Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Tech_Esq]

Did you read past the first sentence. You'll find that my post makes a lot more sense when you read the whole thing. Let me know if you need me to explain it to you. Based on your apparent reading skills from what you think Art. I Sec. 8 says, you may need a lot of help.

(See Madison's comments)

Madison's comments do not and have never had the force of law, so based on your apparent argumentation skills, I'm overjoyed to have other options for legal representation.

What a meaningless snippet of tripe that is. Madison was explaining to you that if you thing the Article I, Section 8 means what your say it does, you either suffer from some form of illiteracy or your are being intellectually dishonest.

You sir, need to answer the charge made by Mr. Madison, are you illiterate or dishonest?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

That would be a misinterpretation of the constitution according to the 10th amendment.

Explain how you arrive at this conclusion.

I think I already said that. Does it make for sense for the framers to write an endless list of things the fed can't do or tell the people (via the 10th) That if something is not in the enumerated list (Art. 1, sect. 8) then the fed can't do it. Federalist 41 backs this up (it's in one of the threads). Common sense for another (another thing you don't believe in). Why start a ist with someone general and broad followed by a bunch more much more specific items if you meant for the Fed to have relatively unlimited power in what it can do and tax for?

First, I never said that I don't BELIEVE in common sense, only that the law often does not take advantage of it.

Second, the 10th amdendment as written is basically a truism: it doesn't add any meaning to the Constitution that it doesn't already have. That being said, it certainly doesn't supersede the Commerce clause in Section 8. So unless you can show me that the commerce of providing healtcare on a federal level is somehow detrimental to the sovereignty of the sates, your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Or, you know, maybe we could use some common sense here. If the Framers had intended the so-called "general welfare clause" to mean ". . . or, you know, do whatever you feel like with the money, it's all good", why did they go to so much trouble and effort to delineate all those specific powers of Congress for several paragraphs beforehand? Why not just say, "Congress shall have the power to collect taxes to spend on whatever seems like a good idea to them" and save the sheepskin and ink?

First, common sense and the law often have no relationship to each other. Sad but true.

Second, someone in Philadelphia probably said, "we'd better explicitly mention a Navy, so that some crackpot won't say that it's unconstitutional to organize one."

Why, you are just full of mindless diddies aren't you?

Why aren't you familiar with what a semi-colon means in a sentence? Why is this such a mystery to you?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Did you read past the first sentence. You'll find that my post makes a lot more sense when you read the whole thing. Let me know if you need me to explain it to you. Based on your apparent reading skills from what you think Art. I Sec. 8 says, you may need a lot of help.

(See Madison's comments)

Madison's comments do not and have never had the force of law, so based on your apparent argumentation skills, I'm overjoyed to have other options for legal representation.

What a meaningless snippet of tripe that is. Madison was explaining to you that if you thing the Article I, Section 8 means what your say it does, you either suffer from some form of illiteracy or your are being intellectually dishonest.

You sir, need to answer the charge made by Mr. Madison, are you illiterate or dishonest?

In the words of Groucho Marx: "What else have you got?"

Let's be crystal clear about this: Madison's paper is nothing other than his own opionion. Nobody is under any obligation to agree with his reasoning, nor is anybody answerable to him.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Why aren't you familiar with what a semi-colon means in a sentence? Why is this such a mystery to you?

I suppose it's never occurred to you that there is more than one way in which to use a semicolon; I suspected as much.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And what I actually said was that the government has the ability to spend its tax revenue on "almost anything."

By spend, I assume you mean that it has the ability to "do" things with it. Not merely spend it. It is the very crux of the matter what a government, that was limited by its very construction in the legitimate purposes of its function, spends the money on.

I think you hit on the simplist way to explain it. Yes the government can collect taxes, but if what they're planning on spending it on isn't somewhere else in section 8 then they really can't be collecting taxes for it. Maybe the framers tried to make this simpler than we think and anyone trying to make it more complex is thinking too hard or trying to pull one over.

and hey thanks for post 272. Madison would be proud of me that I figured that out all on my own.

I thought it was simple too. Some folks just aren't able to grasp it though. I sometimes wonder if the inability is real or contrived.

You're welcome and I'm sure he would!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Why aren't you familiar with what a semi-colon means in a sentence? Why is this such a mystery to you?

I suppose it's never occurred to you that there is more than one way in which to use a semicolon; I suspected as much.

Another mindless post. Then state which of the MANY ways there are to use a semi-colon that allows you to read the Constitution in the way you are expounding. Maybe you can find it here Strunk and White

 

[Oddball]

In the words of Groucho Marx: "What else have you got?"

Let's be crystal clear about this: Madison's paper is nothing other than his own opionion. Nobody is under any obligation to agree with his reasoning, nor is anybody answerable to him.

And we all know how irrelevant the opinions of the author are as to his motivations for and elaborations on his writings.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Madison's comments do not and have never had the force of law, so based on your apparent argumentation skills, I'm overjoyed to have other options for legal representation.

What a meaningless snippet of tripe that is. Madison was explaining to you that if you thing the Article I, Section 8 means what your say it does, you either suffer from some form of illiteracy or your are being intellectually dishonest.

You sir, need to answer the charge made by Mr. Madison, are you illiterate or dishonest?

In the words of Groucho Marx: "What else have you got?"

Let's be crystal clear about this: Madison's paper is nothing other than his own opionion. Nobody is under any obligation to agree with his reasoning, nor is anybody answerable to him.

I see, so you admit Madison is right and you have no argument to present him with. You just want a different outcome.

Therefore your answer is to be intellectually dishonest and read it any way you damned well please to get the result you want. Is that about it?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Explain how you arrive at this conclusion.

I think I already said that. Does it make for sense for the framers to write an endless list of things the fed can't do or tell the people (via the 10th) That if something is not in the enumerated list (Art. 1, sect. 8) then the fed can't do it. Federalist 41 backs this up (it's in one of the threads). Common sense for another (another thing you don't believe in). Why start a ist with someone general and broad followed by a bunch more much more specific items if you meant for the Fed to have relatively unlimited power in what it can do and tax for?

First, I never said that I don't BELIEVE in common sense, only that the law often does not take advantage of it.

Second, the 10th amdendment as written is basically a truism: it doesn't add any meaning to the Constitution that it doesn't already have. That being said, it certainly doesn't supersede the Commerce clause in Section 8. So unless you can show me that the commerce of providing healtcare on a federal level is somehow detrimental to the sovereignty of the sates, your argument doesn't hold water.

Sadly, after Wicker v. Filburn, and Uunited States v. Darby Lumber Co. destroyed the Constitution, your interpretation of how health care will be Constitutional is probably correct.

Having said that, the SCOTUS was wrong to interpret the Constitution in such a fashion and both Darby and Wicker should be overturned with all due speed. If we don't we're about to board a bullet train for bottom. The 21st Century will be the century of Chinese hegemony throughout the world.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I see, so you admit Madison is right and you have no argument to present him with. You just want a different outcome.

Even if we were to suppose, just for arguments' sake, that Madison were correct, it still doesn't trump the high court's collective interpretation. The real world of American civics deals with precedents, not private writings.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I see, so you admit Madison is right and you have no argument to present him with. You just want a different outcome.

Even if we were to suppose, just for arguments' sake, that Madison were correct, it still doesn't trump the high court's collective interpretation. The real world of American civics deals with precedents, not private writings.

You are such a light-weight disingenuous SOB. Here, let me demonstrate your hypocrisy:

So, I guess I should take it from your statement about the founders and their private writings that you disavow the separation of church and state, right? After all, this only emanates from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church that contains:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

It appears no where else. Thus, in your eyes, and in order to remain consistent on the subject, it is utterly meaningless.

So, Mr. "Centrist" what is your current position?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Why aren't you familiar with what a semi-colon means in a sentence? Why is this such a mystery to you?

I suppose it's never occurred to you that there is more than one way in which to use a semicolon; I suspected as much.

Another mindless post. Then state which of the MANY ways there are to use a semi-colon that allows you to read the Constitution in the way you are expounding. Maybe you can find it here Strunk and White

Looks like an enumerated list to me. More importantly, this does NOT in any way state or imply that the Congress has no powers other than those enumerated.
Nor does it explicitly state the opposite, of course, but the last part about "all other powers vested" easlily can be (and has been) construed as an implication.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I see, so you admit Madison is right and you have no argument to present him with. You just want a different outcome.

Even if we were to suppose, just for arguments' sake, that Madison were correct, it still doesn't trump the high court's collective interpretation. The real world of American civics deals with precedents, not private writings.

You are such a light-weight disingenuous SOB. Here, let me demonstrate your hypocrisy:

So, I guess I should take it from your statement about the founders and their private writings that you disavow the separation of church and state, right? After all, this only emanates from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church that contains:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

It appears no where else. Thus, in your eyes, and in order to remain consistent on the subject, it is utterly meaningless.

So, Mr. "Centrist" what is your current position?

The First Amendment is very specific about the state not being involved with the trappings of religion. Try again.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I suppose it's never occurred to you that there is more than one way in which to use a semicolon; I suspected as much.

Another mindless post. Then state which of the MANY ways there are to use a semi-colon that allows you to read the Constitution in the way you are expounding. Maybe you can find it here Strunk and White

Looks like an enumerated list to me. More importantly, this does NOT in any way state or imply that the Congress has no powers other than those enumerated.
Nor does it explicitly state the opposite, of course, but the last part about "all other powers vested" easlily can be (and has been) construed as an implication.

You are making an argument for an unconstrained central government and nobody thinks that. I think you need to take that line back to the workshop and work on it some more.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Even if we were to suppose, just for arguments' sake, that Madison were correct, it still doesn't trump the high court's collective interpretation. The real world of American civics deals with precedents, not private writings.

You are such a light-weight disingenuous SOB. Here, let me demonstrate your hypocrisy:

So, I guess I should take it from your statement about the founders and their private writings that you disavow the separation of church and state, right? After all, this only emanates from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church that contains:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

It appears no where else. Thus, in your eyes, and in order to remain consistent on the subject, it is utterly meaningless.

So, Mr. "Centrist" what is your current position?

The First Amendment is very specific about the state not being involved with the trappings of religion. Try again.

Don't need to. By the same token Art. I, Sec. 8 is exceedingly clear except to the intellectually dishonest. It is a general statement of intent followed by specifics that give it voice. Remember Expressio Unis est Exclusio Alterius

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

You are such a light-weight disingenuous SOB. Here, let me demonstrate your hypocrisy:

So, I guess I should take it from your statement about the founders and their private writings that you disavow the separation of church and state, right? After all, this only emanates from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church that contains:



It appears no where else. Thus, in your eyes, and in order to remain consistent on the subject, it is utterly meaningless.

So, Mr. "Centrist" what is your current position?

The First Amendment is very specific about the state not being involved with the trappings of religion. Try again.

Don't need to. By the same token Art. I, Sec. 8 is exceedingly clear except to the intellectually dishonest. It is a general statement of intent followed by specifics that give it voice. Remember Expressio Unis est Exclusio Alterius

EUEA is also not the law, aside from which, it presumes a clear legislative intent. If the intent is not clear, the courts are free to make their own interpretations.

By the way, how far does it get you with the judges when you accuse the opposing counsel of intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Bern80]

Explain how you arrive at this conclusion.

I think I already said that. Does it make for sense for the framers to write an endless list of things the fed can't do or tell the people (via the 10th) That if something is not in the enumerated list (Art. 1, sect. 8) then the fed can't do it. Federalist 41 backs this up (it's in one of the threads). Common sense for another (another thing you don't believe in). Why start a ist with someone general and broad followed by a bunch more much more specific items if you meant for the Fed to have relatively unlimited power in what it can do and tax for?

First, I never said that I don't BELIEVE in common sense, only that the law often does not take advantage of it.

Second, the 10th amdendment as written is basically a truism: it doesn't add any meaning to the Constitution that it doesn't already have. That being said, it certainly doesn't supersede the Commerce clause in Section 8. So unless you can show me that the commerce of providing healtcare on a federal level is somehow detrimental to the sovereignty of the sates, your argument doesn't hold water.

Simple, the government doesn't have the ability to conduct commerce. It can regulate it according to secition 8, it says nothing about conducting, which again means it can't do that. Now I would not be totally oppossed to government making the insureance industry part of interstate commerce. that way they would have to compete on a national level, which should drive the cost of premiums down.

 

[Nik]

In the words of Groucho Marx: "What else have you got?"

Let's be crystal clear about this: Madison's paper is nothing other than his own opionion. Nobody is under any obligation to agree with his reasoning, nor is anybody answerable to him.

And we all know how irrelevant the opinions of the author are as to his motivations for and elaborations on his writings.

39 delegates from 13 different states signed the Constitution. How many of them signed Madison's paper?

 

[Oddball]

In the words of Groucho Marx: "What else have you got?"

Let's be crystal clear about this: Madison's paper is nothing other than his own opionion. Nobody is under any obligation to agree with his reasoning, nor is anybody answerable to him.

And we all know how irrelevant the opinions of the author are as to his motivations for and elaborations on his writings.

39 delegates from 13 different states signed the Constitution. How many of them signed Madison's paper?

To say this, a guy to be this stupid on purpose!!

Madison was the principal author of the Constitution, which those 39 delegates from 13 different states signed, meathead.