Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The 10th Amendment is there to tell us how the Constitution works and is only considered a truism to those opposed to a government limited by the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

The Federalists would have agreed with Madison's interpretation and the Anti-Federalists didn't believe that the Constitution by itself would remain as limited as Madison intended.

 

[Nik]

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.

And?

They didn't sign his other opinions. They signed the Constitution. His other opinions and writings mean jack shit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

And?

They didn't sign his other opinions. They signed the Constitution. His other opinions and writings mean jack shit.

His interpretations were the basis of how people interpreted the Constitution and what he intended the Constitution to mean as its principle author. Since people ratified the document with that interpretation in mind it is fraud to try and change the interpretation after it was ratified as Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall tried to do.

 

[Bern80]

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?

Were you thinking because they didin't sign into law what basically amounts to essays (something kind of tough to make specific laws out of) they don't agree with them?

 

[Nik]

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.

And?

They didn't sign his other opinions. They signed the Constitution. His other opinions and writings mean jack shit.

His interpretations were the basis of how people interpreted the Constitution and what he intended the Constitution to mean as its principle author. Since people ratified the document with that interpretation in mind it is fraud to try and change the interpretation after it was ratified as Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall tried to do.

Really?

Your claim is that they all knew what he intended?

 

[Nik]

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?

Were you thinking because they didin't sign into law what basically amounts to essays (something kind of tough to make specific laws out of) they don't agree with them?

You don't think they could have incorporated the ideas in those essays into laws?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And?

They didn't sign his other opinions. They signed the Constitution. His other opinions and writings mean jack shit.

His interpretations were the basis of how people interpreted the Constitution and what he intended the Constitution to mean as its principle author. Since people ratified the document with that interpretation in mind it is fraud to try and change the interpretation after it was ratified as Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall tried to do.

Really?

Your claim is that they all knew what he intended?

Yes. As I said before, the Federalists would have supported Madison's interpretations whereas the Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution gave too much power, even under Madison's limited-government interpretation, to the federal government.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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?

I never had occasion to. Guess it's a good thing you don't practice here.

If you can't get clear legislative intent from the writings on the Constitution, you are an idiot. Further, the Federalist Papers are evidence of that intent and have been cited as such by SCOTUS. Since Madison spent 6 paragraphs expounding on what an idiot you must be to read it the way you claim, even the SCOTUS should be able to figure it out.

I don't know why you are bothering to bat this dead horse around when you already cited the way this stupidity is going to be deemed constitutional. It's through the Commerce clause. There isn't anything in the entire world that isn't Interstate commerce after Wicker.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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?

Nothing to see here. Take a legislation class next semester.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

The 10th Amendment is there to tell us how the Constitution works and is only considered a truism to those opposed to a government limited by the Constitution.

Which would be FDR's Supreme Court in 1941. United States v. Darby Lumber Co. that did not respect Supreme Court precedent and overruled Hamer v. Dagenhart.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

And?

They didn't sign his other opinions. They signed the Constitution. His other opinions and writings mean jack shit.

Which is why the SCOTUS believes the Federalist Papers are worthy of citation, because they usually cite jack shit as authority right?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Which is why the SCOTUS believes the Federalist Papers are worthy of citation, because they usually cite jack shit as authority right?

The Federalist Papers are the equivalent of the Pirate Code of Conduct. "They be more like...guidelines."

 

[Oddball]

This Fabian asshole gets stupider with every post!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

But silly, why should his written explanations of what he put in the Constitution, what it meant to him, and why he put it there be considered to be relevant to a discussion of what the Constitution says? Or, for that matter, the written explanations of what the people signing it thought they were agreeing to? What possible interest could we have in knowing what the arguments were that convinced the majority of the country to ratify the darned thing, either? Why would we need to know any of THAT shit, when we can just sit around and guess at their intent? Pffft.

 

[Bern80]

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.

And?

They didn't sign his other opinions. They signed the Constitution. His other opinions and writings mean jack shit.

At this point it is quit clear that it isn't that the Federalist papers mean 'jack shit'. It's that, that is what you would like them to mean because that is the most convenient for you.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

At this point it is quit clear that it isn't that the Federalist papers mean 'jack shit'. It's that, that is what you would like them to mean because that is the most convenient for you.

And of course nobody on this thread who happens to share your interpretation of the Federalist Papers thinks anything of the sort.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

loser.

This Fabian asshole gets stupider with every post!

Dude? who calls themselves Dude these days?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

loser.

This Fabian asshole gets stupider with every post!

Dude? who calls themselves Dude these days?

Take no notice of him; he's just obsessed with me. First he pitched a hissy-fit when I put him on ignore, and now he's stalking me to the point of homoeroticism. (Which, BTW, isn't my style at all.)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

loser.

This Fabian asshole gets stupider with every post!

Dude? who calls themselves Dude these days?

Take no notice of him; he's just obsessed with me. First he pitched a hissy-fit when I put him on ignore, and now he's stalking me to the point of homoeroticism. (Which, BTW, isn't my style at all.)

my sympathies