CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

That one made me chuckle, I admit. Go back and read Madison's scathing indictment of the Confederation, and then revisit the argument here about the allegedly promised "tiny, tiny government". My impression was quite different. And then, yes, I see the acrimony about the selling of the ACA, but it has been pointed out long before that thing passed that there was a bit of rhetorical trickery involved, and Republicans couldn't find the end of their howls about "TAX HIKE!!!". Of course, since Americans have been conditioned to perk up upon the mention of having to pay for government service, and to be opposed by default, by Norquist and Co., no one will go to great lengths to explain that the Heritage- and RomneyCare-based individual mandate means what it says, and no one will yell from the rooftops that in some legal reasoning the penalty for failure to comply might appear as a much dreaded tax. That "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Come on!

false rhetoric does undermine democracy.....

but as I pointed out in post before this...it was also false theoric that got it into court.

but it works out to this,,,could they or could they not have passed it if it was an admitted tax...I think not.

that means it should not have passed.

But I agreee with you on the supposed tiny tiny government

The plus in the Roberts case was that it prevented the court from becoming a huge a branch of govt that it was not intended to be.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

where in Constitution, dummy?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

like Royce aka boston tea party has said the federalist papers are ad copy

what i've just posted elsewhere is that they are
over-hyped, weren't widely read then

and shouldnt be now.

Madsion was trying to sell the Cosntitution. you have to take those statements with a grain of salt.

Hamilton showed right our of the gate what theri true intentions were

a national bank tho none is enumerated. and lots of support for it among the federalists of the day that got in office

dear I've asked 5 times now where it says they wanted big government?

well cuddle cakes...I doubt they put in the thing waht they really wanted.....but like good sell-out lawyers they included loopholes

all neccessary and proper means etc. etc.

now you're being stupid. The Amendment process was not a loophole, but rather a way of saying that they may have made mistakes or may not have anticipated the future with perfect clarity .

 

[Foxfyre]

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

That one made me chuckle, I admit. Go back and read Madison's scathing indictment of the Confederation, and then revisit the argument here about the allegedly promised "tiny, tiny government". My impression was quite different. And then, yes, I see the acrimony about the selling of the ACA, but it has been pointed out long before that thing passed that there was a bit of rhetorical trickery involved, and Republicans couldn't find the end of their howls about "TAX HIKE!!!". Of course, since Americans have been conditioned to perk up upon the mention of having to pay for government service, and to be opposed by default, by Norquist and Co., no one will go to great lengths to explain that the Heritage- and RomneyCare-based individual mandate means what it says, and no one will yell from the rooftops that in some legal reasoning the penalty for failure to comply might appear as a much dreaded tax. That "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Come on!

false rhetoric does undermine democracy.....

but as I pointed out in post before this...it was also false theoric that got it into court.

but it works out to this,,,could they or could they not have passed it if it was an admitted tax...I think not.

that means it should not have passed.

But I agreee with you on the supposed tiny tiny government

But the same argument applies to the Constitution. Would the anit-federalists have conceded and signed on if they believed The Federalist Papers were "false rhetoric"?

Some of our friends here seem to point to history and the fact that there were disagreements, differences of opinion, and necessity to compromise as some kind of indictment on the whole process. To me, the fact that they did take the time and put in all those years of effort to arrive at a consensus that the large majority could sign is evidence of the integrity and legitimacy of the entire process. Nothing was done in secret. There was no inappropriate arm twisting, no underhanded manipulation of facts or duplicity or deception. Everything was laid out there in full view to be argued and defended until almost everybody was in agreement. Even those who in good conscience could not sign the final document would come to see the wisdom of it and were ultimately willing to accept it.

And that is what I want from government now. Everybody doesn't have to agree in order for something to be legitimate. But they have to present it honestly. If they can't pass a bill without using lies or omission of facts or without using such language that the most prestigious legal scholars don't agree on what it means, they should be removed from office immediately and never allowed such authority ever again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

That one made me chuckle, I admit. Go back and read Madison's scathing indictment of the Confederation, and then revisit the argument here about the allegedly promised "tiny, tiny government". My impression was quite different. And then, yes, I see the acrimony about the selling of the ACA, but it has been pointed out long before that thing passed that there was a bit of rhetorical trickery involved, and Republicans couldn't find the end of their howls about "TAX HIKE!!!". Of course, since Americans have been conditioned to perk up upon the mention of having to pay for government service, and to be opposed by default, by Norquist and Co., no one will go to great lengths to explain that the Heritage- and RomneyCare-based individual mandate means what it says, and no one will yell from the rooftops that in some legal reasoning the penalty for failure to comply might appear as a much dreaded tax. That "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Come on!

false rhetoric does undermine democracy.....

but as I pointed out in post before this...it was also false theoric that got it into court.

but it works out to this,,,could they or could they not have passed it if it was an admitted tax...I think not.

that means it should not have passed.

But I agreee with you on the supposed tiny tiny government

But the same argument applies to the Constitution. Would the anit-federalists have conceded and signed on if they believed The Federalist Papers were "false rhetoric"?

Some of our friends here seem to point to history and the fact that there were disagreements, differences of opinion, and necessity to compromise as some kind of indictment on the whole process. To me, the fact that they did take the time and put in all those years of effort to arrive at a consensus that the large majority could sign is evidence of the integrity and legitimacy of the entire process. Nothing was done in secret. There was no inappropriate arm twisting, no underhanded manipulation of facts or duplicity or deception. Everything was laid out there in full view to be argued and defended until almost everybody was in agreement. Even those who in good conscience could not sign the final document would come to see the wisdom of it and were ultimately willing to accept it.

And that is what I want from government now. Everybody doesn't have to agree in order for something to be legitimate. But they have to present it honestly. If they can't pass a bill without using lies or omission of facts or without using such language that the most prestigious legal scholars don't agree on what it means, they should be removed from office immediately and never allowed such authority ever again.

praying for honestly is a silly dream as is praying for liars to be immediately removed from office. Just stick to the arguments against liberalism please. Thanks

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is true that to amend the COTUS is a high hurdle, and yet, it has been done almost 30 times, which speaks to the wisdom of its authors and the ambiguity (intentionally?) within much of its verbiage; such allows for the on going intergenerational and intragenerational debate on some of its phrases.

To accept the Originalists' argument one must be ready to set aside over two centuries of law, beginning with the Landmark case, Marbury v. Madison; Scalia stated:

""The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

No where in the COTUS is the power of Judicial Review granted to the Supreme Court. In the personal opinion of Justice Scalia, the COTUS says what is says and doesn't say what is doesn't say.***

No where in Article III is the power of Judicial Review given to the SCOTUS.

***Justice Scalia Constitution is not a living organism Fox News

 

[Foxfyre]

It's worth noting, however, that when it comes to legitimacy and sovereignty, it was the intentions of the men who signed the Constitution, and those they represented that really matter. Again, we see the same bait and switch bullshit in today's politics. Take ACA, for example. When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

Roberts seems to think this kind of double dealing is ok, but I don't. It's a con and fundamentally undermines democracy.

That one made me chuckle, I admit. Go back and read Madison's scathing indictment of the Confederation, and then revisit the argument here about the allegedly promised "tiny, tiny government". My impression was quite different. And then, yes, I see the acrimony about the selling of the ACA, but it has been pointed out long before that thing passed that there was a bit of rhetorical trickery involved, and Republicans couldn't find the end of their howls about "TAX HIKE!!!". Of course, since Americans have been conditioned to perk up upon the mention of having to pay for government service, and to be opposed by default, by Norquist and Co., no one will go to great lengths to explain that the Heritage- and RomneyCare-based individual mandate means what it says, and no one will yell from the rooftops that in some legal reasoning the penalty for failure to comply might appear as a much dreaded tax. That "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Come on!

false rhetoric does undermine democracy.....

but as I pointed out in post before this...it was also false theoric that got it into court.

but it works out to this,,,could they or could they not have passed it if it was an admitted tax...I think not.

that means it should not have passed.

But I agreee with you on the supposed tiny tiny government

But the same argument applies to the Constitution. Would the anit-federalists have conceded and signed on if they believed The Federalist Papers were "false rhetoric"?

Some of our friends here seem to point to history and the fact that there were disagreements, differences of opinion, and necessity to compromise as some kind of indictment on the whole process. To me, the fact that they did take the time and put in all those years of effort to arrive at a consensus that the large majority could sign is evidence of the integrity and legitimacy of the entire process. Nothing was done in secret. There was no inappropriate arm twisting, no underhanded manipulation of facts or duplicity or deception. Everything was laid out there in full view to be argued and defended until almost everybody was in agreement. Even those who in good conscience could not sign the final document would come to see the wisdom of it and were ultimately willing to accept it.

And that is what I want from government now. Everybody doesn't have to agree in order for something to be legitimate. But they have to present it honestly. If they can't pass a bill without using lies or omission of facts or without using such language that the most prestigious legal scholars don't agree on what it means, they should be removed from office immediately and never allowed such authority ever again.

praying for honestly is a silly dream as is praying for liars to be immediately removed from office. Just stick to the arguments against liberalism please. Thanks

No thank you. This isn't about conservatism vs liberalism and I have not been arguing against liberalism no matter how hard some are trying to make this partisan. I am arguing to reform the constitution and restore our liberties so that we all can be free to be as liberal or conservative as we wish to be, but will be unable to force that on anybody else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

praying for honestly is a silly dream as is praying for liars to be immediately removed from office. Just stick to the arguments against liberalism please. Thanks

Edward, offer something worthy here. The conservatives fought against the Patriots. Then the Patriots divided into conservative Constitutionalists and radical anti-federalists.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

It wasn't a "tax-hike" ever!

It was a penalty for those trying to game the system by not signing up. The SCOTUS rightly decided that such a penalty can be imposed as a "tax penalty" ONLY on those who don't participate and don't have alternate health insurance via their employers.

Why should those of us with health insurance have to support those who want to game the system? The tax-penalty was built into the original right wing Heritage system and it survived because it is essential.

The rightwing partisan BS attempt to fool the gullible by calling it a "tax hike" instead has obviously worked.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution was written by the federalists.... they wanted big government...

Madison wrote the Constitution. He was a Republican under Jefferson also a Republican. IF they wanted big govt, where in the Constitution is it? There was no income tax just so the govt could not be big and could not directly tax anyone that did not want to be taxed.

Fallacious. Madison wanted a big government and had to compromise with the smaller government people. He only changed later.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sigh,...you brought up income tax..i brought up a pint on income tax.......

you brought up Madsion.....I takl about how Madison grew disgusted with how the Federalist s acted


Madsion did not write the constitution alone...there were many writers.

now....id love to debate this topic in another thread...but lyour just messing this one up

dear, you said they wanted big govt. I said where,..and you changed the subject!! Where????

In the United States

where in Constitution, dummy?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

like Royce aka boston tea party has said the federalist papers are ad copy

what i've just posted elsewhere is that they are
over-hyped, weren't widely read then

and shouldnt be now.

Madsion was trying to sell the Cosntitution. you have to take those statements with a grain of salt.

Hamilton showed right our of the gate what theri true intentions were

a national bank tho none is enumerated. and lots of support for it among the federalists of the day that got in office

dear I've asked 5 times now where it says they wanted big government?

Dear, Madison's plan presented by Randolph was a Big Government plan. The eventual compromise created a government far more powerful than the articles of confederation.

Quit trying to confuse the issue with non-essentials.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is nothing honest offered by the New Right. It has been nothing but a mouth piece for the GOP since it lost the White House in 2008 to a man of color. The NR and the GOP have been nothing but anti democratic (small 'd') and focused on winning elections anyway they can for the past six years.

Their tactics are confined to this strategy - just win. Truth, justice and honor are never considered, the end justifies the means; this is the subversive ethos of this generation of the radical right wing in America.

They talk the talk, but their actions are anything but honest, moral and just.

 

[dblack]

When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

It wasn't a "tax-hike" ever!

It was a penalty for those trying to game the system by not signing up. The SCOTUS rightly decided that such a penalty can be imposed as a "tax penalty" ONLY on those who don't participate and don't have alternate health insurance via their employers.

Why should those of us with health insurance have to support those who want to game the system? The tax-penalty was built into the original right wing Heritage system and it survived because it is essential.

The rightwing partisan BS attempt to fool the gullible by calling it a "tax hike" instead has obviously worked.

You're right. It's actually worse than an honest tax hike. It's discriminatory taxation that scapegoats a particular segment of society, ironically, the people doing the intelligent thing when faced with overpriced goods and services - refusing to buy them. That's not 'gaming the system'. That's being a rational consumer. What you want is to go on being a sucker and having the government front for you, by forcing everyone else to play the same stupid game.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

It wasn't a "tax-hike" ever!

It was a penalty for those trying to game the system by not signing up. The SCOTUS rightly decided that such a penalty can be imposed as a "tax penalty" ONLY on those who don't participate and don't have alternate health insurance via their employers.

Why should those of us with health insurance have to support those who want to game the system? The tax-penalty was built into the original right wing Heritage system and it survived because it is essential.

The rightwing partisan BS attempt to fool the gullible by calling it a "tax hike" instead has obviously worked.

You're right. It's actually worse than an honest tax hike. It's discriminatory taxation that scapegoats a particular segment of society, ironically, the people doing the intelligent thing when faced with overpriced goods and services - refusing to buy them. That's not 'gaming the system'. That's being a rational consumer. What you want is to go on being a sucker and having the government front for you, by forcing everyone else to play the same stupid game.

You are conflating two entirely different concepts.

Not buying insurance because it is "overpriced" is not "intelligent" in the least. It is gambling instead. The problem is that those who don't purchase insurance are gambling with YOUR MONEY!

If you want to address the cost of health insurance itself that is a completely different topic that has nothing to do with this thread. Yes, it is overpriced and yes, it does need to be brought under control but if you want to do that via "big government" then you are betraying your Libertarianism. Oh, and the "free markets" have been a complete and utter abject failure at reducing the costs of healthcare. The only method that does actually work is Universal Healthcare but that would be a yet another "tax hike" even though it would actually save you money.

 

[dblack]

When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

It wasn't a "tax-hike" ever!

It was a penalty for those trying to game the system by not signing up. The SCOTUS rightly decided that such a penalty can be imposed as a "tax penalty" ONLY on those who don't participate and don't have alternate health insurance via their employers.

Why should those of us with health insurance have to support those who want to game the system? The tax-penalty was built into the original right wing Heritage system and it survived because it is essential.

The rightwing partisan BS attempt to fool the gullible by calling it a "tax hike" instead has obviously worked.

You're right. It's actually worse than an honest tax hike. It's discriminatory taxation that scapegoats a particular segment of society, ironically, the people doing the intelligent thing when faced with overpriced goods and services - refusing to buy them. That's not 'gaming the system'. That's being a rational consumer. What you want is to go on being a sucker and having the government front for you, by forcing everyone else to play the same stupid game.

You are conflating two entirely different concepts.

Not buying insurance because it is "overpriced" is not "intelligent" in the least. It is gambling instead. The problem is that those who don't purchase insurance are gambling with YOUR MONEY!

Sounds like your beef is with EMTALA and other regulations that force you to pay for other people's health care. Write up a petition to end that idiocy. I'll sign it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

It wasn't a "tax-hike" ever!

It was a penalty for those trying to game the system by not signing up. The SCOTUS rightly decided that such a penalty can be imposed as a "tax penalty" ONLY on those who don't participate and don't have alternate health insurance via their employers.

Why should those of us with health insurance have to support those who want to game the system? The tax-penalty was built into the original right wing Heritage system and it survived because it is essential.

The rightwing partisan BS attempt to fool the gullible by calling it a "tax hike" instead has obviously worked.

You're right. It's actually worse than an honest tax hike. It's discriminatory taxation that scapegoats a particular segment of society, ironically, the people doing the intelligent thing when faced with overpriced goods and services - refusing to buy them. That's not 'gaming the system'. That's being a rational consumer. What you want is to go on being a sucker and having the government front for you, by forcing everyone else to play the same stupid game.

You are conflating two entirely different concepts.

Not buying insurance because it is "overpriced" is not "intelligent" in the least. It is gambling instead. The problem is that those who don't purchase insurance are gambling with YOUR MONEY!

Sounds like your beef is with EMTALA and other regulations that force you to pay for other people's health care. Write up a petition to end that idiocy. I'll sign it.

The ACA tax penalty addresses the problem with EMTALA.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is the way our constitutional republic works, buddies.

 

[dblack]

When they were selling it, it wasn't a tax hike. But after it passed, and faced legal challenge, TA-DA - it's a tax!

It wasn't a "tax-hike" ever!

It was a penalty for those trying to game the system by not signing up. The SCOTUS rightly decided that such a penalty can be imposed as a "tax penalty" ONLY on those who don't participate and don't have alternate health insurance via their employers.

Why should those of us with health insurance have to support those who want to game the system? The tax-penalty was built into the original right wing Heritage system and it survived because it is essential.

The rightwing partisan BS attempt to fool the gullible by calling it a "tax hike" instead has obviously worked.

You're right. It's actually worse than an honest tax hike. It's discriminatory taxation that scapegoats a particular segment of society, ironically, the people doing the intelligent thing when faced with overpriced goods and services - refusing to buy them. That's not 'gaming the system'. That's being a rational consumer. What you want is to go on being a sucker and having the government front for you, by forcing everyone else to play the same stupid game.

You are conflating two entirely different concepts.

Not buying insurance because it is "overpriced" is not "intelligent" in the least. It is gambling instead. The problem is that those who don't purchase insurance are gambling with YOUR MONEY!

Sounds like your beef is with EMTALA and other regulations that force you to pay for other people's health care. Write up a petition to end that idiocy. I'll sign it.

The ACA tax penalty addresses the problem with EMTALA.

No it doesn't. It masks it by scapegoating people who won't waste their money on shitty insurance.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem with being stuck in an ideology, is being stuck in an ideology. The mind of an ideologue is closed to any idea which is out of the box to which they confine themselves.

Honest people think through issues, I've offered an opinion that the New Right (NR) is composed of those stuck in an ideology, but able to extricate themselves by will alone. Of course that requires being honest, to themselves as well as others.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It wasn't a "tax-hike" ever!

It was a penalty for those trying to game the system by not signing up. The SCOTUS rightly decided that such a penalty can be imposed as a "tax penalty" ONLY on those who don't participate and don't have alternate health insurance via their employers.

Why should those of us with health insurance have to support those who want to game the system? The tax-penalty was built into the original right wing Heritage system and it survived because it is essential.

The rightwing partisan BS attempt to fool the gullible by calling it a "tax hike" instead has obviously worked.

You're right. It's actually worse than an honest tax hike. It's discriminatory taxation that scapegoats a particular segment of society, ironically, the people doing the intelligent thing when faced with overpriced goods and services - refusing to buy them. That's not 'gaming the system'. That's being a rational consumer. What you want is to go on being a sucker and having the government front for you, by forcing everyone else to play the same stupid game.

You are conflating two entirely different concepts.

Not buying insurance because it is "overpriced" is not "intelligent" in the least. It is gambling instead. The problem is that those who don't purchase insurance are gambling with YOUR MONEY!

Sounds like your beef is with EMTALA and other regulations that force you to pay for other people's health care. Write up a petition to end that idiocy. I'll sign it.

The ACA tax penalty addresses the problem with EMTALA.

No it doesn't. It masks it by scapegoating people who won't waste their money on shitty insurance.

Suddenly America has gone from having the best healthcare in the world to the "shittiest"?

When did that happen?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It wasn't a "tax-hike" ever!

It was a penalty for those trying to game the system by not signing up. The SCOTUS rightly decided that such a penalty can be imposed as a "tax penalty" ONLY on those who don't participate and don't have alternate health insurance via their employers.

Why should those of us with health insurance have to support those who want to game the system? The tax-penalty was built into the original right wing Heritage system and it survived because it is essential.

The rightwing partisan BS attempt to fool the gullible by calling it a "tax hike" instead has obviously worked.

You're right. It's actually worse than an honest tax hike. It's discriminatory taxation that scapegoats a particular segment of society, ironically, the people doing the intelligent thing when faced with overpriced goods and services - refusing to buy them. That's not 'gaming the system'. That's being a rational consumer. What you want is to go on being a sucker and having the government front for you, by forcing everyone else to play the same stupid game.

You are conflating two entirely different concepts.

Not buying insurance because it is "overpriced" is not "intelligent" in the least. It is gambling instead. The problem is that those who don't purchase insurance are gambling with YOUR MONEY!

Sounds like your beef is with EMTALA and other regulations that force you to pay for other people's health care. Write up a petition to end that idiocy. I'll sign it.

The ACA tax penalty addresses the problem with EMTALA.

No it doesn't. It masks it by scapegoating people who won't waste their money on shitty insurance.

And what do those who buy "shitty" insurance do when hit by a bus or fall off a cliff? They go to the nearest ER and get treated. Guess who pays for that.