Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Foxfyre]

Again everybody, this has been a good discussion for the most part, and every now and then we are actualy discussing the question posed in the OP. I would like for us to focus on that topic.

And one more time a gentle reminder - repeating:
The rules do not allow comments on what the members know or think or believe or intend or feel or are trying to do or need to do or anything else personal about the member. Focus on the specific posts please unless a post seriously violates the rules in which case please do not respond in kind but report it and let the mods handle it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax. (SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.) And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

You're wrong. That;'s all there is to it. Worse, you're wrong on so many levels it is next to impossible to take you seriously in this thread. You apparently have a poor grasp of anything in the area of legal thinking or argument.

That's a great argument.....seems to be the concluding post in a lot of threads I see on this and other boards.

There is no right or wrong. There is what is and what isn't and there is what works and what does not (and then there is the disagreement about what it means for something to be working).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why didn't you say from the outset that you were going to restrict definitions of what constitutes a social contract in order to posit an argument that the laws and the Constitution are social contracts, but Obamacare is not?

The argument itself is ridiculously weak and woefully ignorant/

The social contract we citizens have with our government is that when they enact laws they do so in a constitutional manner.

facts that CANNOT be denied:, Obamacare was passed by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Chief Executive, and ruled constitutional by an independent Judiciary recognized by all.

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax. (SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.) And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax. (SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.) And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

You're wrong. That;'s all there is to it. Worse, you're wrong on so many levels it is next to impossible to take you seriously in this thread. You apparently have a poor grasp of anything in the area of legal thinking or argument.

That's a great argument.....seems to be the concluding post in a lot of threads I see on this and other boards.

There is no right or wrong. There is what is and what isn't and there is what works and what does not (and then there is the disagreement about what it means for something to be working).

hmm... a concluding post later on in a thread gone wildly into irrationality?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

No, the people in state conventions repealed prohibition. Good grief Charlie Brown!

The will of the people will prevail, so what was your point to begin with? You will NEVER convince others to back you and you know why?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

I am not sure if this a questions of principle....or results.

But I will give my two cents.

We are an representative democracy. We empower our reps to vote in our behalf.

What you described was akin to total democracy, or as the founders called it, mob rule.

So, I don't think they were justified in rebelling against it they way they did. The amendment would have been repealed by a vote of the states based on who was there by virture of the vote of the people.

If the rebellion was the only reason for repeal....that is sad.

I don't want to rebel against Obamacare like that (and in fact, you can legally do so). But I'd still like to see it repealed.

Our elected drones voted it in...we need them to vote it out.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

You're wrong. That;'s all there is to it. Worse, you're wrong on so many levels it is next to impossible to take you seriously in this thread. You apparently have a poor grasp of anything in the area of legal thinking or argument.

That's a great argument.....seems to be the concluding post in a lot of threads I see on this and other boards.

There is no right or wrong. There is what is and what isn't and there is what works and what does not (and then there is the disagreement about what it means for something to be working).

hmm... a concluding post later on in a thread gone wildly into irrationality?

I do believe are experiencing a significant "failure to communicate". However, I don't agree with your characterization of this thread.

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

You're wrong. That;'s all there is to it. Worse, you're wrong on so many levels it is next to impossible to take you seriously in this thread. You apparently have a poor grasp of anything in the area of legal thinking or argument.

That's a great argument.....seems to be the concluding post in a lot of threads I see on this and other boards.

There is no right or wrong. There is what is and what isn't and there is what works and what does not (and then there is the disagreement about what it means for something to be working).

hmm... a concluding post later on in a thread gone wildly into irrationality?

I do believe are experiencing a significant "failure to communicate". However, I don't agree with your characterization of this thread.

Then I guess I'll have to take a better look


at



you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

Tyranny? LOL

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

Tyranny? LOL

Yes. Arbitrary and Oppressive. But hey, if that's what you like I'm not gonna tell you to wipe the __ off your chin.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

Tyranny? LOL

Yes. Arbitrary and Oppressive. But hey, if that's what you like I'm not gonna tell you to wipe the __ off your chin.

If what you see happening in America is tyranny I wonder if a broken toe nail is to you an amputation of a foot

 

[PratchettFan]

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

 

[PratchettFan]

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax. (SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.) And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

We can nullify any law just by repealing it. The reason for doing this could be on whatever basis we choose. The current trend in the legalization of marijuana is a case in point.

I don't see that happening with the ACA though. I could be wrong, of course, but the primary argument against it is not that something like it wasn't needed (both parties were claiming it was needed at the time) but that it was created in an environment of partisan politics. All attempts to repeal so far have been done in such a way as to insure failure. Insisting on repeal while carefully making sure it isn't repealed. Personally, if there was any violation of the social contract in the ACA was in the fact that it didn't go far enough.

 

[dblack]

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

We can nullify any law just by repealing it. The reason for doing this could be on whatever basis we choose. The current trend in the legalization of marijuana is a case in point.

I don't see that happening with the ACA though. I could be wrong, of course, but the primary argument against it is not that something like it wasn't needed (both parties were claiming it was needed at the time) but that it was created in an environment of partisan politics. All attempts to repeal so far have been done in such a way as to insure failure. Insisting on repeal while carefully making sure it isn't repealed. Personally, if there was any violation of the social contract in the ACA was in the fact that it didn't go far enough.

I agree that no more than a handful of the Republicans in Congress actually want to repeal ACA. But the "not far enough" defense always perplexes me. In my view the problem was never with how far ACA went, but what it did. How far would we want to go in giving the insurance industry control over our health care spending?

 

[dblack]

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

 

[PratchettFan]

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

We can nullify any law just by repealing it. The reason for doing this could be on whatever basis we choose. The current trend in the legalization of marijuana is a case in point.

I don't see that happening with the ACA though. I could be wrong, of course, but the primary argument against it is not that something like it wasn't needed (both parties were claiming it was needed at the time) but that it was created in an environment of partisan politics. All attempts to repeal so far have been done in such a way as to insure failure. Insisting on repeal while carefully making sure it isn't repealed. Personally, if there was any violation of the social contract in the ACA was in the fact that it didn't go far enough.

I agree that no more than a handful of the Republicans in Congress actually want to repeal ACA. But the "not far enough" defense always perplexes me. In my view the problem was never with how far ACA went, but what it did. How far would we want to go in giving the insurance industry control over our health care spending?

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix. That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it. What we should have done is gone to a system of nationalized medicine like every other first world country on the planet. Public health is a public concern.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

No, it isn't. It is entirely human nature and has absolutely nothing at all to do with any particular group.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

There is no external cure for it.

And if the individuals who practice it realized just how much they are damaging the process (by driving people out of the process thus leaving more power in the hands of fewer individuals), they might consider disciplining themselves.

I can't stand the self-righteous attitude of people like Rachael Maddow or Sam Brownback.