CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

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.

My personal rule #1 is never to lie to myself, no matter how unpleasant that truth might be. I would rather face the truth about myself than have to hear it from anyone else.

So it is beyond my comprehension how others lie to themselves constantly. I have no idea how they face themselves in the mirror on a daily basis. Yes, I know that it is commonplace but it is still something that baffles me as to what they gain from it.

Ideologues have to lie to themselves which is why I avoid them. Not really my kind of people at all.

 

[dblack]

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.

As I've said repeatedly, if that's your beef - fix it. I'll support all such efforts. Mandates to buy insurance don't do that.

 

[dblack]

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?

You don't know the different between insurance and health care?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, the whining here is not being done by true conservatives.

It is being done by people who want to privatize their profit by forcing the society to socialize the risk and cost if they get injured or ill.

 

[dcraelin]

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"?

not sure I follow you....the federalist papaers weren't official debate in Congress for one thing...the anti-federalists largely did think they were false rhetoric...I thin so too. It would have helped if the constitutional convention in philedelphia was not conducted in secret.....

 

[dcraelin]

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.

dont understand your post here at all

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

You don't know the different between insurance and health care?

Healthcare insurance doesn't pay for healthcare? Or are you talking about vehicle insurance now?

 

[dcraelin]

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 .

the post you replied to, did not mention the amendment process at all,...it meationed the neccessary and proper clause.

sometimes i think your trying to run 2 or three different avatars and are getting them mixed up...is this the case?

 

[dblack]

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"?

not sure I follow you....the federalist papaers weren't official debate in Congress for one thing...the anti-federalists largely did think they were false rhetoric...I thin so too. It would have helped if the constitutional convention in philedelphia was not conducted in secret.....

Indeed, it would have. Obviously, not all the anti-federalists were convinced, but they didn't need all of them. The Federalist Papers were a targeted appeal to anti-federalists to buy into the proposed constitution. Those who signed it based on the arguments made there did so on false pretense. Just as with a deceptively worded contract, the perceived meaning is what matters.

In any case, originalism is moot in a discussion of a new Constitution. What matters is what we want going forward.

 

[dblack]

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?

You don't know the different between insurance and health care?

Healthcare insurance doesn't pay for healthcare? Or are you talking about vehicle insurance now?

You're confused. I claimed health insurance was overpriced and shitty. I've never claimed America has the 'best healthcare in the world', but that's irrelevant. I was criticizing the health insurance industry.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You're confused

Ironic!

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Ironic here that I can largely agree with this post here....and the one you responded too. Sometimes the "compromise" isnt the best. What we get with the Obama/Romeny cobbled together frankenstein is something that takes the worst of both systems and combines them...it just uses government coercion to feed private profit. Jill Steins, green party presidential condidated also agreed.

 

[dblack]

You're confused

Ironic!

Seems commonplace.

 

[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"?

not sure I follow you....the federalist papaers weren't official debate in Congress for one thing...the anti-federalists largely did think they were false rhetoric...I thin so too. It would have helped if the constitutional convention in philedelphia was not conducted in secret.....

I think they never would have achieved a constitution had the constitutional convention not been a closed session. The temptation to grandstand for the press and expound in political rhetoric would have been too much to overcome then just as it is now. By requiring that the debates and arguments be kept secret within that body, it much better encouraged every delegate to speak his mind from his heart and not for quotation by the press. It allowed every delegate to be able to focus on the task at hand rather than worry about measuring every word and phrase as to how it would be represented to those outside the convention.

 

[dcraelin]

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"?

not sure I follow you....the federalist papaers weren't official debate in Congress for one thing...the anti-federalists largely did think they were false rhetoric...I thin so too. It would have helped if the constitutional convention in philedelphia was not conducted in secret.....

I think they never would have achieved a constitution had the constitutional convention not been a closed session. The temptation to grandstand for the press and expound in political rhetoric would have been too much to overcome then just as it is now. By requiring that the debates and arguments be kept secret within that body, it much better encouraged every delegate to speak his mind from his heart and not for quotation by the press. It allowed every delegate to be able to focus on the task at hand rather than worry about measuring every word and phrase as to how it would be represented to those outside the convention.

one persons grandstanding is anothers appeal to our better nature, our high mindedness. I t might have been more difficult to come to an agreement...but then whos to say we needed to. I think the crticisms of the Articles of confederation are overblown.....that was a system that was ground out more publicly, payments was an agreeed to problem but no new consitution was neeeded to fix that

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...it meationed the neccessary and proper clause.

the clause did not mean our Founders were not very very Conservative!

Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think they never would have achieved a constitution had.

it was a miracle. Everyone liked the Articles for the most part. First try at new convention failed for lack of interest, people straggled in for second one and many left at various points, and no one was sure it would amount to much change.

 

[dcraelin]

...it meationed the neccessary and proper clause.

the clause did not mean our Founders were not very very Conservative!

Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

it does in a way....ANNND true conservatives wouldnt even have asked for a larger government...

your arrogance about you knowledge of history is misplaced...I think Ive proven so

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...ANNND true conservatives wouldnt even have asked for a larger government...

1)conservatives are not anarchists
2) the main reason for the larger govt was common defense and free trade both of which are conservative

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

your arrogance about you knowledge of history is misplaced...I think Ive proven so

show exactly where or admit to being a liar