Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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...

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

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

 

[jillian]

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...

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

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]

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?

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

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]

and the caselaw you rely on for that assertion?

oh right... you got nada...

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

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?

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

 

[jillian]

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]

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?

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

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...

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]

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

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...

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.

says who? you?

 

[jillian]

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

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]

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?

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.

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

 

[Oddball]

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]

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?

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.

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

No where jillian, go ahead and make your point.