• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Discussion: Healthcare

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't care about wether or not there was a racial factor involved. These people now have their independence and it happened in the aftermath of the American Revolution.

The fact is that while they were inspired by the American Revolution, the circumstances were vastly different. The roots of the American Revolution are taxes and idealism. The root of the Latin American wars of independence was the fact that the Spanish legitimately treated their colonies like crap.
 
The view of the British Government, though, was that many Colonial representitives wished to have British military in the colonies for their protection against French and Indians (now obviously these representitives had no voting power and were not official members of British government, but it would be falacious to say that there was no interest in the colonies of having the Royal Military in the country).

But hey, I certainly am not one to defend the lobster backs.

The truth of the matter was that very few British troops were there in the colonies and armed militias were used to help fight in the French and Indian war. That meant that the colonist didn't need the British to protect them (else we wouldn't have won the revolution) and their presence was more to protect their own interest rather than the colonists.

The easiest example (though certainly the most destructive) is the construction of inner state roads and the spending of money on innerstate roads. Jefferson and Madison and probably Monroe all voiced frequently their wish to use Federal Funds to build and improve roads and waterways. They also said that they could not do as such until the Constitution was amended.

We got no amendment, but we did get roads.

The famous road you write of is the Cumberland Road. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution covered the construction of the inter state (not inner state) road. The major debate on that project was its financing although the general agreement was that the U.S. would benefit from a national road connecting the Ohio Valley to the Eastern Seaboard. As it turned out, federal land in the States affected were sold to finance its construction.

Another obvious example would be restrictions on drugs. It took a Constitutional Amendment to Federally control alcohol, but no such procedure necessary for other narcotics.

The prohibition of alcohol was a result of the pressures of the Temperance Movement and ultimately proved to be unpopular and an utter failure (hence its repeal a little over 10 years later. Drugs and narcotics are controlled via the perscription system in this country since the majority of them are used for medical purposes. This is why they are not prohibited.

Now this is certainly [not] all of them (these are merely the to easiest examples. Want me to get in to how most of the not major policy "achievements" of the 20th century should essentially be made illegal?)

Your examples have not proven anything. Try again.

Again, your understanding of the Constitution is [severely] flawed. The Constitution was not meant to be a device to allow the Federal Government to justify any action it takes, but a document meant to bind down the government to only a few objects. The State Governments were meant to do the rest.

Um... The Constitution is a device that justifies the actions that the Government takes. This is why it was written. How else can they defend them selves when challenged on their actions?

The only thing in the Constitution that today allows for such grotesquely unConstitutional action is the aforementioned Welfare Clause. However the Welfare Clause is not an independent instrument in the Constitution denoting more power to the Federal Government but a clause of the American government's ability to TAX. Therefore the clause was meant to allow the Federal Government to collect taxes for essentially all programs it passed. Those programs, however, were meant to be confined to the areas of:

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

And 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."

Those were the limits of the Federal Government as made painfully obvious by the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

One more thing you forgot to mention:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

- U.S. Contitution, Article VI
So the way I interpret what you've posted is that the Federal Government has these powers (one in particular being to make laws to help them execute those powers) and anything not mentioned in the Constitution, and by inference the federal laws created, are the powers of the States or the people. Any conflict between the States and the federal law (as well as any treaty with a foreign nation/nations) though would be trumped by the supremacy of the federal law/treaty.

Let's get my favorite Founding Father's opinion on this subject:

“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose." - Thomas Jefferson

Although he was entitled to his opinion, Thomas Jefferson never wrote or signed the Constitution. So bringing this back to Health Care Reform (which is the topic of this thread) nothing being enacted right now by this law is unconstitutional. No one is actually being mandated to have health insurance. They are just being given a tax break if they show proof that they have it. Only those that do not are being penalized (i.e. taxed). This is no different than those who purchase a home and write off their mortgage interest and it is all in the interest of promoting the common good (i.e. general welfare) of the nation (making sure people have adequate health care or can purchase a home).
 
Last edited:
The fact is that while they were inspired by the American Revolution, the circumstances were vastly different. The roots of the American Revolution are taxes and idealism. The root of the Latin American wars of independence was the fact that the Spanish legitimately treated their colonies like crap.

Just for the record, Latin America declared it's independance from Spain when King Ferdinand was diposed by the French during the Peninsula War.
 
Just for the record, Latin America declared it's independance from Spain when King Ferdinand was diposed by the French during the Peninsula War.

It was the perfect opportunity. The people in the Spanish colonies hated how they were being treated brutally by the Spanish and they took advantage of the political chaos going on.
 
My mommy didn't let me watch those kinds of movies...
 
I just heard that the 9/11 First Responders Health Bill passed the House by a vote of 268-160.
 
The truth of the matter was that very few British troops were there in the colonies and armed militias were used to help fight in the French and Indian war. That meant that the colonist didn't need the British to protect them (else we wouldn't have won the revolution) and their presence was more to protect their own interest rather than the colonists.

The reality is less important that the perception and I was simply presenting the British view of things.

The famous road you write of is the Cumberland Road. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution covered the construction of the inter state (not inner state) road. The major debate on that project was its financing although the general agreement was that the U.S. would benefit from a national road connecting the Ohio Valley to the Eastern Seaboard. As it turned out, federal land in the States affected were sold to finance its construction.

Yes, but don't you see that giving the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT the ability to decide what IS and what IS NOT in the "GREATER GOOD" essentially gives them the ability to do anything they wish. After all, if it is only the opinion of the Federal Government that matters - they will always give themselves the benefit of the doubt and charge themselves with as much power as possible.

That quite clearly destroys Federalism.

The Federal Government does not the authority to build and improve inner-state roads with taxpayer dollars. Period. Every such project has been blatantly Unconstitutional. The problem is that no one's passions are engulfed by the building of a local road - you don't start a revolution over a paved road. People fail to see the larger dangers to such a blase attitude towards such small issues. It establishes precedents and slowly withers away the reality.

Again, the government we have now is actively unquestionably unconstitutional.

The prohibition of alcohol was a result of the pressures of the Temperance Movement and ultimately proved to be unpopular and an utter failure (hence its repeal a little over 10 years later. Drugs and narcotics are controlled via the perscription system in this country since the majority of them are used for medical purposes. This is why they are not prohibited.

Who gave the authority for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to name any substance, be it alcohol, drug or narcotic, to be illegal? The Federal Government was given the authority to ban alcohol due to Constitutional Amendment. No such Constitutional Amendment was given to form the DEA, or to establish any such policy of criminalization.

Show me where in the Constitution the States give up the ability to write drug law. Why can't California legalize weed without fear of Federal reaction?

Um... The Constitution is a device that justifies the actions that the Government takes. This is why it was written. How else can they defend them selves when challenged on their actions?

And it justifies the action Government takes by limiting the actions Government takes. Today there is no need for the Government to justify their actions.



So the way I interpret what you've posted is that the Federal Government has these powers (one in particular being to make laws to help them execute those powers) and anything not mentioned in the Constitution, and by inference the federal laws created, are the powers of the States or the people. Any conflict between the States and the federal law (as well as any treaty with a foreign nation/nations) though would be trumped by the supremacy of the federal law/treaty.

That would be the proper interpretation.

I then ask you how you would defend, for example, Obamacare as a Constitutional Proper use of government power. Does it help the Federal Government:

Borrow money on the credit of the United States?

Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes?

Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States?

Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures?

Provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States?

Establish Post Offices and Post Roads?

Secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries?

Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court?

Define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations?

Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?

Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years?

Provide and maintain a Navy?

Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces?

Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions?

Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?

AH! It must be this. By providing healthcare to it's citizens, the Federal Government is providing for the organization, arming and disciplining of the Militia. I got! :wow:

Although he was entitled to his opinion, Thomas Jefferson never wrote or signed the Constitution. So bringing this back to Health Care Reform (which is the topic of this thread) nothing being enacted right now by this law is unconstitutional. No one is actually being mandated to have health insurance. They are just being given a tax break if they show proof that they have it. Only those that do not are being penalized (i.e. taxed). This is no different than those who purchase a home and write off their mortgage interest and it is all in the interest of promoting the common good (i.e. general welfare) of the nation (making sure people have adequate health care or can purchase a home).

Anyone want to guess my opinion of such a government policy?
 
The reality is less important that the perception and I was simply presenting the British view of things.

The British view was to protect their intrests in the colonies. It wasn't necessarily to protect the colonists per se. If they cared that much about them they would have given them representation in Parliment.

Yes, but don't you see that giving the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT the ability to decide what IS and what IS NOT in the "GREATER GOOD" essentially gives them the ability to do anything they wish. After all, if it is only the opinion of the Federal Government that matters - they will always give themselves the benefit of the doubt and charge themselves with as much power as possible.

That quite clearly destroys Federalism.

Don't you see that the Federal government is comprised of representatives from each of the States, who debate on whether or not their decisions serve the greater good? Don't you see that the Federal government has three branches which serve as a check and balace to its decision making? This is why it is called a Federal government in the first place.

The Federal Government does not [have] the authority to build and improve inner-state roads with taxpayer dollars. Period. Every such project has been blatantly Unconstitutional. The problem is that no one's passions are engulfed by the building of a local road - you don't start a revolution over a paved road. People fail to see the larger dangers to such a blase attitude towards such small issues. It establishes precedents and slowly withers away the reality.

If they own the land I don't see why they couldn't. As it turned out. the Federal government gave over portions of the National Road to the States to maintain on their own. A good number of them turned them into turnpikes (or toll roads). This in no way means that the decision to build a national road did not serve the purpose of promoting the general welfare/common good of the nation, though. Certainly they do and more than a century later, the Federal government under Dwight D. Eisenhower championed a interstate or national highway system that to this day is funded by taxpayer money. It promotes the common good in that it allows commerce to travel freely between the states and allows for a transit system for national defense and this is want gave the Federal goverment the authority to do it.

Again, the government we have now is actively unquestionably unconstitutional.

...NOT!



Who gave the authority for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to name any substance, be it alcohol, drug or narcotic, to be illegal? The Federal Government was given the authority to ban alcohol due to Constitutional Amendment. No such Constitutional Amendment was given to form the DEA, or to establish any such policy of criminalization.

Umm... the Constitution. It also gives them the ability to create laws that can establish entities such as the DEA, the FDA, and others to execute the powers they have.

Show me where in the Constitution the States give up the ability to write drug law. Why can't California legalize weed without fear of Federal reaction?

The commerce clause and the supremacy clause. I have mentioned this before. We can't have each state doing its own thing when it comes to products which partake in interstate commerce.

And it justifies the action Government takes by limiting the actions Government takes. Today there is no need for the Government to justify their actions.

Certainly they do because they are challenged by people like you on a daily basis. The framers knew that and as a result drafted the Constitution.

That would be the proper interpretation.

I then ask you how you would defend, for example, Obamacare as a Constitutional Proper use of government power. Does it help the Federal Government:

Borrow money on the credit of the United States?

Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes?

Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States?

Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures?

Provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States?

Establish Post Offices and Post Roads?

Secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries?

Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court?

Define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations?

Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?

Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years?

Provide and maintain a Navy?

Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces?

Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions?

Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?

AH! It must be this. By providing healthcare to it's citizens, the Federal Government is providing for the organization, arming and disciplining of the Militia. I got! :wow:

Like I said before, the General Welfare Clause (which you didn't mention above) and the Commerce Clause justifies HCR as Constitutional.

Anyone want to guess my opinion of such a government policy?

Hey, I and many others (over 37 million) are enjoying the mortgage intrest deduction (in fact I just bought another house last night). I don't think we could care less about your opinion on it.
 
Last edited:
dnno1 said:
Don't you see that the Federal government is comprised of representatives from each of the States, who debate on whether or not their decisions serve the greater good? Don't you see that the Federal government has three branches which serve as a check and balace to its decision making? This is why it is called a Federal government in the first place.

This would be great if it were actually the case, and not just written words....

That is what we teach in school yes, that is not what I believe is happening in Washington D.C.
 
the government, today, is actually elected officials looking out for their own best interests and doing just enough to not lose their seats and all the perks that come with it
 
Don't you see that the Federal government is comprised of representatives from each of the States, who debate on whether or not their decisions serve the greater good? Don't you see that the Federal government has three branches which serve as a check and balace to its decision making? This is why it is called a Federal government in the first place.

The Federal Government being composed of Federal representatives from each of the States does not put any check and balance on the power of the Federal Government.

I believe your last sentence implies that the Federalism the Constitution is built on is not a division of Federal/State authority but a Federalism build on the three branches of Federal Government. While that is certainly true today, that was not remotely the intent of the Constitution.

When Senators moved from election by State Legislature to direct elect by citizen, the voice of the State Government in Federal Affairs went away. It destroyed the Federalism our government was built on.

If they own the land I don't see why they couldn't. As it turned out. the Federal government gave over portions of the National Road to the States to maintain on their own. A good number of them turned them into turnpikes (or toll roads). This in no way means that the decision to build a national road did not serve the purpose of promoting the general welfare/common good of the nation, though. Certainly they do and more than a century later, the Federal government under Dwight D. Eisenhower championed a interstate or national highway system that to this day is funded by taxpayer money. It promotes the common good in that it allows commerce to travel freely between the states and allows for a transit system for national defense and this is want gave the Federal goverment the authority to do it.

The Federal government was not meant to decide what authority the Federal Government has.

Again, if the Building of a National Road was such a great project of General Interest - THEN PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ALLOWING SUCH CONSTRUCTION.

I am not necessarily arguing that it is bad for the Federal Government to do this, that and the other - what I am saying is that it is bad for the Federal Government to exceed the limited powers listed in the Constitution without following the rules the States and Citizens agreed upon.

Umm... the Contitution. It also give them the ability to create laws that can establish entities such as the DEA, the FDA, and others to execute the powers they have.

If the power to regulate commerce was as broad as you are implying here, there would have been no need to ban alcohol by way of Constitutional Amendment.

Here is an article that can improve your understanding of the clause:

http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/busting_congress_interstate_commerce_myth.html

The commerce clause and the supremacy clause. I have mentioned this before. We can't have each state doing its own thing when it comes to products which partake in interstate commerce.

But California legalizing marijuana doesn't mean that it is legal in Colorado. When California legalizes marijuana, it is affecting laws regarding inner state commerce.

Certainly they do because they are challenged by people like you on a daily basis. The framers knew that and as a result drafted the Constitution.

How much reading have you actually done about the Constitution and it's creation?

Like I said before, the General Welfare Clause (which you didn't mention above) and the Commerce Clause justifies HCR as Constitutional.

I didn't mention the General Welfare Clause because the General Welfare Clause had nothing with the powers invested in Congress regarding policy. The General Welfare Clause simply allowed the government to collect taxes for any government program the Federal Government enacted (with the assumption being that any policy that was able to make it through Congress composed of Federal Representatives and State-Appointed Senators) would have to be for the "General Welfare".

The General Welfare Clause was not meant for the government to be able to pass any program it deems in the General Welfare simply because the Federal Government deems it so.

Hey, I and many others (over 37 million) are enjoying the mortgage intrest deduction (in fact I just bought another house last night). I don't think we could care less about your opinion on it.

Nor should you. However simply because it is a good policy for you does not mean that it is a sound policy or a Constitutional policy.
 
the government, today, is actually elected officials looking out for their own best interests and doing just enough to not lose their seats and all the perks that come with it

Which is why I think all elected officials in any seat should only get 2 terms of 2 years, other than the President who will remain at 2 terms of 4 years. I am tired of fat cats in congress using their power to keep them in office for 40 years.

That will do away with abuse and being an elected official was never meant to be a career.
 
That's about was I was thinking though it may be better to have even smaller term limits for Congressmen. If the position is meant to be more citizen than politician, a 4 year limit for Representatives makes sense. The Senate would be the one full of politicians with a 12-18 year limit.
 
The Federal Government being composed of Federal representatives from each of the States does not put any check and balance on the power of the Federal Government.

Go back and read my post. I said that there are three branches of government that provide a check and balance on the decision making of the Federal government. What you just posted is not what I said. The representatives from each State comprise the Federal government. They debate in congress to determine Federal law, and the business of government.

I believe your last sentence implies that the Federalism the Constitution is built on is not a division of Federal/State authority but a Federalism build on the three branches of Federal Government. While that is certainly true today, that was not remotely the intent of the Constitution.

When Senators moved from election by State Legislature to direct elect by citizen, the voice of the State Government in Federal Affairs went away. It destroyed the Federalism our government was built on.

My meaning of Federalism is the fact that our government and it's legislature is made up of representatives and people from each of the States. That by definition is what federalism is and even though Senators have been elected by the citizens of their respective states, they still represent the people of that State and it does not change the meaning nor the concept of federalism.

The Federal government was not meant to decide what authority the Federal Government has.

Again, if the Building of a National Road was such a great project of General Interest - THEN PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ALLOWING SUCH CONSTRUCTION.

I am not necessarily arguing that it is bad for the Federal Government to do this, that and the other - what I am saying is that it is bad for the Federal Government to exceed the limited powers listed in the Constitution without following the rules the States and Citizens agreed upon.

Once again you are misconstruing my words. I said certainly the Federal government has the authority to build and improve interstate roads since the Constitution gives them that authority (this was my implication). So long as they can justify its purpose to provide for the common defense and/or promote the general welfare (common good) then they have the authority to use taxpayer dollars to persue a project (such as an interstate highway system that was championed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower). This authority is officially granted once debated and finalized by legislation in Congress. It is not necessary to amend the Constitution to do so since that same document allows them to make laws to "Execute their foregoing powers" (see the last paragraph of Article I, Section 8 - in this case, the foregoing powers would be to regulate/govern interstate commerce as well as provide a strategic highway system for the military to defend the nation ). Thus the Federal government has not exceeded it's powers, else the laws that were made to pursue the project would have been struck down by the SCOTUS.

If the power to regulate commerce was as broad as you are implying here, there would have been no need to ban alcohol by way of Constitutional Amendment.

Here is an article that can improve your understanding of the clause:

http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/busting_congress_interstate_commerce_myth.html

That's just it. They didn't need to ban the sale of alcohol. The Constitutional amendment to ban sales of the substance was brought on by pressures from the Temperance Movement. As it turns out alcohol is regulated as interstate commerce just as any other products is. Now of course there are States and counties that do ban the sale of alcohol, but that is their prerogative.

But California legalizing marijuana doesn't mean that it is legal in Colorado. When California legalizes marijuana, it is affecting laws regarding inner state commerce.

In this case there already is a Federal law governing marijuana (see the Controlled Substance Act). Although California has legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, the Federal government does not recognize this law and has prosecuted persons for its possession and cultivation.

How much reading have you actually done about the Constitution and it's creation?

Enough to know that you have misinterpreted it for your own convenience.

I didn't mention the General Welfare Clause because the General Welfare Clause had nothing with the powers invested in Congress regarding policy. The General Welfare Clause simply allowed the government to collect taxes for any government program the Federal Government enacted (with the assumption being that any policy that was able to make it through Congress composed of Federal Representatives and State-Appointed Senators) would have to be for the "General Welfare".

The General Welfare Clause was not meant for the government to be able to pass any program it deems in the General Welfare simply because the Federal Government deems it so.

You asked how I could justify HCR being a Constitutionally proper use of power and I said it was according to the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses that this law is valid. Those clauses have nothing to do with policy, but rather about the powers that the Federal government has.

Nor should you. However simply because it is a good policy for you does not mean that it is a sound policy or a Constitutional policy.

But in this case it is and has been since 1913.
 
Last edited:
the government, today, is actually elected officials looking out for their own best interests and doing just enough to not lose their seats and all the perks that come with it

And the checks and balance of the 3 branches is a farce.
 
There is no checks and balances when one side controls 2/3 of the branches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"