Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution

[Murf76]

its called the supremacy clause, stucker. it's in the same constitution as the parts neoconservative chicken-littles love to champion. read it much?

The Supremacy Clause doesn't allow Congress to just make up laws will ye nil ye. They still have to live within their enumerated powers.

i understand the lines of reason.

stucker is crying a river over not being able to buy artillery; the commerce clause and coercion in the spend clause can facilitate a national ban on such items, as history has shown, even to the chagrin of those few folks who want chainguns to be legal.

Well, you can't have people building nuclear bombs in their bathtubs... so clearly a line must be drawn. Unalienable rights only extend to the point where they don't interfere with the unalienable rights of other citizens.

That said, I think there's value in following a line of thought out to the worst case scenario and intellectually exploring it. It shows us where the potholes are.

 

[Murf76]

No, antagon is not, but you, Charles Stucker, are a corporate fascist. You want the balkanization of the U.S. so that business can more easily work hand in hand in government, taking corporate welfare in return for ignoring the tyrants in power.

Never going to happen, son, never.

Shouldn't you unearth Jeffrey Immelt from beneath Barry's left butt-cheek before you call anybody else a "corporate fascist". Might improve your credibility.

Just sayin'.

Murf, you lecturing on creditibility is like Pretty Boy Floyd lecturing on being a good citizen.

Is that ALL YOU GOT?!

C'mon. Give us the skinny on how the Obama/Immelt relationship isn't corporate fascism. Tell us how parceling out big chunks of Chrysler and GM isn't a payout to his UAW supporters. You know... not every "corporation" is a for-profit business. The SEIU, UAW, ACORN, and all his other community and labor organizations are corporations too.

Are you really gonna sit there with a straight face and tell us that Barack Obama isn't the biggest "corporate fascist" we've seen... maybe ever?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is more than enough when you are involved.

 

[Murf76]

It is more than enough when you are involved.

Aww... coming from you, that's high praise indeed.

 

[beowolfe]

Shouldn't you unearth Jeffrey Immelt from beneath Barry's left butt-cheek before you call anybody else a "corporate fascist". Might improve your credibility.

Just sayin'.

Murf, you lecturing on creditibility is like Pretty Boy Floyd lecturing on being a good citizen.

Is that ALL YOU GOT?!

C'mon. Give us the skinny on how the Obama/Immelt relationship isn't corporate fascism. Tell us how parceling out big chunks of Chrysler and GM isn't a payout to his UAW supporters. You know... not every "corporation" is a for-profit business. The SEIU, UAW, ACORN, and all his other community and labor organizations are corporations too.

Are you really gonna sit there with a straight face and tell us that Barack Obama isn't the biggest "corporate fascist" we've seen... maybe ever?

Tell us, what chunks of Chrysler and GM went to the UAW as payouts? The UAW lost almost as much as the car companies did.

 

[Murf76]

Tell us, what chunks of Chrysler and GM went to the UAW as payouts? The UAW lost almost as much as the car companies did.

This was a dirty deal any way you slice it. The UAW ended up with 17.5% of GM and 55% of Chrysler. The bondholders and shareholders got squeezed rather nastily. And the government ended up pretty much in control of both companies, forcing Chrysler into partnership with Fiat, and owning 60% of GM. In fact, after the Canadian government got their piece, only 10% of GM was left to the bondholders to make up for the billions they had invested.

'You Break It, You Own It' - Forbes.com

Gangster government gave Chrysler to the UAW | Washington Examiner

 

[Vanquish]

Chuck,

Just as today, there was no single frame of mind among our Founders concerning the size of government. Any attempt to say there was is an absolute misrepresentation.

Really? I could have sworn they were all united fighting the largest government on earth to earn the right to write the constitution. How does that make them supporters of big government?

Dude. They fought amongst themselves about the relative size and power of the federal government compared to the states. Some founders wanted more power for the federal government...some wanted stronger states' rights.

Yes, they were fighting against an oppressive government, but simply stating that fact doesn't win any arguments about their view on the ROLE of government.

They debated and argued and compromised and worked together despite their differences.

 

[antagon]

but you could cool it with the size=7 shit, captain. i could understand regular type just as effectively.

Yet you still believe that more government is always better government. If there is no government at all then that statement is true, but once a certain size is reached, more government is worse government. Otherwise every state controlled economy throughout history would perform better than the freer economies with smaller governments. You take as an article of faith that the US has not passed that point, but if you were to read the opinions of the framers of the constitution you might find them extremely wary of such a massive government as we have now. It simply suits your preconceptions to have more socialism and hence you blithely accept more government as better.

Did you understand a single word?
Or are you still a liberal socialist idiot?

you crack me up, stucker.

ive not said anything about big government being great. that is your paranoid terminology. i think we're better off looking at what the government is up to in more detail than big and small.

i think your problem might lie in applying the framer's opinions (those you like, at least) to economics. 18th century merchantilists can hardly speak on the merits of today's US economy, if on their own fledgling economy. no doubt, these great men would be wary of the state of the union, you're right. but i think they'd be wary about flying in air force one, too.

 

[antagon]

The Commerce Clause. No.

The point of a gun is a simple concept. Government has the power to force you to do what it wants or throw you in jail. That means they will be sending their enforcers to arrest you. These enforcers have guns and will use them to enforce the governments will.

You will be forced to comply at the point of a gun.

Understand now?

neoconservatives a paranoid as hell. willingness to fantasize to this degree, or samurai's "you'll see" put the case in point. not deserving of an ounce of credibility...

Well, if resources are going to go to the IRS to police this bill. And states and militia are redirecting resources to fight feds in DC. What about those forces watching the border? If Mexican helicopters are already crossing over into the US, ranchers are found shot to death by trespassers, and Houston officers are being shot to death by illegal immigrants; whose guns are going to be in your face when you wake up one day to a home invasion?

This political division and civil battle distracts even more resources and attention AWAY from policing crime, corruption, and border trafficking, that is also connected to the cost of health care. The fraud of public services (in addition to corporate bailouts and abuses of taxes on corporate welfare) is not adequately policed or recovered as it is. If attention was focused there, to get billions in restitution paid back to taxpayers, wouldn't that be a better method of funding than fighting over the constitutionality of federal and tax mandates.

Why not just get the money from sources we AGREE need to be better policed, instead of adding a whole new category of requirements for policing law-abiding citizens?

The IRS and feds should go after the real crooks, not create another class of criminals.
If militia and states are raising an army, it should be for border patrol not a civil war!

more paranoia. civil war? gimme a break.

taxpayer restitution?

as far as getting money from more deeply involved groups, with particular respect to larger corporations, the HC bill does a fine job of that. while folks are out claiming marxist obamunism and big gubmint, the bill puts more responsibility for providing the US standard of living in the hands of americans and the businesses we've made, and in lieu of the government.

does that require mandates? yes. despite what capitalist anarchists subscribe to, businesses wont provide infrastructure on their own.

 

[emilynghiem]

neoconservatives a paranoid as hell. willingness to fantasize to this degree, or samurai's "you'll see" put the case in point. not deserving of an ounce of credibility...

Well, if resources are going to go to the IRS to police this bill. And states and militia are redirecting resources to fight feds in DC. What about those forces watching the border? If Mexican helicopters are already crossing over into the US, ranchers are found shot to death by trespassers, and Houston officers are being shot to death by illegal immigrants; whose guns are going to be in your face when you wake up one day to a home invasion?

This political division and civil battle distracts even more resources and attention AWAY from policing crime, corruption, and border trafficking, that is also connected to the cost of health care. The fraud of public services (in addition to corporate bailouts and abuses of taxes on corporate welfare) is not adequately policed or recovered as it is. If attention was focused there, to get billions in restitution paid back to taxpayers, wouldn't that be a better method of funding than fighting over the constitutionality of federal and tax mandates.

Why not just get the money from sources we AGREE need to be better policed, instead of adding a whole new category of requirements for policing law-abiding citizens?

The IRS and feds should go after the real crooks, not create another class of criminals.
If militia and states are raising an army, it should be for border patrol not a civil war!

more paranoia. civil war? gimme a break.

taxpayer restitution?

as far as getting money from more deeply involved groups, with particular respect to larger corporations, the HC bill does a fine job of that. while folks are out claiming marxist obamunism and big gubmint, the bill puts more responsibility for providing the US standard of living in the hands of americans and the businesses we've made, and in lieu of the government.

does that require mandates? yes. despite what capitalist anarchists subscribe to, businesses wont provide infrastructure on their own.

1. not a literal/physical civil war, but "civil" war as in protracted and expensive litigation and political campaigns back and forth, spending millions that could be spent directly on bipartisan cooperative solutions. I live in a national historic district, where the city "accidentally" demolished a church that just got its historic designation; but claims there are no funds to rebuild it. Everytime I receive a color glossy flyer for this judge or that mayor candidate, I think how much of this money could have gone into restoring a historic cemetery or building that are being demolished every day due to lack of funds?

2. The correct way to provide infrastructure to check businesses and corporations is NOT to dictate these mandates for them, but to hold corporations and citizens equally accountable for enforcing and protecting the same rights and freedoms under Constitutional laws that allow them to operate freely in this country. The same way govt is required to respect equal protections of the laws, including religious freedom and due process, all citizens and corporations should be held to the same standards. That way all grievances and petitions for change to policy can be required, but left to the individual cases to arrive at solutions that represent all parties and protect all interests, without mandating or dictating from Washington and promoting dependence on govt, but empowering and requiring people to solve their own problems themselves, by consent.

Here are the basic principles I would require all citizens, corporate and govt officials to uphold, and/or to redress all grievances and conflicts of interests to prevent infringement:
http://www.ethics-commission.net

 

[Samson]

Well, if resources are going to go to the IRS to police this bill. And states and militia are redirecting resources to fight feds in DC. What about those forces watching the border? If Mexican helicopters are already crossing over into the US, ranchers are found shot to death by trespassers, and Houston officers are being shot to death by illegal immigrants; whose guns are going to be in your face when you wake up one day to a home invasion?

This political division and civil battle distracts even more resources and attention AWAY from policing crime, corruption, and border trafficking, that is also connected to the cost of health care. The fraud of public services (in addition to corporate bailouts and abuses of taxes on corporate welfare) is not adequately policed or recovered as it is. If attention was focused there, to get billions in restitution paid back to taxpayers, wouldn't that be a better method of funding than fighting over the constitutionality of federal and tax mandates.

Why not just get the money from sources we AGREE need to be better policed, instead of adding a whole new category of requirements for policing law-abiding citizens?

The IRS and feds should go after the real crooks, not create another class of criminals.
If militia and states are raising an army, it should be for border patrol not a civil war!

more paranoia. civil war? gimme a break.

taxpayer restitution?

as far as getting money from more deeply involved groups, with particular respect to larger corporations, the HC bill does a fine job of that. while folks are out claiming marxist obamunism and big gubmint, the bill puts more responsibility for providing the US standard of living in the hands of americans and the businesses we've made, and in lieu of the government.

does that require mandates? yes. despite what capitalist anarchists subscribe to, businesses wont provide infrastructure on their own.

1. not a literal/physical civil war, but "civil" war as in protracted and expensive litigation and political campaigns back and forth, spending millions that could be spent directly on bipartisan cooperative solutions. I live in a national historic district, where the city "accidentally" demolished a church that just got its historic designation; but claims there are no funds to rebuild it. Everytime I receive a color glossy flyer for this judge or that mayor candidate, I think how much of this money could have gone into restoring a historic cemetery or building that are being demolished every day due to lack of funds?

Look do you want a Rice Epicurian Food Market in your nieghborhood or not?

 

[antagon]

Well, if resources are going to go to the IRS to police this bill. And states and militia are redirecting resources to fight feds in DC. What about those forces watching the border? If Mexican helicopters are already crossing over into the US, ranchers are found shot to death by trespassers, and Houston officers are being shot to death by illegal immigrants; whose guns are going to be in your face when you wake up one day to a home invasion?

This political division and civil battle distracts even more resources and attention AWAY from policing crime, corruption, and border trafficking, that is also connected to the cost of health care. The fraud of public services (in addition to corporate bailouts and abuses of taxes on corporate welfare) is not adequately policed or recovered as it is. If attention was focused there, to get billions in restitution paid back to taxpayers, wouldn't that be a better method of funding than fighting over the constitutionality of federal and tax mandates.

Why not just get the money from sources we AGREE need to be better policed, instead of adding a whole new category of requirements for policing law-abiding citizens?

The IRS and feds should go after the real crooks, not create another class of criminals.
If militia and states are raising an army, it should be for border patrol not a civil war!

more paranoia. civil war? gimme a break.

taxpayer restitution?

as far as getting money from more deeply involved groups, with particular respect to larger corporations, the HC bill does a fine job of that. while folks are out claiming marxist obamunism and big gubmint, the bill puts more responsibility for providing the US standard of living in the hands of americans and the businesses we've made, and in lieu of the government.

does that require mandates? yes. despite what capitalist anarchists subscribe to, businesses wont provide infrastructure on their own.

1. not a literal/physical civil war, but "civil" war as in protracted and expensive litigation and political campaigns back and forth, spending millions that could be spent directly on bipartisan cooperative solutions. I live in a national historic district, where the city "accidentally" demolished a church that just got its historic designation; but claims there are no funds to rebuild it. Everytime I receive a color glossy flyer for this judge or that mayor candidate, I think how much of this money could have gone into restoring a historic cemetery or building that are being demolished every day due to lack of funds?

2. The correct way to provide infrastructure to check businesses and corporations is NOT to dictate these mandates for them, but to hold corporations and citizens equally accountable for enforcing and protecting the same rights and freedoms under Constitutional laws that allow them to operate freely in this country. The same way govt is required to respect equal protections of the laws, including religious freedom and due process, all citizens and corporations should be held to the same standards. That way all grievances and petitions for change to policy can be required, but left to the individual cases to arrive at solutions that represent all parties and protect all interests, without mandating or dictating from Washington and promoting dependence on govt, but empowering and requiring people to solve their own problems themselves, by consent.

Here are the basic principles I would require all citizens, corporate and govt officials to uphold, and/or to redress all grievances and conflicts of interests to prevent infringement:
http://www.ethics-commission.net

ok. however grass-roots orgs want to spend their time and money is up to them. lawsuits like the birther propeganda suits, as i would imagine those probing this h/c bill are designed to leech money from people's concern or interest in obstructing the current government. the 'ol money where your mouth is approach. its a bit inethical, perhaps, to drum up unfounded hope in people at their expense while they trust your expertise, but many attorneys walk that line.

i think that the constitution should stick to its role with the government. lets not get overboard.

whatever your impressions of correct method are, our private health insurance system was founded on mandates. while your ideals are nice, dont they amount to a pep-talk without there being a mandatory component involved? like obama's caucus with the banks... a get lending, watch your fees, curtail your salaries pep talk.

instead, a real-world scenario is being put in effect that offers the insurers business in return for their compliance with some guides as to the services they offer americans.