Discussion: Healthcare

[chaseter]

51% of independents I guess is a majority but from that article I thought it was going to be astounding

Of course Democrats favor it and of course Republicans don't.

 

[Marx]

51% of independents I guess is a majority but from that article I thought it was going to be astounding

Of course Democrats favor it and of course Republicans don't.

I think the point of the article is to prove that people do not oppose HRC as much as the GOP would like to think.

 

[Kelly]

"We've been shouting this from the rooftops all year, and this data backs it up. Most people are tired of being ripped off by big insurance companies and were hungry for reform. That's why President Obama ran on health care as an issue, and that's why Democrats should stand by it now. If anything, people are upset that reform wasn't stronger."

What I have in bold above is true....BUT, is what we got what the people wanted....I think most polls say NO.....nor, can we say exactly WHAT IS in the reform, how it is going to lower the cost, etc. But, what they are not saying is WHERE should it have been stronger? THAT IS THE QUESTION that these polls should be asking.

Ask people to explain what they mean by a "public option" what do you want the "public option" to do....
Do you want insurance companies to compete across state lines....
Do you want strong tort reform....

IMO, if you asked Americans "Does there need to be changes to our Health Care System in the US"? I think a huge majority would say yes. but that is nothing for the Dems to jump up and down about and clap their hands.....that is pretty much a DUH.

 

[dnno1]

What I have in bold above is true....BUT, is what we got what the people wanted....I think most polls say NO.....nor, can we say exactly WHAT IS in the reform, how it is going to lower the cost, etc. But, what they are not saying is WHERE should it have been stronger? THAT IS THE QUESTION that these polls should be asking.

Ask people to explain what they mean by a "public option" what do you want the "public option" to do....
Do you want insurance companies to compete across state lines....
Do you want strong tort reform....

IMO, if you asked Americans "Does there need to be changes to our Health Care System in the US"? I think a huge majority would say yes. but that is nothing for the Dems to jump up and down about and clap their hands.....that is pretty much a DUH.

In truth, it is still to early to draw a conclustion about Heath Care Reform since it is just starting to implement itself right now and we won't know the end result for a few years from now. Although it is true that everyone agrees that health care costs continue to rise, that there are so many people who are uninsured in this country, and that a lot of people are fed up with insurance companies, it was disingenuous to poll the masses on their opinion on reform since their ability to make a rational decision had been confused by opponents who were against any reform at all and pumped huge sums of money into scare campaigns to alter the public opinion. As of March of this year there was a strong majority that was not in favor of the current law, but recently polls show different numbers. a CBS/New York Times poll asked people if they thought that Congrees should repeal HCR and a wopping 82% said yes, but when asked what if repealing the law meant that people with existing medical conditions or poor health would no longer be covered, the numbers changed (52% either did not want repeal or were unsure). This just indicates that people really don't know what is right and are influenced by talkng point and people they see and perceive as someone they can trust, who is not actually looking for their best intrest.

 

[Kelly]

I agree, I totally agree that it is too early to really know the consequences and outcomes of this reform.

I am certainly one to hold my final judgment on it....




As far as people not knowing what is right....?

They may very well know what is right, and smart enough to not take the Dems talking points that was emailed out to the respresentatives for their Town Hall Meetings.....of which, many of those talking points were proven to be wrong.

So, as you just said, it is too early to know what is right OR wrong with this legislation....and those that you say "don't know".....may be smarter than you think. I would wait to pass judgment on them as well...

 

[dnno1]

Michigan Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Health Care Overhaul

 

[hippie_hunter]

Michigan Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Health Care Overhaul

Doesn't change the fact that federal courts in Virginia have already said that Virginia can challenge the mandated insurance clause and there's still the one in Florida.

 

[dnno1]

Doesn't change the fact that federal courts in Virginia have already said that Virginia can challenge the mandated insurance clause and there's still the one in Florida.

I will be posting the article saying the same thing for those cases when that happens.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't know exactly what was debated (nor am I that concerned about it). What we do know is that the first sentence in the Constitution starts with "We the People of the United States..." and in Federalist No. 46, Alexander Hamilton stated of the State and Federal governments that they "[SIZE=-1]must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other.[/SIZE]" Based on this, I would have to assume that the framers would have been alright with the 17th Amendment.

Do you really want to start throwing around quotes on the subject?

Federalist 39 in explaining why the Senate's power is derived from the State and not the People:
"The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features."

Federalist 45 in regards to the danger the Federal Government places to the sovereignty of the State.

"The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures...Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them."


Federalist 59:

"As an objection to this position, it may be remarked that the constitution of the national Senate would involve, in its full extent, the danger which it is suggested might flow from an exclusive power in the State legislatures to regulate the federal elections. It may be alleged, that by declining the appointment of Senators, they might at any time give a fatal blow to the Union; and from this it may be inferred, that as its existence would be thus rendered dependent upon them in so essential a point, there can be no objection to entrusting them with it in the particular case under consideration. The interest of each State, it may be added, to maintain its representation in the national councils, would be a complete security against an abuse of the trust.

This argument, though specious, will not, upon examination, be found solid. It is certainly true that the State legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of senators, may destroy the national government. But it will not follow that, because they have a power to do this in one instance, they ought to have it in every other. There are cases in which the pernicious tendency of such a power may be far more decisive, without any motive equally cogent with that which must have regulated the conduct of the convention in respect to the formation of the Senate, to recommend their admission into the system. So far as that construction may expose the Union to the possibility of injury from the State legislatures, it is an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government. If this had been done, it would doubtless have been interpreted into an entire dereliction of the federal principle; and would certainly have deprived the State governments of that absolute safeguard which they will enjoy under this provision. But however wise it may have been to have submitted in this instance to an inconvenience, for the attainment of a necessary advantage or a greater good, no inference can be drawn from thence to favor an accumulation of the evil, where no necessity urges, nor any greater good invites"

Federalist 62: "The appointment of senators by state legislatures gives to state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former." Madison later went on to state that such Federalism would act as "parchment barriers"to tyranny.

Well, that is you. By the way, I have to applaud The Interpreter on his post on this issue (great post guy). As far as I am concerned, the Constitution can be changed through the Amendment process and the Federal government can also write laws through the Congress that gives them the ability to execute their Constitutional powers.

I disagree with neither of those.

Most of those are African or Asian Nations who have corrupt governments or none at all (i.e. Somalia, which is the number 1 failed state according to The Fund for Peace), and you are kidding about the well intentioned thing aren't you? There are 37 of those vs 140 who haven't failed. Are you trying to say that the U.S. is a failed state? They are not even close.

The US is currently failing. That is what I am saying. Also, I cant' believe you are so defensive of the notion that a government can, while acting with good intentions, make a mistake. It shouldn't surprise me though, you have been consistent in your vision of government as a benign and competent being.

That doesn't mean that the Temperance Movement just came around at the time of the 18th Amendment as you are implying

When did I imply that? And how is that remotely relevant to the original point I was making in that it took a Constitutional Amendment to ban substances on a National level and yet now it can be done with a Federal order by an agency whose members are not elected.

Yet you later say this:

There is no contradiction. As a Constitutionalist I believe that the role of the government should be determined by local governments with Federal and State governments only taking certain, defined roles. As a Libertarian I believe the best political philosophy is one that the government has no ability to dictate what we can or cannot consume. As an Objectivist I believe that I have the right as an individual, a right inherent in my being, to make such choices for myself based on reason.

I'm a complicated guy.

I really don't know who you are even though you claim to be a Constitutionalists and associate yourself with Constitutional scholars. I have found errors in things you have said, so I have very little credibility in you at all. The CSA is in Compliance with the Constitution since it has stood up in the highest court. Even though it is in compliance with an international treaty, the law in no way establishes any rule, concept or governmental power that is outside the Constitution. If it did, then it would be unconstitutional.

You haven't found any error, what you have found is an opinion (a well based opinion) that differs with your basic core beliefs. You seem to be a classical progressive with a determined belief in the good in government. That is why you believe that the Constitutionality of a government is determined exclusively by the opinion of politicians and judges, no matter how absurd their logic and reasoning.

You have argued that the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to prevent innerstate commerce (marijuana). You have argued that the government should have the ability to determine what is for the "general welfare", giving them the ability to decide how much power they hold.

So are you trying to tell me that people won't pay a fine if they do not show that they have adequate health care? Are you trying to tell me that law and policy are the same thing even though a law is binding and policy is not? Or are you trying that the Federal government can not tax its citizens to promote the general welfare (in this case ensuring that almost everyone has access to affordable health care) of the United State? I am sorry guy, but none of those things are wrong.

I am saying that the Federal Government cannot tax its citizens with the goal of providing them a service. That is not within the ability of the Federal Government as defined in the Constitution. You want to change that? Get rid of the Constitution and start from scratch.

The fact that it is driven by a framework for health public policy starting at the top with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and flowing down to State and local heath departments. They truly are national in character since the health of the people is a major concern of the Federal government, who's responsibility is to protect its people. You trying to slip me up with that question?

When did the States or Citizens decide that the US Department of Health and Human Services have the right to take over our healthcare? Who determined that?

 

[hippie_hunter]

I will be posting the article saying the same thing for those cases when that happens.

Except you can't in the case of Virginia because a federal judge has already refused the Obama Administrations request to dismiss the case and they still have to put up a defense in court over the mandated insurance clause, unlike the federal court in Michigan.

And of course federal courts haven't yet said anything about the lawsuits from Missouri and the group of states led by Florida.

The simple fact is that this is going to end up going to the Supreme Court simply due to Virginia being allowed to challenge it. If Virginia actually does win, do you think that the Obama Administration is going to allow that? Hell no! And the same can be said for Virginia if the Obama Administration prevails in court.

 

[Matt]

The argument of the administration is that it is a "tax, not a fine for not having health insurance and a tax is not unconstitutional." I personally don't think that argument holds water as they are choosing who they levy a "tax," upon based on whether or not they choose to pay insurance. They are using taxes as a form of discriminating against people who don't have insurance in order to coerce them into purchasing it. SCOTUS is going to shoot the mandatory insurance down unless Obama can get another justice in there. And if that gets shot down the health bill is worth jack.

 

[dnno1]

The argument of the administration is that it is a "tax, not a fine for not having health insurance and a tax is not unconstitutional." I personally don't think that argument holds water as they are choosing who they levy a "tax," upon based on whether or not they choose to pay insurance. They are using taxes as a form of discriminating against people who don't have insurance in order to coerce them into purchasing it. SCOTUS is going to shoot the mandatory insurance down unless Obama can get another justice in there. And if that gets shot down the health bill is worth jack.

If that's the case, then tax writeoffs and tax credits are unconstitutional as well, which is not true.

 

[dnno1]

Do you really want to start throwing around quotes on the subject?

Federalist 39 in explaining why the Senate's power is derived from the State and not the People:
"The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features."

Federalist 45 in regards to the danger the Federal Government places to the sovereignty of the State.

"The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures...Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them."


Federalist 59:

"As an objection to this position, it may be remarked that the constitution of the national Senate would involve, in its full extent, the danger which it is suggested might flow from an exclusive power in the State legislatures to regulate the federal elections. It may be alleged, that by declining the appointment of Senators, they might at any time give a fatal blow to the Union; and from this it may be inferred, that as its existence would be thus rendered dependent upon them in so essential a point, there can be no objection to entrusting them with it in the particular case under consideration. The interest of each State, it may be added, to maintain its representation in the national councils, would be a complete security against an abuse of the trust.

This argument, though specious, will not, upon examination, be found solid. It is certainly true that the State legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of senators, may destroy the national government. But it will not follow that, because they have a power to do this in one instance, they ought to have it in every other. There are cases in which the pernicious tendency of such a power may be far more decisive, without any motive equally cogent with that which must have regulated the conduct of the convention in respect to the formation of the Senate, to recommend their admission into the system. So far as that construction may expose the Union to the possibility of injury from the State legislatures, it is an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government. If this had been done, it would doubtless have been interpreted into an entire dereliction of the federal principle; and would certainly have deprived the State governments of that absolute safeguard which they will enjoy under this provision. But however wise it may have been to have submitted in this instance to an inconvenience, for the attainment of a necessary advantage or a greater good, no inference can be drawn from thence to favor an accumulation of the evil, where no necessity urges, nor any greater good invites"

Federalist 62: "The appointment of senators by state legislatures gives to state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former." Madison later went on to state that such Federalism would act as "parchment barriers"to tyranny.

Their intent was to have a balace in goverment where it was represented by the people and by the States, but ultimately, the people determine who represents them in government. That is what the framer's ultimate intent was. As it turned out, history shows that partisanship, the lack of uniformity in the senate electoral process, and corruption lead to long delays in (sometimes years) the seating of senators (and you want to go back to that?). The process was flawed and needed reform. Because the ultimate authority was and is in the people, the 17th Amendment was passed and like I said before, the framers would not have had a problem with it.

I disagree with neither of those.

Then you should have no argument with the 17th Amendment.

The US is currently failing. That is what I am saying. Also, I cant' believe you are so defensive of the notion that a government can, while acting with good intentions, make a mistake. It shouldn't surprise me though, you have been consistent in your vision of government as a benign and competent being.

The U.S. is nowhere near failing. The nations indicated as failing have no functional government whatsoever or are corrupt as hell. The U.S. still has a government and last I checked, we were coming out of a recession. You claim that the U.S. is failing is a gross distortion of reality.

When did I imply that? And how is that remotely relevant to the original point I was making in that it took a Constitutional Amendment to ban substances on a National level and yet now it can be done with a Federal order by an agency whose members are not elected.

I said originally in post #6898 that the U.S. didn't need to ban alcohol and you said in post #6903 that they did (ban alcohol) when the The Temperance Movement came to be. That's certainly not true since the Temperance Movement started in the late 1700's and the 18th Amendment was passed in 1919. My point is that the 18th Amendment was enacted as a result of political pressures from the Temperance Movement, whos influence had built to that level after (actually) 130 years. Of course, we didn't need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban or regulate drugs or alcohol, but doing so was more a symbolic stament (to the Temperance Movement) as rediculous as the conservative movement's notion to repeal and replace helath care reform.

There is no contradiction. As a Constitutionalist I believe that the role of the government should be determined by local governments with Federal and State governments only taking certain, defined roles. As a Libertarian I believe the best political philosophy is one that the government has no ability to dictate what we can or cannot consume. As an Objectivist I believe that I have the right as an individual, a right inherent in my being, to make such choices for myself based on reason.

I'm a complicated guy.

It has been proven that partisanship and corruption (i.e. bribery, intimidation, etc.) has made the process of State legislatures electing senators inefficient if not ineffective, and I don't see us going back to that. Furthermore, if you abuse a substance to the point where it could endanger or jepordise the livelyhood of others, society (and, hence goverment) has the power to dictate what or how much you can or can not consume. That is a fact of life and you need to get over it.

You haven't found any error, what you have found is an opinion (a well based opinion) that differs with your basic core beliefs. You seem to be a classical progressive with a determined belief in the good in government. That is why you believe that the Constitutionality of a government is determined exclusively by the opinion of politicians and judges, no matter how absurd their logic and reasoning.

You have argued that the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to prevent innerstate commerce (marijuana). You have argued that the government should have the ability to determine what is for the "general welfare", giving them the ability to decide how much power they hold.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to the facts. Once again, the fact remains that the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) is in Compliance with the Constitution since it has stood up in the highest court. The law, though established in compliance with an international treaty (with the World Health Organizatiion), in no way establishes any rule, concept, or governmental power that is outside the Constitution. This is not the only time you have stated or misinterpreted something and thus my dispostion on you has not changed.

I am saying that the Federal Government cannot tax its citizens with the goal of providing them a service. That is not within the ability of the Federal Government as defined in the Constitution. You want to change that? Get rid of the Constitution and start from scratch.

I am saying that they can and have for centuries and it has been proven in court that is it within their power to do so. I don't have to change that because it is what it is.

When did the States or Citizens decide that the US Department of Health and Human Services have the right to take over our healthcare? Who determined that?

Health and Human Services is part of the General Welfare (i.e. health, happiness, welbeing, and common good) and providing for that is part of the mission and power of the U.S. Government. This is a power that is specifically given to Congress in the Constitution. I am surprised that you being a self proclaimed Constitutionalist didn't know that.

 

[Kelly]

Health and Human Services is part of the General Welfare (i.e. health, happiness, welbeing, and common good) and providing for that is part of the mission and power of the U.S. Government. This is a power that is specifically given to Congress in the Constitution. I am surprised that you being a self proclaimed Constitutionalist didn't know that.

General Welfare is stated two times in the Constitution....

The Preamble and Article 1, Section 8.


Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.” If it had it would have specifically given Congress that power as it did in other areas.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Jefferson wrote quite a bit about the "General Welfare" clause, as did James Madison and John Quincy Adams.....I have a feeling they saw a problem with the interpretation of this as time went on....

In 1791, Jefferson wrote, “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

Just my opinion, but I believe our forefathers had a much better understanding of what they wrote, and why....much more so than we do now.

 

[StorminNorman]

Their intent was to have a balace in goverment where it was represented by the people and by the States, but ultimately, the people determine who represents them in government. That is what the framer's ultimate intent was. As it turned out, history shows that partisanship, the lack of uniformity in the senate electoral process, and corruption lead to long delays in (sometimes years) the seating of senators (and you want to go back to that?). The process was flawed and needed reform. Because the ultimate authority was and is in the people, the 17th Amendment was passed and like I said before, the framers would not have had a problem with it.

We are spinning in circles now. You are wrong about the opinion of the Founders, but correct about the problems that came about with the original Senatorial process however that was as problem of the times (logistics) than it was a problem with the design of the Constitution.

Then you should have no argument with the 17th Amendment.

I have no argument with the legality of the 17th Amendment. My argument is that it was a bad Amendment. I have said that in this thread already.

The U.S. is nowhere near failing. The nations indicated as failing have no functional government whatsoever or are corrupt as hell. The U.S. still has a government and last I checked, we were coming out of a recession. You claim that the U.S. is failing is a gross distortion of reality.

We are facing a double dip recession thanks to big government policies of Republicans and Democrats. We are facing Great Depression-like length of our economic problems due to us repeating the same mistakes we made then. The U.S. government IS corrupt as hell and continues to lose the trust of the people no matter who is in.

The things in the US government are worse than you think.

I said originally in post #6898 that the U.S. didn't need to ban alcohol and you said in post #6903 that they did (ban alcohol) when the The Temperance Movement came to be. That's certainly not true since the Temperance Movement started in the late 1700's and the 18th Amendment was passed in 1919. My point is that the 18th Amendment was enacted as a result of political pressures from the Temperance Movement, whos influence had built to that level after (actually) 130 years. Of course, we didn't need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban or regulate drugs or alcohol, but doing so was more a symbolic stament (to the Temperance Movement) as rediculous as the conservative movement's notion to repeal and replace helath care reform.

Why didn't we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to regulate drugs or alcohol? Again, what in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to ban alcohol fermented in Kentucky to other Kentuckians? What allows the Federal Government to ban California grown weed to be sold to Californians? There is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for such innerstate control.

It has been proven that partisanship and corruption (i.e. bribery, intimidation, etc.) has made the process of State legislatures electing senators inefficient if not ineffective, and I don't see us going back to that. Furthermore, if you abuse a substance to the point where it could endanger or jepordise the livelyhood of others, society (and, hence goverment) has the power to dictate what or how much you can or can not consume. That is a fact of life and you need to get over it.

It's not a fact of my life. The government has all the power in the world to penalize damages done to others that have actually occurred, but they have no right to punish you for crimes you have never committed.

Regarding the Senate, it has been proven that Partisanship and Corruption occurs in the process of Senatorial Elections as well. When the people, not the State, elect the Senators - then the Senators that do the most to get the people Federal Funds (whether deserving or not) are rewarded. That's not what the government was meant to be. Madison and Hamilton disagreed on much in their post-Federalist days but they always agreed on the dangers posed by politicians using the Federal budget as a public trough. They would be ashamed at the Ear Marks of today.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to the facts. Once again, the fact remains that the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) is in Compliance with the Constitution since it has stood up in the highest court. The law, though established in compliance with an international treaty (with the World Health Organizatiion), in no way establishes any rule, concept, or governmental power that is outside the Constitution. This is not the only time you have stated or misinterpreted something and thus my dispostion on you has not changed.

Health and Human Services is part of the General Welfare (i.e. health, happiness, welbeing, and common good) and providing for that is part of the mission and power of the U.S. Government. This is a power that is specifically given to Congress in the Constitution. I am surprised that you being a self proclaimed Constitutionalist didn't know that.

Let me get this straight, one more time, to make sure there is absolutely no misunderstanding.

You're argument is that the United States Government gets to create essentially limitless power as long as they can justify it as being for the "General Welfare"?

Look, at least you have a complete opinion. It's completely contrary to the view of the Founding Fathers, but at least it's complete.

I would SERIOUSLY recommend to actually pick up a book on the Revolutionary thinkers. It may change your views.

 

[dnno1]

We are spinning in circles now. You are wrong about the opinion of the Founders, but correct about the problems that came about with the original Senatorial process however that was as problem of the times (logistics) than it was a problem with the design of the Constitution.

I have no argument with the legality of the 17th Amendment. My argument is that it was a bad Amendment. I have said that in this thread already.

I do not belive that the outcome would be any different today were there no 17th Amendment. The truth of the matter is that at the time of the ratification of the 17th amendment, the majority of the States (28 out of then 46) were electing their Senators by popular vote and not by state legislature. If we were to have it repealed today, there is no doubt in my mind that not very many states would change their election process. This is what the majority of the States wanted, the people still rule, and the Constitution was amended according to protocol. Once again, the Framers would have been ok with that.

We are facing a double dip recession thanks to big government policies of Republicans and Democrats. We are facing Great Depression-like length of our economic problems due to us repeating the same mistakes we made then. The U.S. government IS corrupt as hell and continues to lose the trust of the people no matter who is in.

The things in the US government are worse than you think.

That's kind of premature to say. There has been no official ruling on if we trully are in a second recession (there has only been speculation). Even though we saw a drop in GDP growth since the stimulus, the rate is still within the average range over the past 4 years. We are not a failing government because we have been in this situation before and we have gotten out of it. I see that happening again.

Why didn't we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to regulate drugs or alcohol? Again, what in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to ban alcohol fermented in Kentucky to other Kentuckians? What allows the Federal Government to ban California grown weed to be sold to Californians? There is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for such innerstate control.

Like I said before, the General Welfare, and Interstate Commerce clause. We haven't nececerally banned the use of Marijuana, but it's production, and distribution are prohibited.

It's not a fact of my life. The government has all the power in the world to penalize damages done to others that have actually occurred, but they have no right to punish you for crimes you have never committed.

I do not see where you have paid a fine or done any prison time for not smoking pot. I don't know what you are talking about.

Regarding the Senate, it has been proven that Partisanship and Corruption occurs in the process of Senatorial Elections as well. When the people, not the State, elect the Senators - then the Senators that do the most to get the people Federal Funds (whether deserving or not) are rewarded. That's not what the government was meant to be. Madison and Hamilton disagreed on much in their post-Federalist days but they always agreed on the dangers posed by politicians using the Federal budget as a public trough. They would be ashamed at the Ear Marks of today.

This is true, but at least with popular elections and gubernatorial appointments, you can seat a Senator a lot faster than with election by State legislation, wich was the major issue dirving the 17th Amendment.

Excuse me...

Ok, I'm back. Now where was I? Oh, yeah:

Let me get this straight, one more time, to make sure there is absolutely no misunderstanding.

You're argument is that the United States Government gets to create essentially limitless power as long as they can justify it as being for the "General Welfare"?

No, the U.S. Goverment doesn't create any powers for itself outside what is established in the Constitution.The General Welfare clause and the power to regulate interstate commerce give them a broad range of authority to fulfill the mission of governent. Even then it is limited by the fact that anything they do has to be legislated by Congress (this is excluding what is already established as a proceedure in the Constitution) and can not violate an individual's Constitutional rights. Case in point, HCR took 40 years to be enacted by law to what we know of it today, and even then it still needs some refining.

Look, at least you have a complete opinion. It's completely contrary to the view of the Founding Fathers, but at least it's complete.

I would SERIOUSLY recommend to actually pick up a book on the Revolutionary thinkers. It may change your views.

My opinions are based on the facts in defference to yours.

 

[chaseter]

The argument of the administration is that it is a "tax, not a fine for not having health insurance and a tax is not unconstitutional." I personally don't think that argument holds water as they are choosing who they levy a "tax," upon based on whether or not they choose to pay insurance. They are using taxes as a form of discriminating against people who don't have insurance in order to coerce them into purchasing it. SCOTUS is going to shoot the mandatory insurance down unless Obama can get another justice in there. And if that gets shot down the health bill is worth jack.

Yup. I guess by dnno's standard...Obama could "tax" people that do not own a GM car. That would be okay right?

 

[Kelly]

LMAO...

DAMN IT dnno........ I just spit my Coke Zero all over my screen....

*goes to get paper towel*

 

[StorminNorman]

I do not belive that the outcome would be any different today were there no 17th Amendment. The truth of the matter is that at the time of the ratification of the 17th amendment, the majority of the States (28 out of then 46) were electing their Senators by popular vote and not by state legislature. If we were to have it repealed today, there is no doubt in my mind that not very many states would change their election process. This is what the majority of the States wanted, the people still rule, and the Constitution was amended according to protocol. Once again, the Framers would have been ok with that.

And the reason why States went changing the way they elected Senators is because of the devolution of intellectual and philosophical talent in government when comparing 1776 to 1876. Intectual degregation is a natural fear of a Republic, when politicians replace philosophical statements government becomes the beast we have today. Furthermore, the Civil War destroyed States Rights and Federalism.

That's kind of premature to say. There has been no official ruling on if we trully are in a second recession (there has only been speculation). Even though we saw a drop in GDP growth since the stimulus, the rate is still within the average range over the past 4 years. We are not a failing government because we have been in this situation before and we have gotten out of it. I see that happening again.

It's as premature to say as it is to predict incoming rain while resting in the eye of a hurricane. I don't need an official ruling to see where the economy is heading, all one needs is a basic understanding of history and economics. We are repeating the same failed path of Hoover and FDR (Bush is Hoover to Obama's FDR in a wonderfully adequete comparison - after all, liberals like to act that Bush was a free market guy the sam they do President Hoover (the reason I specically say President Hoover is due to his change post-White House, perhaps he learned from experience?).


[/quote]Like I said before, the General Welfare, and Interstate Commerce clause. We haven't nececerally banned the use of Marijuana, but it's production, and distribution are prohibited.
[/quote]How can you use the Interestate Commerce clause to ban innerstate production and innerstate prohibition. That would be like using the 2nd Amendment to ban firearms or the 1st amendment to ban freedom of speech. Interstate is the opposite of innerstate.
Oh that's right, the General Welfare Clause that you imply allows the government to basically do anything. (Which, again, the Constitution as specifically written to prevent the Federal Government from justifying everything they could ever dream of doing). What we need is an amendment that removes the General Welfare Clause from the Constitution.

I do not see where you have paid a fine or done any prison time for not smoking pot. I don't know what you are talking about.

You implied that it's okay to criminalize marijuana do to what MAY happen to others if you inhale it. That's absurd.

This is true, but at least with popular elections and gubernatorial appointments, you can seat a Senator a lot faster than with election by State legislation, wich was the major issue dirving the 17th Amendment.

I see no benefit to a faster government.

No, the U.S. Goverment doesn't create any powers for itself outside what is established in the Constitution.The General Welfare clause and the power to regulate interstate commerce give them a broad range of authority to fulfill the mission of governent. Even then it is limited by the fact that anything they do has to be legislated by Congress (this is excluding what is already established as a proceedure in the Constitution) and can not violate an individual's Constitutional rights. Case in point, HCR took 40 years to be enacted by law to what we know of it today, and even then it still needs some refining.

What is the mission of government in your eyes? I'm curious.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Dnno wins this argument for his use of this incredibly hilarious picture

 

[Kelly]

It is a classic, that is for sure......

Thank goodness when I first read it, I was at lunch and no one was in my room.

 

[dnno1]

And the reason why States went changing the way they elected Senators is because of the devolution of intellectual and philosophical talent in government when comparing 1776 to 1876. Intectual degregation is a natural fear of a Republic, when politicians replace philosophical statements government becomes the beast we have today. Furthermore, the Civil War destroyed States Rights and Federalism.

So most of the States decided that it was better to allow their residents elect their represetiatives rather than by State Legislature becase the people in State government were too dumb right? I don't think so. States went to popular elections because of the delays in the seating of U.S. Senators by State Legislators. This was mostly because of partisanship and differences in political philosopies. Don't listen to me, just read the history of the process. I dont' even understand what you just wrote?

It's as premature to say as it is to predict incoming rain while resting in the eye of a hurricane. I don't need an official ruling to see where the economy is heading, all one needs is a basic understanding of history and economics. We are repeating the same failed path of Hoover and FDR (Bush is Hoover to Obama's FDR in a wonderfully adequete comparison - after all, liberals like to act that Bush was a free market guy the sam they do President Hoover (the reason I specically say President Hoover is due to his change post-White House, perhaps he learned from experience?).

There have been a small minority of economist that are concerned that a double dip recession will happen, but no one has officially declared that it has. Unemployment, a lagging economic indicator by the way, has held steady at about 9.5 to 9.6% for months now and the rate of job losses are no where near as great as the 700,000 a month that occured back in January of last year. The stock market is doing great as of late and the automobile companies that were in such trouble a year ago are now able to stand on their own feet. Furthermore, I don't see where FDR failed. Can you name another President that was able to serve 3 and a half successive terms in office?

]How can you use the Interestate Commerce clause to ban innerstate production and innerstate prohibition[?] That would be like using the 2nd Amendment to ban firearms or the 1st amendment to ban freedom of speech. Interstate is the opposite of innerstate.
Oh that's right, the General Welfare Clause that you imply allows the government to basically do anything. (Which, again, the Constitution as specifically written to prevent the Federal Government from justifying everything they could ever dream of doing). What we need is an amendment that removes the General Welfare Clause from the Constitution.

I am not implying. I am telling you that the General Wellfare and Commerce Clauses give the Federal Government the power to do these things. See Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

You implied that it's okay to criminalize marijuana do to what MAY happen to others if you inhale it. That's absurd.

Now you are trying to make me say things that I didn't. Marijuana is a controlled substance under Ferderal laws and banning its cultivation and production is the method of control. According to the Federal government, marijuana has a high potential for abuse, a lack of safety standards for its use, and no currently accepted medical use. That is the fact.

I see no benefit to a faster government.

A majority of folks do.

What is the mission of government in your eyes? I'm curious.

To provide for the common defense and general welfare of its people (as it is written in the Constitution).

 

[BlackLantern]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/L.../Medicare-fraud-Dozens-charged-in-record-scam

 

[chaseter]

Heard that on the radio last night. This is what happens when the government becomes bloated. Things like this fall through the crack so easily. It all adds up.

 

[BlackLantern]

yup...but its all ok, if you listen to dnno