Any merit to the Rights objections?

[DiamondDave]

As for "Show us the goddamn amendment where it puts your personal responsibility and your problems on the shoulders of others ", .

No that just pure politics vote for me Ill give you free stuff politics

Precisely

 

[Varth Dader]

You would want to refer to the Federalist Papers The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Federalist Papers

So I guess the answer to my question is that the Constitution does not dictate that it be interpreted using "original intent".

As for "Show us the goddamn amendment where it puts your personal responsibility and your problems on the shoulders of others ", it's called the commerce clause, or it's called "general welfare".

Again.. try and get it thru your leftist skull.. that is not what 'general welfare' meant or means... there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that grants government the power to transfer your personal problems or personal responsibilities on to the backs of others

Refer to the link provided about the term welfare as used in the constitution

And the commerce clause???.. I am fucking LAUGHING... "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"... LOL

Again.. show us the amendment

I already answered the "what it really means" part. You are trying to use some kind of original intent. I am saying that nowhere in the Constitution does it say what type of method we are suppose to use for interpretation.

As for the commerce clause, the SCOTUS has concluded that it does allow for things that might not, to the untrained eye, look like it fits in a litteral reading of the clause above.

For example, in Gonzales v. Raich, it concluded that the commerce clause did allow for regulation of cannabis. ( Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Health care could be seen from that perspective, especially considering the impact it has on the nation as a whole.

 

[DiamondDave]

So I guess the answer to my question is that the Constitution does not dictate that it be interpreted using "original intent".

As for "Show us the goddamn amendment where it puts your personal responsibility and your problems on the shoulders of others ", it's called the commerce clause, or it's called "general welfare".

Again.. try and get it thru your leftist skull.. that is not what 'general welfare' meant or means... there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that grants government the power to transfer your personal problems or personal responsibilities on to the backs of others

Refer to the link provided about the term welfare as used in the constitution

And the commerce clause???.. I am fucking LAUGHING... "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"... LOL

Again.. show us the amendment

I already answered the "what it really means" part. You are trying to use some kind of original intent. I am saying that nowhere in the Constitution does it say what type of method we are suppose to use for interpretation.

As for the commerce clause, the SCOTUS has concluded that it does allow for things that might not, to the untrained eye, look like it fits in a litteral reading of the clause above.

For example, in Gonzales v. Raich, it concluded that the commerce clause did allow for regulation of cannabis. ( Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Health care could be seen from that perspective, especially considering the impact it has on the nation as a whole.

If your personal well being were PUBLIC DOMAIN... which it is not... and the understanding of public domain is also crucial to understanding what general welfare is

Nice try....

Again... there is nothing spelled out in the constitution that grants the government the right to transfer your personal responsibility onto someone else... it simply is not there, nor should it be

If you WANT change to what the constitution says or what it means.. simply go thru the amendment process to change it... it's that simple

And VERY weak argument on the commerce clause and health care.... "The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize the medical use of marijuana." a lot different than seeing the 'same way' for the personal responsibility of one's own health

Many things can have an impact on the country as a whole... guaranteed food, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income etc... does not mean that the government has to the power or SHOULD have the power to grant that over the rights to personal freedoms

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So I guess the answer to my question is that the Constitution does not dictate that it be interpreted using "original intent".

As for "Show us the goddamn amendment where it puts your personal responsibility and your problems on the shoulders of others ", it's called the commerce clause, or it's called "general welfare".

Again.. try and get it thru your leftist skull.. that is not what 'general welfare' meant or means... there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that grants government the power to transfer your personal problems or personal responsibilities on to the backs of others

Refer to the link provided about the term welfare as used in the constitution

And the commerce clause???.. I am fucking LAUGHING... "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"... LOL

Again.. show us the amendment

I already answered the "what it really means" part. You are trying to use some kind of original intent. I am saying that nowhere in the Constitution does it say what type of method we are suppose to use for interpretation.

As for the commerce clause, the SCOTUS has concluded that it does allow for things that might not, to the untrained eye, look like it fits in a litteral reading of the clause above.

For example, in Gonzales v. Raich, it concluded that the commerce clause did allow for regulation of cannabis. ( Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Health care could be seen from that perspective, especially considering the impact it has on the nation as a whole.

Thanks for that reference. Here is the part that applies to the healthcare debate and this is how healthcare should be viewed with reference to the Constitution.

it is not a recognized "fundamental right" ......

 

[Varth Dader]

If your personal well being were PUBLIC DOMAIN... which it is not... and the understanding of public domain is also crucial to understanding what general welfare is

Nice try....

Again... there is nothing spelled out in the constitution that grants the government the right to transfer your personal responsibility onto someone else... it simply is not there, nor should it be

If you WANT change to what the constitution says or what it means.. simply go thru the amendment process to change it... it's that simple

And VERY weak argument on the commerce clause and health care.... "The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize the medical use of marijuana." a lot different than seeing the 'same way' for the personal responsibility of one's own health

Many things can have an impact on the country as a whole... guaranteed food, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income etc... does not mean that the government has to the power or SHOULD have the power to grant that over the rights to personal freedoms

General welfare. Let's talk about the H1N1 virus. Wouldn't it be in the interest of general welfare that people believing they have the H1N1 virus be treated rather than being scared of entering a hospital for fear of a terrible medical bill? Wouldn't it be in the interest of general welfare that people not go the emergency room to treat illnesses that could have been treated earlier, because at the end of the day we are stuck paying for the bill, or the bankruptcy, etc?

As for the medical marijuana case, how can the commerce clause apply here and trump states right? If my state says that I can do X thing, all by myself, in the comfort of my own home, how can the commerce clause come around and interfere with my state given god approved rights?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

If your personal well being were PUBLIC DOMAIN... which it is not... and the understanding of public domain is also crucial to understanding what general welfare is

Nice try....

Again... there is nothing spelled out in the constitution that grants the government the right to transfer your personal responsibility onto someone else... it simply is not there, nor should it be

If you WANT change to what the constitution says or what it means.. simply go thru the amendment process to change it... it's that simple

And VERY weak argument on the commerce clause and health care.... "The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize the medical use of marijuana." a lot different than seeing the 'same way' for the personal responsibility of one's own health

Many things can have an impact on the country as a whole... guaranteed food, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income etc... does not mean that the government has to the power or SHOULD have the power to grant that over the rights to personal freedoms

General welfare. Let's talk about the H1N1 virus. Wouldn't it be in the interest of general welfare that people believing they have the H1N1 virus be treated rather than being scared of entering a hospital for fear of a terrible medical bill? Wouldn't it be in the interest of general welfare that people not go the emergency room to treat illnesses that could have been treated earlier, because at the end of the day we are stuck paying for the bill, or the bankruptcy, etc?

As for the medical marijuana case, how can the commerce clause apply here and trump states right? If my state says that I can do X thing, all by myself, in the comfort of my own home, how can the commerce clause come around and interfere with my state given god approved rights?

It appears you are presenting arguments against your own position.

 

[Care4all]

Because it is about the power and the growth of government for the politicians... in both parties

so for decades or a century, the various Supreme Courts have never shot this kind of stuff down as unconstitutional??? What is ''in this'' for them to not defend the constitution...they have lifetime appointments, they can't be fired or lose an election?

Power... favors... you name it...

There was a reason why the language was used in the constitution... and there was a reason why, when created by the states, that the federal government was carefully limited in what it was empowered to do, even if it's power has domain over the states

Again... show in the constitution where the power is given to the fed to take over personal responsibilities, guarantee income, guarantee health care, etc... and the whole 'general welfare' BS has already been blown out of the water so many times....

would you mind if our government did not help fund your employer's cost of buying you health care? That does not fall in to the constitution either ya know.....?

How about killing any health care funded with our tax dollars for the millions of gvt employees and retirees...that is not in the constitution?

(i just priced an individual policy, outside of the crappy group plan at his work, for matt and me and it was $25k a year for the 2 of us)

Do you think that prices would drop immediately if all of what the govt does to fund health care costs now for their citizens, was dropped immediately and we all had to individually fend for ourselves? Would it take a year or two or three or four for the market to adjust...

What would be the immediate outcome if our gvt were to stop contributing to our health care costs?

Do you think your employer would stop offering it as a benefit if he could not write it off on his taxes?

Do you think that many people would not fund their own health care if they had to pay the entire thing at $25k for 2 people here in maine?

do you think the shrinking market of who bought healthcare would eventually lower the cost of health insurance, or would it make the price go up, because fewer people are in on the system to average out the cost per person for the policy? Like, most that are healthy would forfeit buying health insurance and the sick would be the only ones on the insurance rolls...?

Would the govt also have to not pay hospitals for the emergency care of the needy or if this was killed and the hospitals were on their own with treating the needy, how many hospitals will close? Or will they pass ALL of this cost on to the people that do buy insurance to cover the costs...thus again, raising the price to buy health insurance?

Walk me through what you envision should be done to get our situation with health care and funding of it, back in line with the constitution as you see it? No fantasies...real thinking of how you forsee it being and how to get there and the consequences of such.

Care

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

To many logical fallicies to address, argumentum verbosium.

 

[Care4all]

To many logical fallicies to address, argumentum verbosium.

come onnnn Mr. F, you're smart enough to give input...stop going for the easy way out!!!!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Do those on the left find any merit to the Objection of those on the right to Obama's policies?

Some of the saner objections, sure. No policy is perfect, and every action by the government deserves scruitiny. The problem is that a lot of reasonable objections are drowned out by crazy rhetoric that borders on the insane. If the GOP runs on the legitimate issues in 2010 and stays away from the crazier elements, they might make some gains.

 

[Varth Dader]

If your personal well being were PUBLIC DOMAIN... which it is not... and the understanding of public domain is also crucial to understanding what general welfare is

Nice try....

Again... there is nothing spelled out in the constitution that grants the government the right to transfer your personal responsibility onto someone else... it simply is not there, nor should it be

If you WANT change to what the constitution says or what it means.. simply go thru the amendment process to change it... it's that simple

And VERY weak argument on the commerce clause and health care.... "The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize the medical use of marijuana." a lot different than seeing the 'same way' for the personal responsibility of one's own health

Many things can have an impact on the country as a whole... guaranteed food, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income etc... does not mean that the government has to the power or SHOULD have the power to grant that over the rights to personal freedoms

General welfare. Let's talk about the H1N1 virus. Wouldn't it be in the interest of general welfare that people believing they have the H1N1 virus be treated rather than being scared of entering a hospital for fear of a terrible medical bill? Wouldn't it be in the interest of general welfare that people not go the emergency room to treat illnesses that could have been treated earlier, because at the end of the day we are stuck paying for the bill, or the bankruptcy, etc?

As for the medical marijuana case, how can the commerce clause apply here and trump states right? If my state says that I can do X thing, all by myself, in the comfort of my own home, how can the commerce clause come around and interfere with my state given god approved rights?

It appears you are presenting arguments against your own position.

Indeed. My point is that if the SCOTUS can find the power of the federal government to regulate who can and cannot grow marijuana in this country, surely it can implement a national health care program (like say -- medicare?)

 

[DiamondDave]

General welfare. Let's talk about the H1N1 virus. Wouldn't it be in the interest of general welfare that people believing they have the H1N1 virus be treated rather than being scared of entering a hospital for fear of a terrible medical bill? Wouldn't it be in the interest of general welfare that people not go the emergency room to treat illnesses that could have been treated earlier, because at the end of the day we are stuck paying for the bill, or the bankruptcy, etc?

As for the medical marijuana case, how can the commerce clause apply here and trump states right? If my state says that I can do X thing, all by myself, in the comfort of my own home, how can the commerce clause come around and interfere with my state given god approved rights?

It appears you are presenting arguments against your own position.

Indeed. My point is that if the SCOTUS can find the power of the federal government to regulate who can and cannot grow marijuana in this country, surely it can implement a national health care program (like say -- medicare?)

Criminal law .vs taking away your personal care responsibility and putting it on the back of someone else??? Not even close

 

[Varth Dader]

Criminal law .vs taking away your personal care responsibility and putting it on the back of someone else??? Not even close

Criminal Law:

"It will be a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in jail, to not carry health insurance in this country"

Happy now?

By the way, criminal law in the US, especially compared to other countries, is primarily a state issue. So I think there is something that doesnt quite jive with what you are saying.

 

[DiamondDave]

so for decades or a century, the various Supreme Courts have never shot this kind of stuff down as unconstitutional??? What is ''in this'' for them to not defend the constitution...they have lifetime appointments, they can't be fired or lose an election?

Power... favors... you name it...

There was a reason why the language was used in the constitution... and there was a reason why, when created by the states, that the federal government was carefully limited in what it was empowered to do, even if it's power has domain over the states

Again... show in the constitution where the power is given to the fed to take over personal responsibilities, guarantee income, guarantee health care, etc... and the whole 'general welfare' BS has already been blown out of the water so many times....

would you mind if our government did not help fund your employer's cost of buying you health care? That does not fall in to the constitution either ya know.....?

How about killing any health care funded with our tax dollars for the millions of gvt employees and retirees...that is not in the constitution?

(i just priced an individual policy, outside of the crappy group plan at his work, for matt and me and it was $25k a year for the 2 of us)

Do you think that prices would drop immediately if all of what the govt does to fund health care costs now for their citizens, was dropped immediately and we all had to individually fend for ourselves? Would it take a year or two or three or four for the market to adjust...

What would be the immediate outcome if our gvt were to stop contributing to our health care costs?

Do you think your employer would stop offering it as a benefit if he could not write it off on his taxes?

Do you think that many people would not fund their own health care if they had to pay the entire thing at $25k for 2 people here in maine?

do you think the shrinking market of who bought healthcare would eventually lower the cost of health insurance, or would it make the price go up, because fewer people are in on the system to average out the cost per person for the policy? Like, most that are healthy would forfeit buying health insurance and the sick would be the only ones on the insurance rolls...?

Would the govt also have to not pay hospitals for the emergency care of the needy or if this was killed and the hospitals were on their own with treating the needy, how many hospitals will close? Or will they pass ALL of this cost on to the people that do buy insurance to cover the costs...thus again, raising the price to buy health insurance?

Walk me through what you envision should be done to get our situation with health care and funding of it, back in line with the constitution as you see it? No fantasies...real thinking of how you forsee it being and how to get there and the consequences of such.

Care

1) Would be all for the government not helping fund any company's health care expenses
2) Benefits for employment are NOT the same as entitlements to non-contributors at the expense of contributors
3) Things will always take time to adjust, but more consumer participation and more choices would indeed have a better impact on competition and hence price
4) I think that immediately there would be much of a mess, as things are sorted out and companies start creating and finding solutions... I would not be for any IMMEDIATE drop axe date, but a phasing out...
5) Everyone should be billed for whatever coverage.. And hospitals and charitable entities would have to work closely together for help to the needy.. including gratis work etc


I would have to spend much longer on any current scenario thinking on an in-depth level... more time than I have while on a short break for some coffee

 

[DiamondDave]

Criminal law .vs taking away your personal care responsibility and putting it on the back of someone else??? Not even close

Criminal Law:

"It will be a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in jail, to not carry health insurance in this country"

Happy now?

By the way, criminal law in the US, especially compared to other countries, is primarily a state issue. So I think there is something that doesnt quite jive with what you are saying.

No.. because that is criminality based on care for a personal responsibility...

You can try and make that criminal if you so choose... won't fly though

And there is indeed federal law, federal criminality, and precedent for both.. but nice try

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Do those on the left find any merit to the Objection of those on the right to Obama's policies?

Depends on which policies you are referring to.