If universal health care is so great...

[Bern80]

Bern, post your argument. Understand that I responded to your nonsense with the VI. You are not an expert on the Constitution. Until you understand you have to play it right, you fail.

The only nonsense below is yours. It is simply there for all to say what a weasel you are. That you change subjects when you are losing. Your refusal to address what is either a lie or confusion on your part begs the question as to why one should debate you at all when you WILL (as the below shows) either lie or become easily confused. I have stated my argument (two posts back now). The FEDERAL government a) does not have the authority to PROVIDE health insurance b) nor does it have the authority to require people to purchase it.

It doesn't because the purpose of Article 1 Section 8 is to tell us what powers the federal government has. Provide health care isn't there. It doesn't have the authority to do b) either because it does fit the definition of general welfare, and some very basic logic because if you support that what you are essentially saying is the fed has the power to require pretty much anything of you as long as they collect a tax for non-compliance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, everybody knows that your opinion or Fits' opinion or my opinion don't carry weight at all.

Make your premise, post your evidence. If you post any part of the Constitution, I am going to refer you to SCOTUS.

Capiche, sonny?

 

[Bern80]

Bern, everybody knows that your opinion or Fits' opinion or my opinion don't carry weight at all.

Make your premise, post your evidence. If you post any part of the Constitution, I am going to refer you to SCOTUS.

Capiche, sonny?

How much more basic does it need to get for you? I don't have to play by your rules. Hell even you can't follow the one's you make up as evidenced below. The Constitution IS the evidence weasel. Anyone who has actually read the thing can see this. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to take a very short sighted view of things for the purpose legislating whatever they want. Simply because people have tried and indeed broadly interpreted it doesn't mean it was EVER meant to be prescribed that way. Anyone with a brain who can't see the dangers of broadly interpreting the constitution is simply gambling with their freedom.

How much more obvious does it need to be than a section in the constitution with the sole purpose of the PEOPLE telling us what powers they will GRANT to the fed? If it isn't there, the fed can't do it. It's that fucking simple.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, you will keep losing the discussion then, because NO ONE thinks you are an expert in and of yourself on the issue. That's fine. That's your right, to look like a doofus.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, you will keep losing the discussion then, because NO ONE thinks you are an expert in and of yourself on the issue. That's fine. That's your right, to look like a doofus.

As oppossed to you who takes the weasel road and can't lose an argument if he doesn't have the balls to stick with or actually make one? I never claimed to be an expert. But frankly one doesn't have to be to understand the document. The framers made the constitution simple. All they expected was a basic grasp of written english. What the intent of Article i Section 8, is not an opinion. It's purpose is 'CRYSTAL CLEAR, (as you are so fond of stating, but can manage to actually back up). That you have no reasonable rebuttal in every post you make to anything speaks far more about you and the weasel you are than anything else. The guy who wrote the fucking thing is on my side, not yours, weasel. In fact he agrees with me in calling the likes of people such as yourself, essentially, weasels....

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.

The fact that you are so cowardly as to not even quote others so that you have an easy way out speaks volumes to the fact that you remain an intellectual weasel and a outright liar as again illustrated below. The more you choose to ignore it, the more you look like complete and utter tool.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Son, we cannot accept you as an expert.

Get somebody with balls and cred whose evidence can make sure argument. As if you know what 1:8 means, as if.

 

[Bern80]

Son, we cannot accept you as an expert.

Get somebody with balls and cred whose evidence can make sure argument. As if you know what 1:8 means, as if.

What Sec. I Art. 8 means is quite clear. But on the off chance one doesn't understand it, the guy who wrote it explained it for us in the quoted Federalist paper. He is as expert as it gets on the subject. Please explain to us all why the guy who wrote it, then explained what it means, is wrong on what the fed has the authority to do. You, on the other hand, are the very last person that should be pointing fingers when it comes to credibility. As shown below you are a weasel that doesn't have a shred of it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]

 

[Douger]

Thanks for the reminder. I have to go pick up my prescriptions.
Yeah. Free.At the clinic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, simply you are not an expert. You can win an argument if you can't craft one. You haven't.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, simply you are not an expert. You can win an argument if you can't craft one. You haven't.

I never said I was an expert. Your flailing like a weasel for any excuse to not actually have to address the argument. So typical of the avg. liberal. I went to the source for my argument. The guy who wrote it who explained what it meant and thus why it means the fed does not have the authority to provide healthcare. It isn't my OPINION about what he said. It's what he said. Give me some type of logical explanation as to why that doesn't count and allows you to make the lame excuses you make above. You made one effort by citing Article VI of all things but when asked to explain this you couldn't tell us why it supports your position or even what position that is. I hate to burst your bubble, but the record of this thread is gong to show that YOU are the weasel with no logical, rationale arguments and that you are the one that has lost the argument.

Look at the record weasel. YOU are the one that hasn't crafted an argument. YOU are the one that hasn't been able to rebut anything I've posted short of childish responses like the above. YOU are the one that is a liar as seen below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.[/QUOTE]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Read Article 1, section 8.

Where in there can it be construed that congress has the power to run the medical services sector of the economy

Read Public Law No: 111-148. Where in there does Congress "run the medical services sector of the economy"?

or compel anyone to buy anything?

I've outlined the relevant bits of the Constitution in other posts:

• Article I, Section 8, Clause 1."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;"
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" (See United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association for the relevance here)
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (See McCulloch v. Maryland for the significance here)

thank you quoting the Constitution.

people -- watch your backside.

people like Dude will tell you to read The Federalist and go on to list things like Federalist 41, but The Federalist are not documents hammered out and voted on as a compromise for governing. They were one sided arguments and as such carry weight only in philosophical arguments. Heck, both Madison and Hamilton went on to disagree with themselves as well as each other over their very own words.

The Federalist Papers are not the new Bible, though cliques of libertarians may worship them at the expense of the general welfare.

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.

promote the general Welfare

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liberty,

You really are an idiot. But I will continue to pray for you at Mass.

 

[Bern80]

Read Article 1, section 8.

Where in there can it be construed that congress has the power to run the medical services sector of the economy

Read Public Law No: 111-148. Where in there does Congress "run the medical services sector of the economy"?

or compel anyone to buy anything?

I've outlined the relevant bits of the Constitution in other posts:

• Article I, Section 8, Clause 1."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;"
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" (See United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association for the relevance here)
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (See McCulloch v. Maryland for the significance here)

watch your backside. people like Dude will tell you to read The Federalist and go on to list things like Federalist 41, but The Federalist are not documents hammered out and voted on as a compromise for governing. They were one sided arguments and as such carry weight only in philosophical arguments. Heck, both Madison and Hamilton went on to disagree with themselves as well as each other over their very own words.

The Federalist Papers are not the new Bible, though cliques of libertarians may worship them at the expense of the general welfare.

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.

The only expense is your freedom. And no the federalist papers are not the bible of the consititution. But the facts are this. It is a pretty simple document written in plain english, yet precise enough that there are few areas open to broad interpretation. For example if you actually read Federalist 41, you will see he is not giving his opinion as to what the general welfare clause means. He is explaining why they way in which it was written indicates that the general welfare refers to the enumerated list that follows it and nothing more. He states for example that had the clause been left alone with no enumerated powers afterward one might have an argument that the fed has more power than it does. But to paraphrase anyone who ignores the basic structed of how the ENTIRE section is written is simply being willfully ignorant.

We aren't trying to maintain a strict interpretation of the constitution because we're mean people. We're doing it becuase unlike Starkey and you we can see the forest for the trees. Things like SS and medicare and providing health care seem like such nice things for government to do, who would say no to that. The framers would say no to that because you have to look at the bigger picture. Taking from Franklin, re you willing to sacrafice a little freedom for a little safety? Are you willing to keep traveling down that slippery slope giving up a little more for a little less as more and more programs that sound nice and compassionate come up? If you allow things like that, 'out of the goodness of your heart', what legal ground are you going to stand on when they do something you don't think is right?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution...

because that is not the job of the government?


and also maybe because they do not have to?

 

[Big Fitz]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution...

because that is not the job of the government?


and also maybe because they do not have to?

Ahhh, the last several Dante posts were brought to us by the "Committee for an All-Powerful Government".

If the feds can do anything because of the federal welfare clause, why are there checks and balances? Enumerated power?

Heck, why write the Constitution at all beyond the line:

"The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."

Oh that's right, because that view is false, created by statists created during the FDR years to enable the illegal expansion of federal power.

What do you do when the Supreme Court becomes corrupt? How do you check and balance them? If Amending the constitution is the only way, but the court determines what the constitution says, then there needs to be more checks and balances put on their power.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution...

because that is not the job of the government?


and also maybe because they do not have to?

Ahhh, the last several Dante posts were brought to us by the "Committee for an All-Powerful Government".

If the feds can do anything because of the federal welfare clause, why are there checks and balances? Enumerated power?

Heck, why write the Constitution at all beyond the line:

"The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."

Oh that's right, because that view is false, created by statists created during the FDR years to enable the illegal expansion of federal power.

What do you do when the Supreme Court becomes corrupt? How do you check and balance them? If Amending the constitution is the only way, but the court determines what the constitution says, then there needs to be more checks and balances put on their power.

Poor Fitz, I guess being at the Hannity Forums for so long has rotted what few brain cells you ever possessed.

The government. Elected officials. Government Bureaucracy. Politicians and politics.


you appear to confuse all of the above. your inability to grasp nuance and differences with distinctions is an example of what happens to people who hang around demagogues and douchebagh populists too long.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[Big Fitz]

You just can't even defend your own bullshit so right to the neg reps.

Don't worry, you'll be getting some back soon enough.

Now, answer the fucking question.

Heck, why write the Constitution at all beyond the line:

"The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."

You assert that government can do whatever it wants. Back it up.

 

[Big Fitz]

The government. Elected officials. Government Bureaucracy. Politicians and politics.

And this string of nouns is supposed to represent what?

you appear to confuse all of the above. your inability to grasp nuance and differences with distinctions is an example of what happens to people who hang around demagogues and douchebagh populists too long.

You got nothing. Gotcha. Not even a coherent argument to support your rabid rhetoric of frothing fascism.

 

[Greenbeard]

"The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."

Oh that's right, because that view is false, created by statists created during the FDR years to enable the illegal expansion of federal power.

The notion that the General Welfare clause has broad implications certainly predates the 20th century.

Here's Alexander Hamilton (a signer of the Constitution and author of many of the Federalist papers) writing on December 5, 1791:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.​