Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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

 

[jillian]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Oddball]

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.

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.

Fully Informed Jury Association

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

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.

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

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

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

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]

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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 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]

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?

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]

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

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 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.

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]

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]

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

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

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...

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]

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.

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]

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?

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..

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]

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]

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

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

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.

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.