Obama says Obamacare is the law of the land but so was..

[KokomoJojo]

Oh, but the United States did have these problems and they took a toll on the people of this country. Why do you think laws were passed to regulate food, electricity, TV, etc. America wasn't some "Fairy Tale Land" where everything was perfect. The Food and Drug administration was established because the food industry had an anything goes mentality. It was acceptable to put saw dust into sausages. Cows that were sick were butchered and sold to the people. Today cows that are sick or tubercular are not allowed into the food chain. This was not always so. Read the novel The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Anyone could make and sell a medicine even if it was water and turpentine. No one checked to see it it worked or was safe. Anyone could do anything they wanted and nobody stopped them. Is that really the kind of country you want? A country where you can't drink the water, the where the food was often tainted, and where the medicine might cure you or kill you. No thanks. You are living in a dream world if you think the past was paradise.

Oh, but the United States did have these problems and they took a toll on the people of this country. Why do you think laws were passed to regulate food, electricity, TV, etc. America wasn't some "Fairy Tale Land" where everything was perfect.

No one said it was perfect, once upon a time you had "individual" rights and in fact had the rights of a king in its person.

yeh over the course of 200 years.

The Food and Drug administration was established because the food industry had an anything goes mentality.

Yeh and they sued burzynski to the tune of 5 times and the last time threw him in jail and stole his non poisonous cancer cure patents, then had that person sign all right and title over to the FDA. Who has the anything goes mentality again?

It was acceptable to put saw dust into sausages.

Yep one tort would have ended that, but no the government had to butt in.

Cows that were sick were butchered and sold to the people.

That was common place in the old days not only in america but all over, they did not let meat go to waste unless it could not be eaten safely and it was not the norm and dependent on what the disease was. Grocery stores no longer sell dated foods because even though people KNEW what they were buying they being the treacherous lot they are would come back at the stores after buying it anyway.

Today cows that are sick or tubercular are not allowed into the food chain. This was not always so.

They were not allowed in the food chain then either. Some got through, you mean now there is regulation, so you must have known all along then that government is deeply involved and it has everything to do with government as I said.

Read the novel The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Anyone could make and sell a medicine even if it was water and turpentine.

They still can and do

No one checked to see it it worked or was safe.

They still dont. Ever watch the pharma adds on tv? The list of side effects pale the presumed cure.

Anyone could do anything they wanted and nobody stopped them.

What freedom until sued as a result of actual "INJURY"?

Is that really the kind of country you want?

Fuckin aye twitty that is the country I want!

A country where you can't drink the water, the where the food was often tainted, and where the medicine might cure you or kill you. No thanks.

For shit sake thats funny, its exactly what you have now! How can you not see that?

You are living in a dream world if you think the past was paradise.

Never implied or said paradise, that is your spin, it was certainly what I said however, that the reason you pay so much just to live is because of government interlopers sticking their noses in and making a business out of lawmaking and skimming off the top.

The Food and Drug administration was established because the food industry had an anything goes mentality.


maybe

however lots of bad stuff still gets in the food system

these agencies however have the power to regulate.

Regulation is the "police" state, that is how a police state functions through regulation.

Then the FDA like every other agency sets up their monopoly.

I always ask the same question who the hell gave government the right to tell you what drugs or foods you can ingest? Prescrptions only?

You can go to india pakistan walk up the counter and order any damn thing you want! Here you want aspirin you better have your script (permission)

all monopolies!

 

[KokomoJojo]

1st amendment... ayup. And yes to your suggested implication, we need the government to protect our markets, such as from people that want to poison us for profit. I'm not against regulations entirely, it's the ones that are non-nonsensical that bother me.

when their interest becomes this invasive leap of imagination or blatantly steps on individual rights in favor of the mob or in most cases simply greasing their own grubby pockets.

And that's the problem. When the feds become all powerful.. who watches the feds?

oh but its not only them. Ever look at some of the original cities and their charters? They claim rights I never even thought of ir dreamed existed in those corporate charters and we the people are last in the pecking order for rights. We get whats left and frankly I cant think of any not already claimed.

The states and even many counties are far worse to deal with than the feds. In fact its easier to successfully execute and win a case in the fed arena than it is in the state arena any day by virtue of it being a bit more farther removed from the good ole boy undercurrent systems you will find in local and state.

 

[KokomoJojo]

when their interest becomes this invasive leap of imagination or blatantly steps on individual rights in favor of the mob or in most cases simply greasing their own grubby pockets.

And that's the problem. When the feds become all powerful.. who watches the feds?

Most regulations are in answer to a problem. A company puts out pills for weight reduction and it does nothing for weight reduction but actually harms people so the government steps in with a regulation. In due time the company goes out of business but the regulation stays and now seems to be nonsensical, or worse, an impediment to producers of weight reduction pills. Our life span has increased significantly over the years I wonder how much of that longer span is due to regulation?

court decisions are in answer to a problem, policing aka [regulation] is government interloping and meddling.

Except for its own creations! CORPORATIONS!!!

They sell everything under the protection and commerce umbrella and skim off the top and the irony is that when the mafia did it, it was a crime.

They make shit loads of bad law that they know is on the fringe that if not fought by private parties with private funds becomes "defacto" and that this generates ridiculous revenue for the "Just-Us" club and carded BAR members. Its RICO and professor ex-attorney general Fine blew the whistle but in such a big way it would have completely toppled their house of cards in the california. It went to the bottom of holders pile.

 

[politicalnot]

The FDA was a reaction. Government is BAD about over reacting. I use the terms government and neighbor as synonyms. We as people often over react and government is just a direct reflection of the people.

 

[KokomoJojo]

What we need to do is take a chop saw to the freaking bills that were already passed. We've been going backwards for decades passing freaking bills that only managed to screw things up.

what we need also is to distinguish between fundamental rights and political rights which were commingled with the 14th and a series of shit scotus decisions from spies v US exparte forward where the states by virtue of their justus club usurped our fundamental rights and placed them under the state as a citizen opposed to over the state as an living breathing inhabitant.

The contentions on behalf of the defendant were summarized in the Court’s opinion as follows:
It is claimed ... that since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment the effect of [the first ten] amendments has been thereby changed and greatly enlarged. It is now urged in substance that all the provisions contained in the first ten amend*ments, so far as they secure and recognize the fundamental rights of the individual as against the exercise of Federal power, are by virtue of |the Fourteenth] amend*ment to be regarded as privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States, and therefore the slates cannot provide for any procedure in state courts which could not be followed in a Federal court because of the limitations contained in those [first ten] amendments.

actually that is where your "fundamental rights of man" that everyone talks about were usurped by the states and converted to civil rights under the state!

The state as the established sovereign now holds the same status as a king in england and the people now are required to pay liege homage tot he state little different than they did to the king.

(123 u. s. 131) THE ANARCHISTS' CASE.1
Ex parte SPIES and others.
(October 2 J, 1887.)
ERROR, WRIT OF—FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—MOTION IN OPEN COURT.


That the first 10 articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since.

Barron v. Baltimore., 7 Pet. 243, 247;
Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552;
Fox v. Ohio, 5 How 410, 434;
Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76;
Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91;
Percear v. Com., 5 Wall. 475, 479;
Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321. 325;
Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278;
Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557;
Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90;
U. 8. v. Cruiksiiank, Id. 542, 552;
Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 296;
Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101;
Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 79;
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580.

It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet, in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights—of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a state under the fourteenth amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the federal government, and not to the states, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the fourteenth amendment as to such 'rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power." It is also contended that the provision of the fourteenth amendment, which declares that no state shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a state shall be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself. The objections are, in brief,
(1) that a statute of the state as construed by the court deprived the petitioners of a trial by an impartial jury; and

(2) that Spies was compelled to give evidence against himself. Before considering whether the constitution of the United States has the effect which is claimed, it is proper to inquire whether the federal questions relied on in fact do arise on the face of this record.

there is the conversion from the bil of rights over to citizen under and supporting cases


that and the federal constitution is the agreement that was presumably between the people of the states NOT between the states as separate from the people as these courts have concocted.

OR...............

They always have been demense estates and sovereign and we the vassals and never any different. <-- my choice.

the government has a problem they cant have it both ways at the same time!

 

[KokomoJojo]

The FDA was a reaction. Government is BAD about over reacting. I use the terms government and neighbor as synonyms. We as people often over react and government is just a direct reflection of the people.

yeh but I cant over react to protect you then send you a bill for it and collect from you and your kids and their kids forever!

 

[politicalnot]

This is simply over reacting. The FDA is a direct result of the people. People often over react and make poor decisions. Our government isn't and shouldn't be accountable for exercising the will of their poor individual constituent's judgement. We can't blame government. We are government.

 

[KokomoJojo]

This is simply over reacting. The FDA is a direct result of the people. People often over react and make poor decisions. Our government isn't and shouldn't be accountable for exercising the will of their poor individual constituent's judgement. We can't blame government. We are government.

no we are not!

what is the last amendment to the constitution you voted on?

I know I bet you got to vote on ohaha care didnt you?

No you did not!

You are NOT the government.

If you were you would get a paycheck from the us treasury or one of its subsidiaries.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you seriously comparing slavery to affordable health care?

Tell me honestly, if it were a GOP Pres and Senate and a Dem House, would you support the minority party shutting down the government to force legislation they didn't have the votes for?

If the Democrat Senate was shutting down government to force passage of the 13th Amendment, would you support it? Of course you would. If you deny it, no one will believe you. every lib in this country would support it.

What guessed passed is what's important. How it gets passed is a detail. The sanction of the mob doesn't make any particular piece of legislation moral or just. The majority can be just as wrong as a minority.

 

[KokomoJojo]

have you ever seen the 13th amendment? Its in most of the state constitutions of the time

it was never repealed just magically vanished from the document but not the records. I think it had something to do with burning down the white house around 1812.


.

 

[legaleagle_45]

have you ever seen the 13th amendment?

I am familair with it. It is also called the TON amendment. The story of same is found in The Case of the Phantom Thirteenth Amendment: A historical and bibliographic nightmare by Curt E. Conklin, 88 Law Library Journal 121 (winter 1996).

it was never repealed just magically vanished from the document but not the records.

No need to repeal it as it was never ratified. The TON amendment accumulated only 12 state ratifications, the last in December 1812 by which time it would have required 14 to be adopted. The confusion is traced to 1815, and a five volume set titled "Laws of the United States" published by Bioren & Duane of Philadelphia and which printed the proposal as "Article 13". However, in the volume's introduction, the editors cautioned (on page ix), "There had been some difficulty in ascertaining whether the amendment proposed, which is stated as the thirteenth, has or has not been adopted by a sufficient number of the state legislatures.... It has been considered best, however, to publish the proposed amendment in its proper place, as if it had been adopted, with this explanation, to prevent misconception"

Later, different publishers relied upon the Bioren & Duane edition and kept publishing the phantom 13th, apparently missing the cautionary proviso on the introduction. The confusion was continued unabaited leading Congress to make official inquiry as to whether the 13th had been adopted or not. An intensive investigation was conducted with inquires going to all states regarding ratification, which confirmed that there had been only twelve state ratifications, and these reports were published as Messages from the President on February 6, and March 2, 1818. This whole mess led to a law passed by Congress which placed responsibility upon the Secretary of State to receive and tabulate ratifications for amendments. That remained the law until the 1950's when the responsibility shifited to the head of the National Archives.

I think it had something to do with burning down the white house around 1812.

You would be wrong. One does not simly "forget" about an amendment to the US Constitution... besides, the very first time it appears mistakenly as an amendment is 1815, the White House was burned in 1814.

 

[velvtacheeze]

It's helping the uninsured get insurance. It's helping keep people from going into financial ruin when they need medical services. And if a GOP Congress and GOP President vote to scrap it, the onslaught of stories of suffering in the media will bring the GOP back under heel.

This tactic worked for Medicare D, after all. Stories of elderly choosing between food & medicine were everywhere in the media and were threatening the GOP Congressional majority. The GOP folded like a cheap lawn chair and created a new entitlement: government-run, European style subsidies for medicines. I laugh thinking about it. The party of small government and free markets created Medicare D.

and in the House they lost the vote to pass it, and wouldn't close the 10 minute vote for nearly 3 hours, till nearly 3am in the morning, after they had pharma come in to the house of reps and BRIBE, and others that threatened, some repubs until they changed their vote to yes....that is after the 3 hours they kept the 10 minute vote opened...the republican head of the committee putting up the bill, who LOCKED the Democrats out of the negotiations and writing of the bill but allowed PHARMA in their conference to write it, went to work for PHARMA less than a year after getting the bill passed for mega millions a year....a bill that did not allow us to buy medications cheaper from Canada or anywhere on the global supposed free market place anymore which hurt my State tremendously, because we used to bus our citizens to Canada to buy their drugs once a month for much cheaper than the USA....and repubs also added that medicare could NOT negotiate for bulk discounts, while pharma negotiated with all other nations on a bulk discount basis....

Let's just say, illegally passing the Medicare Pill bill in the wee hours of the morning by the republicans is Long forgotten and not even known by most republicans....sad indeed!

Nobody railed against the "Pill Bill" longer or louder than I did. It was inexcusable, indefensible, and 100% unworthy of anybody who called himself or herself 'conservative' or even a patriot. And that legislation is high on the list of the 'sins' I list for the Bush administration that also includes an immigration policy that only a liberal could love, an energy policy that was a joke, an nightmarish environmental policy, poor execution of the war, among other things.

But while 'the other side did it' is fair game to use to nail the hypocrites, it is a poor defense to justify really shitty legislation now no matter who passed it and refuses to correct or rescind it.

You opposed it, did you? Frankly, I don't believe you.

It's amazing how many conservatives turned out to have opposed Medicare D. They're like people who claim to have been at Woodstock: Most of them are lying.

If the number of conservatives who claim to have opposed Medicare D actually did oppose it, and actively oppose it, it would not have passed. The fact is that most conservatives reluctantly supported Medicare D, because they wanted the issue off the table during the next election. And passing it through a GOP dominated Congress was like chocolate on a pill for conservatives. It went down easier, due to the pro-Pharma rules in it.

It was the biggest act of political hypocrisy in a generation, and I will never let conservatives off the hook for it.

 

[TooTall]

Because forcing someone to spend a few bucks and do a sensible thing is just like working 16 hours a day in the blazing sun picking cotton for no pay.

Do you people really expect to be taken seriously with that argument?

slavery takes many forms. generational welfare is a form of slavery. government dependency is a form of slavery

That would make dependency on your electric company, or your supermarket, or your gas station, or your doctor, or your dentist, or your auto mechanic, or your bank, or your job for that matter,

slavery.

Wrong! I can always buy a bunch of solar cells and sell my surplus electricity back to the electric company. I have a choice of at least a half dozen different supermarkets to choose from. Same goes for gas stations, doctors, dentists etc., etc. and I can and have changed jobs and can go into my own business, and I have done both.

Try again.

 

[Rozman]

Are you seriously comparing slavery to affordable health care?

Tell me honestly, if it were a GOP Pres and Senate and a Dem House, would you support the minority party shutting down the government to force legislation they didn't have the votes for?

Are you seriously comparing slavery to affordable health care?

I have no idea how people missed the point of the comment and twisted it to make it seem like someone was comparing Health Care to slavery...

The point was Obama said Obama Care was law and that's the end of the story.
Not so.Slavery was once considered law and so was not allowing women to vote.

But Libs will twist anything to make their argument...

 

[legaleagle_45]

what we need also is to distinguish between fundamental rights and political rights which were commingled with the 14th and a series of shit scotus decisions from spies v US exparte

Err, koko, first the proper cite is The Anarchists Case Ex parte Spies and others, 123 U.S. 131 (1887) . Second the court in Spies made no such ruling. They examined the underlying claim, found that even if the US Constitution applied there was still no violation and therefore held:

Being of opinion, therefore, that the federal questions presented by the counsel for the petitioners, and which they say they desire to argue, are not involved in the determination of the case as it appears on the face of the record, we deny the writ. Petition for writ of error is dismissed.

You might try The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) instead, besides it predates Spies by 15 years.

Thankfully, while the court wrongfully rejected P or I incorporation, they subsequently adopted Due Process selective incorporation which is almost as good.

You are not too good at this, huh?

 

[deltex1]

Obama says Obamacare is the law of the land . So where other things like Slavery, segregation, prohibing, women's suffrage, prohibition, DOMA And all those laws were changed. So ,do you libs want to go back and put all these laws back into place since it WAS the law of the land in history. I sure dont but since you are so hell bent saying this is the LAW Of the LAND so were all of these

The whining faggots of the left will throw the "bad analogy' flag...and retreat to their playpen.

 

[regent]

Obama says Obamacare is the law of the land . So where other things like Slavery, segregation, prohibing, women's suffrage, prohibition, DOMA And all those laws were changed. So ,do you libs want to go back and put all these laws back into place since it WAS the law of the land in history. I sure dont but since you are so hell bent saying this is the LAW Of the LAND so were all of these

The whining faggots of the left will throw the "bad analogy' flag...and retreat to their playpen.

Was slavery a law, did Americans have to have slaves and does the Constitution say America is a slave nation.

 

[RKMBrown]

Obama says Obamacare is the law of the land . So where other things like Slavery, segregation, prohibing, women's suffrage, prohibition, DOMA And all those laws were changed. So ,do you libs want to go back and put all these laws back into place since it WAS the law of the land in history. I sure dont but since you are so hell bent saying this is the LAW Of the LAND so were all of these

The whining faggots of the left will throw the "bad analogy' flag...and retreat to their playpen.

Was slavery a law, did Americans have to have slaves and does the Constitution say America is a slave nation.

Yes. See the 14th due process clause and the 16th amendment. If you are an American Citizen you are a slave. Any more questions?

 

[Fang]

Are you seriously comparing slavery to affordable health care?

It's a valid comparison. It means Amercians have done away with very bad laws in the past such as slavery and DOMA. Liberals can keep saying Obamacare is the law of the land but we know any bad law can be repealed.

Tell me honestly, if it were a GOP Pres and Senate and a Dem House, would you support the minority party shutting down the government to force legislation they didn't have the votes for?

Americans voted in the GOP House. It's why we have separation of power and a system of checks and balances. This way no one person can run the country. Would you rather the GOP House run away and hide like the Wisconson Democrats?

 

[kaz]

Are you seriously comparing slavery to affordable health care?

My God, liberals are stupid. it stuns me sometimes, even now.