaféAuLait;1328903 said:
			
		

> Constitution doesnât mention health care - Las Vegas Sun
> 
> I have asked my liberal friends, If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people? They usually answer, Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.
> 
> ...



It also doesn't mention oral sex, so make sure you warn every woman you are ever with that if they go down on you, it is unconstitutional.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to Jim Crow, remember, the central government was for it before it was against it. Remember also that most states didn't have Jim Crow laws, only about 13 did. So, from 1900 to 1955 who was a better protector of rights the 35 states without Jim Crow laws or the central government who gave us Plessy?
> ...



I'll come back to the points in another post, but I'd like to align myself with the legal reasoning of Justices Black and Stewart who wrote:



> Since 1879, Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.
> 
> In the course of its opinion, the Court refers to no less than six Amendments to the Constitution: the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Ninth, and the Fourteenth. But the Court does not say which of these Amendments, if any, it thinks is infringed by this Connecticut law.
> 
> ...


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

Is Government Health Care Constitutional? - WSJ.com

I find it interesting the same party that would advocate pro-choice as a party platform would then in the same breath under the guise of socially norming everyone, would  turn around and abandon those same principles.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> I'd say it depends on whether you lived in one of the 13 states and needed the federal government to intervene.
> 
> I think we both know there are good and bad courts when it comes to protecting individuals. It's impossible not to recognize that who is appointed to the bench by a sitting president matters.... same as it's absurd to pretend that EVERY judge isn't activist. I liked what was said at the hearing... "activist judges are the judges you disagree with". And yes, cases like Plessy and Dred Scott and Korematsu are national disgraces.



My point was that the Federal Government has been guilty of infringing personal liberty too. The difference is that when they do it EVERYBODY suffers. I hardly think becoming all philosophical about the shortcomings of various courts is any salve to those whose rights are impinged by the central government anymore than it is when a state gets it wrong. The difference is that when a state gets it wrong, only the people of that state suffer. I would much rather suffer with a single tyrannical state where I can simply cross the state line to free myself of the evil, than a tyrannical central government that would require me to flee my home country to be free again.



> Griswold was dead on right. No one forced the State of Connecticut to enforce those laws. And no one forced them to put those laws on the book. Same as the anti-miscegenation (sp?) laws struck down in Loving.



Black and Stewart had it right and the other justices were on some serious drugs for all the reasons Black mentions in dissent.



> Again, given that I believe the Court is supposed to be the last line of defense between us and our government (not the "state"... but US), I think you'll have to find other judges to hate.



(shiver) how very "results oriented" of you. Your name isn't Joan Williams is it? ...Just checking. You're sounding very much like my Property Law prof. The problem with this type of thinking and usage by the court is that your ideology may be in the minority one day. And, instead of making decisions you like, the court may make a bunch of laws you dislike and enslave you. But, since they would do so in the guise of "interpreting the Constitution," you would have no recourse but amendment to the Constitution. 

I believe the left understands this and that's why they kick and struggle so mightily when the right puts up judges. (Not to mention the justice department hissy fit the left through when the right started counter-politicizing the justice department. That was a rare level of hypocrisy itself.)



> How so? By telling state governments they can't discriminate or interfere in people's personal lives?



No. By shredding the structures of our government and ripping apart the delicate system of checks and balances that was put in place to protect the people from the growth of a tyrannical government.

The states were meant to zealously guard their powers which were left to them and not given to the federal government. By removing that ability of the states to defend themselves from the federal government, a fuse was lit that will eventually lead to a tyrannical central government. There can be no alternative future. Governments will always seek more power and more to regulate. Now that there is no real check against this, the question not whether they will become tyrannical, but when.


> I don't want government in my bedroom......



I pass by Capital Hill again next Tuesday, I'll be sure and let them know.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 17, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> It also doesn't mention oral sex, so make sure you warn every woman you are ever with that if they go down on you, it is unconstitutional.


The consitutionia supposed to  be handcuffs on the government , not people.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I find it interesting the same party that would advocate pro-choice as a party platform would then in the same breath under the guise of socially norming everyone, would  turn around and abandon those same principles.



You mean me?

Interesting analogy but we're not talking about anyone forcing or denying a particular type of medical procedure, are we?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> The problem with this type of thinking and usage by the court is that your ideology may be in the minority one day. And, instead of making decisions you like, the court may make a bunch of laws you dislike and enslave you. But, since they would do so in the guise of "interpreting the Constitution," you would have no recourse but amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> I believe the left understands this and that's why they kick and struggle so mightily when the right puts up judges.


No, it's because the only judges the right wants to put up are activist ones. 

One of the many things that makes you so amusing is how you continually rant against the tyranny of the central government, yet you haven't breathed a word so far about its most recent USSC example (Bush v Gore).


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> I'll come back to the points in another post, but I'd like to align myself with the legal reasoning of Justices Black and Stewart who wrote:



Both fine justices who were not in the majority on this case. 

Is stare decisis binding or a pick and choose type thing?

I do like Stewart though... he was smart enough to know that there were no bright line tests in certain areas... like not being able to define obscenity, but knowing it when he saw it.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> And if what troubles you is "activist judges" I think you'll find that  from 1994 to 2005....Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in 31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer"
> 
> The New York Times > Log In



I believe that there *was* no role for activism on the court. You'll notice that is in past tense. I believe there has been so much left wing activism on the court, that right wing activism is now necessary to bring the law back into balance.

That said, I think the right's activism should be textually based in Constitutional analysis and comport to the "original understanding" of the Constitution as nearly every scholar prior to the modern era has recommended. If you are not basing your decisions on the original understanding of the Constitution, you are basing it on, essentially, your ass.

The court should draw it's horns in and focus on restoring the structures and foundations of American National government.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > And if what troubles you is "activist judges" I think you'll find that  &#8220;from 1994 to 2005....Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in 31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer"
> ...



You're not looking... the ACTIVISTS are the right-wingers

You can say what you want, but you should know there is no such thing as a school of constitutional construction called "originalist" at least not of any note until scalia took the bench and decided he wanted to remake the court in his own political image.

Now...about Bush v Gore... what's more activist than the Supreme Court ignoring years of law that said the determination of the highest court of a state as to election law is final and won't be touched by the Federal bench?

And let's not forget the propriety of issuing the only decision in Court history that is self-professed to have no value as precedent.... not to mention the ethical propriety of a justice who doesn't recuse himself from a determination affecting his hunting buddy.

Wanna talk activist?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > I'll come back to the points in another post, but I'd like to align myself with the legal reasoning of Justices Black and Stewart who wrote:
> ...



I was making a point when talking about stare decisis. The point was that the left....witness the supreme court hearings, is always making sure that judges are going to follow precedent. Why? Because they have "MADE" so much law with the supreme court, they don't want to see any rollbacks of their successes. Laws made by the undemocratic judicial oligarchy. 

What I was getting at was, once the court was different. The laws and precedent were different and the SCOTUS went through and overruled whole series of cases. Terminating whole lines of cases which had placed "gloss" on various parts of the Constitution. So what? you say, "I agree with the outcome, the court did absolutely the right thing." Ah, but that's the problem. If the court now overruled DARBY and GRISWOLD and WICKER I would stand up and cheer and you would be confined to an institution because you'd be inconsolable. So, stare decisis and your favor of it depends on which side of the revolutionary change you are on.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it interesting the same party that would advocate pro-choice as a party platform would then in the same breath under the guise of socially norming everyone, would  turn around and abandon those same principles.
> ...



Individual responsibility. Except in cases of hardship, once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect, *individuals will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining health insurance coverage. *Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level

House Summary America's Affordable Health Choice Act: July 14 2009 | OldenGoldenDecoy's Blog

(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals
17 under such plan after the date the Commis18
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
19 under paragraph (1) and until the Commis20
sioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter21
mination has been corrected and is not likely to
22 recur;

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

I'm talking about denying coverage and passing mandates on personal liberty, i.e. your right make your own healthcare choices. Further, this bill also mandates taxpayer funded abortion, so what it is doing is denying  liberties to those that disagree with abortion on religious grounds by taking their tax dollars and  funding abortions with it. Trust me jillian this bill fly's in the face of the constitution and one need not be a constitutional scholar to see that or a lawyer  to understand it. Further, there is also mandates  that traple  on the 10th Amendment in the bill as well. I have read the bill and Waxmans' committee is trying to justify this whole bill under the commerce clause and thats a very very weak argument to pass a constitutional challenge. So if you support this bill and also support  the decisions in roe v wade as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey then yes it would include you as well.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> If that is your answer it would be your position that framers intended for the fed to be able to tax what they want for whatever they went except for:
> 
> No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
> 
> ...


Not that either of these clauses has anything to do with healthcare, but I would agree with that conclusion. 



> Then we will have to agree to disagree. Madison was the primary author of the constitution and the words cited in the federalist papers tell us how he intended the document to be interpreted. That is a bit more forceful than saying 'gee I would sure like it if you interpreted it this way, but go ahead and do what you want'. If the federalist papers were mere guidelines of how we could interpret the document there would be little reason to write it in the first place.


People often write things when they have little reason to, Bern: just look at this forum! 

The bottom line, however, is that the existing system of laws has its precedents not only in the Constitution and various SC cases, but in English common law and elsewhere. Much more than just "Gee, we'd sure like it if..." But if you count yourself among those who say that we should interpret the Constitution based only on Madison's writing, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I would encourage you to read the "The Tempting of America: the Political Seduction of the Law"  You'll prolly only make it through the introduction before you open a vein, but I had to suffer through a litany of left wing diatribes on the law of the left from Larry Tribe to Alan Dershiwitz to Cathrine McKinnon. I submit it will do you good. 

I believe that book precedes or is contemporaneous with Scalia's appointment. If you read Jefferson or Madison on how Constitutional analysis is to be done, it is in line with Bork and Scalia but not Brennan and Marshall. Sorry, no dice.

Oh sorry, almost forgot, Bush v. Gore. In my opinion, it never should have gone to the court. It was a political question and should have been decided by the House of Representatives not the Supreme Court. But Gore chose the venue for the resolution. No election for President of the United States should ever be resolved by a state court. (or any other state body.) If that's what you thought should have happened, it was a non-starter. Never had a chance of happening.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



No...Bush chose the venue... hence it being BUSH v. Gore... Gore sued in State Court which was the appropriate venue for determination of a state election law question.

Jefferson and Madisons views of constitutional construction were found untenable by the Court as far back as Marbury v. Madison... so no dice in that regard...

If you don't like 200 years of precedent based on that case's determination of what judicial review is, then I think you have an essential problem with our system.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



I don't see where you can't make your own healthcare choices. You have to get car insurance, why not health insurance? especially if the rest of us are paying for you if you don't get insurance.

As for abortion, no one would force anyone to have one. And my tax money went for a war of choice in Iraq which I objected to strenuously, as well as abstinence only programs and scientific studies looking at whether prayer works. That's part of being a member of society. We don't agree with everything our goverment does. After agreeing with almost nothing my goverment did for eight years, I'd say that if we agree with a good part of it,  we're ahead of the game... 

not that there isn't room for discussion and disagreement.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Oh sorry, almost forgot, Bush v. Gore. In my opinion, it never should have gone to the court. It was a political question and should have been decided by the House of Representatives not the Supreme Court. But Gore chose the venue for the resolution. No election for President of the United States should ever be resolved by a state court. (or any other state body.) If that's what you thought should have happened, it was a non-starter. Never had a chance of happening.


Apparently you forgot about the 12th amendment as well. It says that "the electors in each state...shall vote by ballot" and make lists of everyone voted for as President and VP, sending the lists to the President of the Senate. That's it. The only role the central government ever plays in the election process. The states have always had total autonomy in how their voters elect the electors. Sorry, no dice.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I completely agree we can disagree on the merits of it, however the car insurance anaology is not a very good one and can tell you why.  You don't choose to be alive , however you do choose to own or not to own a car. The difference being is that by mandating  one carry health insurance  it  limits one personal choice to make their own decisions as to their own well being.   However with auto insurance  because you do have the the choice not to own a car and therefor not pay it, in the healthcare case you don't.  As for the Iraq issue , I will simply say this constitutionally speaking  your taxes fund the Military and you do have through the power of the ballot box to change  that every 2 to 4 years,  However in this case if you disagree based on your  rights under the constitution to Freedom of Religion you have no such recourse.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I completely agree we can disagree on the merits of it, however the car insurance anaology is not a very good one and can tell you why.  You don't choose to be alive , however you do choose to own or not to own a car. The difference being is that by mandating  one carry health insurance  it  limits one personal choice to make their own decisions as to their own well being.   However with auto insurance  because you do have the the choice not to own a car and therefor not pay it, in the healthcare case you don't.


In my opinion, yours is not a very good analogy either: reason being, it's within the power of any able-bodied adult to commit suicide. It just happens that most of us would prefer to be alive (just as most of us would prefer to have the use of a car).


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



what if you disagree with war because you're a conscientious objector or your religious beliefs require pacifism? You have no recourse then either. Abortion is no more or less onerous to some than war.  And as you said, if you don't like what they spend your money on, that's what your vote is for.

As for being forced to pay for health insurance, the fact is that everyone gets medical care at some time or another. If you have no insurance and default on your bill, and have to file bankruptcy, that affects all of us. If you avail yourself of the services of an Emergency Room because you have no health insurance, we all pay for that.

Ultimately, we pay for it anyway... at least maybe other people get to bear the burden if having insurance is mandatory.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

So then what your saying is that personal choice is not yours to make because you may or may not go to the Emergency Room is that correct? Your assumption is based on the premise that everyone defaults that doesn't have insurance, and also is based on the premise that the high costs of medical care are a result of  those defaults. This is true jillian for every single business venture from credit cards to car ownership, so perhaps based on that logic we should mandate that everyone carry bankruptcy insurance now to because they may or may not someday default on a credit card or default on a car. The facts are in a  Free society and a market based economy  default costs on Everything generally are  passed along to the consumer.  Healthcare is no different in that respect.  That is the price you pay for living in a FREE society and my suggestion is that in order to bring about reform you regulate the reasons for the rise in costs and not subvert the constitution by taking away a persons freedom to choose their own destiny.  If you and others who believe as you do really want to bring down the costs of healthcare then address the real issues of healthcare costs or perhaps, go to your state houses and ask your state legislature place on your states ballot universal healthcare and let the individual states make that choice for themselves and not by some Federal fiat that is clearly  outside the bounds of their charter.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> So then what your saying is that personal choice is not yours to make because you may or may not go to the Emergency Room is that correct? Your assumption is based on the premise that everyone defaults that doesn't have insurance, and also is based on the premise that the high costs of medical care are a result of  those defaults. This is true jillian for every single business venture from credit cards to car ownership, so perhaps based on that logic we should mandate that everyone carry bankruptcy insurance now to because they may or may not someday default on a credit card or default on a car. The facts are in a  Free society and a market based economy  default costs on Everything generally are  passed along to the consumer.  Healthcare is no different in that respect.  That is the price you pay for living in a FREE society and my suggestion is that in order to bring about reform you regulate the reasons for the rise in costs and not subvert the constitution by taking away a persons freedom to choose their own destiny.  If you and others who believe as you do really want to bring down the costs of healthcare then address the real issues of healthcare costs or perhaps, go to your state houses and ask your state legislature place on your states ballot universal healthcare and let the individual states make that choice for themselves and not by some Federal fiat that is clearly  outside the bounds of their charter.



I understand what you're saying. Really... but I can't get past the fact that we're the only "civilized" nation that doesn't care for it's people. It makes no sense to me and it's making it so we can't compete in the global marketplace.

As for health provision on a state by state basis, seems to me this would be covered by the commerce clause.

Besides, if you ask your state senator, the LAST thing they want is for the state to have to pay for this without the feds.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > So then what your saying is that personal choice is not yours to make because you may or may not go to the Emergency Room is that correct? Your assumption is based on the premise that everyone defaults that doesn't have insurance, and also is based on the premise that the high costs of medical care are a result of  those defaults. This is true jillian for every single business venture from credit cards to car ownership, so perhaps based on that logic we should mandate that everyone carry bankruptcy insurance now to because they may or may not someday default on a credit card or default on a car. The facts are in a  Free society and a market based economy  default costs on Everything generally are  passed along to the consumer.  Healthcare is no different in that respect.  That is the price you pay for living in a FREE society and my suggestion is that in order to bring about reform you regulate the reasons for the rise in costs and not subvert the constitution by taking away a persons freedom to choose their own destiny.  If you and others who believe as you do really want to bring down the costs of healthcare then address the real issues of healthcare costs or perhaps, go to your state houses and ask your state legislature place on your states ballot universal healthcare and let the individual states make that choice for themselves and not by some Federal fiat that is clearly  outside the bounds of their charter.
> ...



Each state having its own healthcare option would be intrastate commerce not interstate commerce, therefore not remotely covered by the commerce clause.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Each state having its own healthcare option would be intrastate commerce not interstate commerce, therefore not remotely covered by the commerce clause.



okie dokie.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

In the interest of "fairness and balance," it's worth noting that the city of San Francisco recently adopted universal care to cover everyone who lives and works there.
They pay for it with an extra sales tax. So far it seems to be working.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> In the interest of "fairness and balance," it's worth noting that the city of San Francisco recently adopted universal care to cover everyone who lives and works there.
> They pay for it with an extra sales tax. So far it seems to be working.



That's fine for San Francisco.  The founders never intended that every state and every city would do the same things.  If the people of San Francisco have a problem with it then it will be easier for them to change the situation at a local or state level than it would at the federal level.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > So then what your saying is that personal choice is not yours to make because you may or may not go to the Emergency Room is that correct? Your assumption is based on the premise that everyone defaults that doesn't have insurance, and also is based on the premise that the high costs of medical care are a result of  those defaults. This is true jillian for every single business venture from credit cards to car ownership, so perhaps based on that logic we should mandate that everyone carry bankruptcy insurance now to because they may or may not someday default on a credit card or default on a car. The facts are in a  Free society and a market based economy  default costs on Everything generally are  passed along to the consumer.  Healthcare is no different in that respect.  That is the price you pay for living in a FREE society and my suggestion is that in order to bring about reform you regulate the reasons for the rise in costs and not subvert the constitution by taking away a persons freedom to choose their own destiny.  If you and others who believe as you do really want to bring down the costs of healthcare then address the real issues of healthcare costs or perhaps, go to your state houses and ask your state legislature place on your states ballot universal healthcare and let the individual states make that choice for themselves and not by some Federal fiat that is clearly  outside the bounds of their charter.
> ...



jillian ,  I invite you to look at 3 states and notice the difference if you will, one is my state Arizona and look at the recently passed healthcare freedom of choice proposal. The other is Tenn. called Cover Tennessee, and the the last is Mass. what they all reflect is the the feelings of the citizens of those states and are  exactly as the founders intended.  Still one other thing I have suggested over many months of this debate is that if people really wanted this to be a "RIGHT" then they would  go about it under the Amendment process and let's really see how the citizens feel about healthcare.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > If that is your answer it would be your position that framers intended for the fed to be able to tax what they want for whatever they went except for:
> ...



A conclusion that would be invalidated by section 8 right before it, considering its specificity. If it was meant to be interpreted and understood as you sa,y that government can tax what they for whatever they want with the exception of the above, then there would be no purpose in putting in a very specific list of things the Fed can't do.



Centrism'sVoice said:


> The bottom line, however, is that the existing system of laws has its precedents not only in the Constitution and various SC cases, but in English common law and elsewhere. Much more than just "Gee, we'd sure like it if..." But if you count yourself among those who say that we should interpret the Constitution based only on Madison's writing, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.



Then that is another area where you are ignoring a premise for convenience sake. No I don't think we should rely solely on Madison. At the same time, for the sake of the future, it would be foolish to have laws based on the document without knowing what the intent was behind their inclusion in the document, hence why we look to other writings on the subject. The Federalist papers happen to be just such a group of writings. In terms of documents by which a country should be governed by, one can see the practicality of writing said document with at least some level of brevity. The framers could have gone another way you know. The could have decided to combine the Federalist papers into the document considering that in many cases the purpose of those papers was to clarify intent, they very much should go hand in hand. What if after section 8 for example, Madison's writing's in Federalist 41 had been adended immediately after? Would you still hold the position that they don't count?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> A conclusion that would be invalidated by section 8 right before it, considering its specificity. If it was meant to be interpreted and understood as you sa,y that government can tax what they for whatever they want with the exception of the above, then there would be no purpose in putting in a very specific list of things the Fed can't do.


Again, that's incorrect. Nowhere in Section 8 is it stated to be the only powers that the central government can ever conceivably have. 



> Then that is another area where you are ignoring a premise for convenience sake. No I don't think we should rely solely on Madison. At the same time, for the sake of the future, it would be foolish to have laws based on the document without knowing what the intent was behind their inclusion in the document, hence why we look to other writings on the subject. The Federalist papers happen to be just such a group of writings. In terms of documents by which a country should be governed by, one can see the practicality of writing said document with at least some level of brevity. The framers could have gone another way you know. The could have decided to combine the Federalist papers into the document considering that in many cases the purpose of those papers was to clarify intent, they very much should go hand in hand. What if after section 8 for example, Madison's writing's in Federalist 41 had been adended immediately after? Would you still hold the position that they don't count?


That reminds me of the old adage, "if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle." Naturally, I'm happy to discuss any sort of hypothetical scenario you want about the effects of different language on the Constitution, but that isn't what this thread is dealing with.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > A conclusion that would be invalidated by section 8 right before it, considering its specificity. If it was meant to be interpreted and understood as you sa,y that government can tax what they for whatever they want with the exception of the above, then there would be no purpose in putting in a very specific list of things the Fed can't do.
> ...



It doesn't explicitly say that in Section 8, but it does explicitly say that in the 10th Amendment.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> It doesn't explicitly say that in Section 8, but it does explicitly say that in the 10th Amendment.


Too bad the 10th amendment is an uneforceable truism.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't explicitly say that in Section 8, but it does explicitly say that in the 10th Amendment.
> ...



It's no more unenforceable than any other amendment.  It's simply that the Supreme Court has no interest in actually limiting the federal government to its constitutional levels.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



The tenth is one of the few amendments that's actually worth a lot less than the paper it's penned on.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Centrism'sVoice said:
> ...



Well if you don't mind answering I have two questions for you.

Do you believe that the 9th Amendment is also an unenforceable truism?

Why do you believe that the 10th Amendment is unenforceable?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well if you don't mind answering I have two questions for you.


Not at all.


> Do you believe that the 9th Amendment is also an unenforceable truism?


No, but if you can construct a logical argument that proves otherwise, I'd love to hear it.





> Why do you believe that the 10th Amendment is unenforceable?


The only thing that the 10th Amendment actually says is that whatever powers the central government doesn't have, the states have instead. That's going to be true for ANY grouping of states or provinces under an umbrella government: there's nothing special about the United States in this regard. This is what makes the 10th amendment a truism, and the fact that it IS a truism means that it's unenforceable.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Well if you don't mind answering I have two questions for you.
> ...



Well I don't believe that the 9th Amendment is an unenforceable truism either, but I was curious because I see the 9th and 10th Amendments as being similar in that they both deal with things not specifically mentioned by the Constitution or in any of the other amendments.  So I assumed, and you know what they say about that, that you would see the 9th as an unenforceable truism considering you see the 10th as such.  Perhaps you could explain why you don't see the 9th in similar light as the 10th?

You say that the 10th Amendment, essentially, says that whatever powers the federal government does not have is reserved to the states, and I think that's where you're under a faulty assumption about the 10th being an unenforceable truism.  What the 10th Amendment actually says is that whatever powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.  And for what it's worth, Thomas Jefferson did not see the 10th as an unenforceable truism but as the single most important amendment to the Constitution.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 17, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well I don't believe that the 9th Amendment is an unenforceable truism either, but I was curious because I see the 9th and 10th Amendments as being similar in that they both deal with things not specifically mentioned by the Constitution or in any of the other amendments.  So I assumed, and you know what they say about that, that you would see the 9th as an unenforceable truism considering you see the 10th as such.  Perhaps you could explain why you don't see the 9th in similar light as the 10th?


Well, it's pretty clear that the 9th is not a truism, because the list of actions it forbids the government from taking is unique. In other words, it's not making a statement that's self-evident at all. These items need to be spelled out.



> You say that the 10th Amendment, essentially, says that whatever powers the federal government does not have is reserved to the states, and I think that's where you're under a faulty assumption about the 10th being an unenforceable truism.  What the 10th Amendment actually says is that whatever powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.


But it doesn't say that the Constitution does not grant the federal government ANY power that it does not expressly mention. If that were the intent, the amendment would have read: "The powers not *expressly *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."

Is this beginning to make sense, now?   



> And for what it's worth, Thomas Jefferson did not see the 10th as an unenforceable truism but as the single most important amendment to the Constitution.


Jefferson believed, as do I, that the sovereignty of state governments had to be guaranteed in the Constitution. The 10th does so (up to a point). Of course, the Constitution and its amendments still lay out a number of things the states are forbidden to do, but that's a separate topic.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 17, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Well I don't believe that the 9th Amendment is an unenforceable truism either, but I was curious because I see the 9th and 10th Amendments as being similar in that they both deal with things not specifically mentioned by the Constitution or in any of the other amendments.  So I assumed, and you know what they say about that, that you would see the 9th as an unenforceable truism considering you see the 10th as such.  Perhaps you could explain why you don't see the 9th in similar light as the 10th?
> ...



No items were spelled out by the 9th Amendment so I'm not sure I'm getting your whole point in regards to that.

No, I'm afraid it's not beginning to make sense.  If what you say is true then the 10th Amendment has absolutely no power at all and it really was pointless to include it in the first place.  Since there was heavy debate about what to include and what not to include in the Constitution we can assume that the founders did not add the 10th Amendment to simply be an unenforceable truism but to limit the federal government to what was explicitly stated in the Constitution.  Jefferson's opinion on the 10th Amendment and Madison's writings in the Federalist Papers add quite a bit of credibility to this position, not to mention the later Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.&#8221;
Patrick Henry

"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

In South Dakota vs. Dole, 1987, the Supreme Court allowed the Federal government to dictate the legal drinking age to the states. It did so through the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Federal government had passed a law suspending 10% of highway funds from any state that refused to pass a law setting the legal drinking age at 21. South Dakota sued the Federal government, naming Elizabeth Dole as the defendant because she was then the Secretary of Transportation.

The Supreme Court ruled 7/2 in favor of the Federal government. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in his decision that the Federal government had acted within in the guidelines of its authority under the Taxing and Spending Clause. He said there are four guidelines that would determine whether or not Congress has power under this clause:


The condition must promote "the general welfare;" 
The condition must be unambiguous; 
The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;" and 
Other constitutional provisions may supersede conditional grants. 


I'm sorry but it's my humble opinion that the founding fathers were very clear on the 10th Amendment and over the proceeding  200 years the courts and  congress have set out to water it down to the point where it has become just a line in the constitution to be ignored in favor of others.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in his decision that the Federal government had acted within in the guidelines of its authority under the Taxing and Spending Clause. He said there are four guidelines that would determine whether or not Congress has power under this clause:
> 
> 
> The condition must promote "the general welfare;"
> ...


When we as Americans are opposed to a Supreme Court decision, our recourse is to amend the Constitution in such a way that overturns that decision. Just saying that the framers would have disagreed with the current Court is pointless.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 18, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in his decision that the Federal government had acted within in the guidelines of its authority under the Taxing and Spending Clause. He said there are four guidelines that would determine whether or not Congress has power under this clause:
> ...



The Constitution already goes against many of the Supreme Court's rulings, we shouldn't have to amend the Constitution for something it already does or does not allow the federal government to do.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 18, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> No items were spelled out by the 9th Amendment so I'm not sure I'm getting your whole point in regards to that.


Mea culpa: I read your previous post carelessly and thought you were talking about section 9 of article 1. Sorry about that. 

However, it doesn't change my conclusion that the 9th amendment is not a truism, because it's not a self-evident part of any constitution. It's a specific rule about how one should read the US Constitution.





> No, I'm afraid it's not beginning to make sense.  If what you say is true then the 10th Amendment has absolutely no power at all and it really was pointless to include it in the first place.  Since there was heavy debate about what to include and what not to include in the Constitution we can assume that the founders did not add the 10th Amendment to simply be an unenforceable truism but to limit the federal government to what was explicitly stated in the Constitution.


You're partially right, but only partially. From a strictly technical viewpoint, it was indeed pointless to include the 10th amendment. It was included only due to the politics that were going on at the time: so many of the delegates were so afraid of having state sovereignty eclipsed that they would not have ratified the Constitution without it.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 18, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Constitution already goes against many of the Supreme Court's rulings, we shouldn't have to amend the Constitution for something it already does or does not allow the federal government to do.


In your opinion it goes against these rulings, but unfortunately the rulings still stand until they're overturned. That's how the system works.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 18, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > No items were spelled out by the 9th Amendment so I'm not sure I'm getting your whole point in regards to that.
> ...



I agree that the 9th is a specific rule about how we should read the Constitution, but I believe that the 10th is in the exact same category.

Well since the delegates that you refer to were under the impression that the 10th Amendment certainly did limit the power of the federal government to what was in the Constitution one would have to assume that later generations are incorrect in their assessment of the 10th as an unenforceable truism.  If it genuinely had no power over the federal government then why would they refuse to ratify the Constitution without it?  That makes no sense.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 18, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution already goes against many of the Supreme Court's rulings, we shouldn't have to amend the Constitution for something it already does or does not allow the federal government to do.
> ...



There can be no doubt about that.


----------



## caela (Jul 18, 2009)

Just my own 0.02$ on the 10 amendment. 

I don't believe that it is unenforceable, but I do believe that it is up to the states to say "NO" and to enforce it. Unfortunately they haven't done that and the Federal government has been chipping away at State Sovereignty for ages. They just kept taking inch after inch after inch until the States have very little left in the way of power at all.

The drinking age is an excellent example of this. As already stated, the Feds said that they would cut federal highway funding by 10% if the States didn't up their drinking age to 21. Now if someone does this in the everyday world we call it coercion or blackmail but apparently the SCOTUS says it's ok when the Feds are the culprits. Now the States had a choice here, they could have told the Feds to shove it and kept the age whatever it already was in their state, or they could bend over and do what the Feds wanted. Losing the money would hurt but (in my opinion) the end result of losing more of their sovereignty hurt them more. 

For the 10th amendment to really mean anything the States (hey that's really US!) need to stand up and tell the Feds "NO". No, these aren't your decision to make for us. No you do not have the authority to tell us how to run OUR state. No THIS IS NOT YOUR JOB. For that to happen though we need to get out the politicians that are content with the status quo and elect men and women that are more concerned with what is best for their states then how they can grab at more power.

/end rant


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

While Centrism your correct that a SCOTUS decision is at times considered settled law until such time as it is overturned by another case, there are many 10th Amendment cases I just cited one as an example  to show where the court had veered off the path of the framers original intent and  thats quite clear from Jeffersons  words on the matter.  I sometimes think that people often are under the impression that the United States  of America when they look at it  often times forget the States part and focus  on the America part. No matter there are many examples if this ..

Munn v. Illinois

Citation: 94 U.S. 113 (1877) Concepts: Public-Private Property/FreeEnterprise v. State Rights 

Facts 

Midwestern farmers felt that they were being victimized by the exorbitant freight rates they were forced to pay to the powerful railroad companies. As a result, the state of Illinois passed a law that allowed the state to fix maximum rates that railroads and grain elevator companies could charge. 

Issue 

Whether the regulation of railroad rates by the state of Illinois deprived the railroad companies of property without due process of law. 

Opinion 

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Illinois law because the movement and storage of grain were considered to be closely related to public interest. This type of economic activity could be governed by state legislatures, whereas purely private contracts could only be governed by the courts. The Court held that laws affecting public interest could be made or changed by state legislatures without interference from the courts. The Court said, &#8220;For protection against abuse by legislatures, the people must resort to the polls, not the courts.&#8221; 


I'm also in complete agreement with caela on the fact that  often times  the Federal Govt. will use the power of the Federal purse to bend states to it's will as was the case with the drinking laws.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 18, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> You're partially right, but only partially. From a strictly technical viewpoint, it was indeed pointless to include the 10th amendment. It was included only due to the politics that were going on at the time: so many of the delegates were so afraid of having state sovereignty eclipsed that they would not have ratified the Constitution without it.



One could argue that the 10th serves as reminder that the Feds power was meant to be limited. After all when you have an amendment that says power NOT delegated to the Fed falls to the states, one would inherently ask what _are_ the powers of the fed. Can't look to Art. 1 Sect. 9 for that, that only tells what it can't do. You have to go to section 8.

Secondly without ammendment 10 how would the states what they can do?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 18, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Secondly without ammendment 10 how would the states what they can do?


By the same reasoning, any power not prohibited to the states in Article 1, Section 10 should in principle be within the rights of the states to exercise.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 19, 2009)

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly without ammendment 10 how would the states what they can do?
> ...



Fair enough I suppose. It honestly can be seen both ways validly. You may say the 10th amendment doesn't need to be there. To me, with our government and current president, barely abiding it and in some cases not even (even thought he took an oath to defend it), I'm glad it is there. More and more politicians are trying to stretch the interpretation of the document for their own convenience. One can easily see how much easier that would become without the explicitness of the 10the amendment.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice (Jul 19, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Fair enough I suppose. It honestly can be seen both ways validly. You may say the 10th amendment doesn't need to be there. To me, with our government and current president, barely abiding it and in some cases not even (even thought he took an oath to defend it), I'm glad it is there. More and more politicians are trying to stretch the interpretation of the document for their own convenience. One can easily see how much easier that would become without the explicitness of the 10the amendment.


It might or might not be. There have been very few cases in history (under 5, certainly) where the Supreme Court ever invoked the 10th in support of its decision.


----------

