Dems Move all-in: Protesters are Un-American

[Navy1960]

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Im very well aware of the 3/5ths compromise and it's implications and if you were as well read as you said you were then you would have known this as well. You laughing at me is the last of my worry's want to know why? because people like you I actually pity because your so lacking in a general understanding of our form of Govt. that it's you who are often laughed at when you post the nonsense you do that is often repeated and found from just about any pamphlet that every progressive group hands out. I am extremely well aware cases having dealth with the commerce clause

Well, maybe instead of blubbering on telling me how much you know, how bout you actually explain the implications of it. You like to bullshit a lot and pretend you actually know stuff, but where is any evidence that we should hold sacred the ideas of a bunch of white, old, property owning men who were NOT representative, and who owned slaves?

Among the Several States .--Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase ''among the several States'' was ''not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state.'' It must therefore have been selected to demark ''the exclusively internal commerce of a state.'' While, of course, the phrase ''may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one,'' it is obvious that ''[c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the exterior boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior.'' The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. ''The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government

Again if you were not so blinded by partisanship and were able to actually comprehend what you were reading then you would have seen that even the SCOTUS has through the years ruled that interstate commerce can be regulated by the Federal Govt. and as roads carry interstate commerce per my postings they can also be regulated. However, this does not give congress the power to regulatewithin the states roads that do not have any connection to interstate commerce or rail for that matter. Perhaps they helps clear it up for you as you seem so intent to not understand what your reading.

You are apparently quite stupid. Nowhere in the commerce clause does it say that the federal government can FUND interstate commerce, merely than it can regulate it. Besides the fact that, nothing in the US Constitution says that SCOTUS gets to interpret it, and, if you knew anything about the commerce clause line of cases, you would know they've done great violence to the original meanings. Violence that I agree with, but violence nonetheless.


United States v. Butler.



And? Your point?





Nowhere. But anything the government can do, such as regulate commerce, it is allowed to do for the "public good". This is simple stuff, really.

The Federalist Paper No.10 argues that a republic is capable of controlling the effects of faction, more so than a democracy. The reason put forward is that a system of representation is more capable of protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, as well as being better able to balance the needs of the public good. Madison notes that representatives are more divorced from the issues being raised by factions and consequently better able to create just legislation that is compatible with rights and the public good. Public Good while a theory and a goal of Govt. it is not something that gives Govt. broad powers to legislate. Had you a little knowledge of your nation then you would have been able to understand this concept.

If you knew how to read, you'd understand that I never said that the public good gives the government broad powers to legislate.

I will end on this note and that is the Amendment process. if you wish to change the constitution as you seem to be such a deep scholar of the constitution , then my suggesting this should not come as such a surprise. I'm very well aware what a progressive democrat is and the difference between a traditional democrat and a progressive one is. In fact , I submit that many of those that call themselves progressives have zero clue of exactly what that means as they often call themselves liberals as well which is laughable. considering the fact that a traditional liberal would never want Govt. to controls that a so called progressive advocates. So again, young man I suggest you pick up a history book and not a social studies book to have a clue as to what kind of nation you actually live in. Of course i'd be happy to kep educating you if you so desire.

Oh, do keep "educating" me. If you can really call this rambling half-coherent mass of gibberish an education.

I read law books. Not history or "social studies" books. I know a wee bit more about American jurisprudence than you do.

Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:


“ The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Well as your law knowledge is so vast perhaps this one sort of slipped your mind when you aksed that question on what gives the Govt. the power to fund under the commerce clause. It's very obvious you don't read history books by your postings and it shows.

As for your statement on how much violence the courts have done to the clause, again had you bothered to read and actaully understood what you were reading, then you would have seen my original agreement with Madison's view on the commerce clause. So given this and your vast knowledge of the law and admitted lack of history let me help you, In the butler case which is the one case that most point to as the turning point for federal power expansion in the commerce clause the courts according to Justice Roberts not only abandoned Madison's 150 year held view of the limited meaning of this clause in favor of Hamiltons they did so in fear so that they may save he courts from FDR. If you had bothered to do some research you would have known this already. Further, you would also have seen that I do not support the expansion or the progressive view of the commerce clause.

You also made reference to old white men, and again as your admitted lack of historical knowledge may help here, you might want to know that may men of color helped build the nation we live in. Here are a just a few...

Twenty-five African Americans earned the Medal of Honor during the American Civil War, including seven sailors of the Union Navy, fifteen soldiers of the United States Colored Troops, and three soldiers of other Army units.[2] Fourteen African American men earned the Medal for actions in the Battle of Chaffin's Farm, where a division of U.S. Colored Troops saw heavy action. Another four men, all sailors, earned their Medals at the Battle of Mobile Bay. William Harvey Carney was the first African American to perform an action for which a Medal of Honor was awarded, but Robert Blake was the first to actually receive the Medal (Blake's was issued in 1864, Carney did not receive his until 1900). It was common for Civil War Medals of Honor to be awarded decades after the conflict ended; in one case, Andrew Jackson Smith's Medal was not awarded until 2001, 137 years after the action in which he earned it. Smith's wait, caused by a missing battle report, is the longest delay of the award for any recipient, African American or otherwise

You asked why should you hold the ideals of these old white men sacred, well in fact you don't have too. This nation allows you to do that , I do find it interesting though that for someone would would condemn the very foundations that their very own Govt. was based on would claim to spend so much time studying it's laws. Nik, while I honestly do not care what your opinion is or lack thereof, I do respect your right to voice it and you asked why you should hold those ideals sacred, perhaps it's because you can make those opinions known in this nation and in many places you cannot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Somebody made the stupid comment, ". . .nothing in the US Constitution says that SCOTUS gets to interpret it, . . " Stiffy, go back and read Article III of the Constitution and come back and tell us what "original jurisdiction" means.

Thank heavens our teachers and professors are making sure our students today know far more about the our orginal documents than you and your ilk.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Dems have ALWAYS considered republicans as un-American.

I'll tell you what's un-American...the attempt at stifling free speech of ANYONE who shows up at any town hall meeting.

Has anyone seen the ads on Craigs List offering to pay people to go to the town hall meetings to outnumber the conservatives? I heard that on a local radio station today and haven't had a chance to research it myself.

Wondered if that was true.

As long as the people aren't shouting others down like code pink does then i think that the politicians have a duty and responsibility to give an answer to all questions asked by their constituents.

I think its bogus that the president and many in the democratic party are demonizing anyone who isn't just blindly going along with HR3200. The very people who didn't even read the bill are criticizing those of us who have read it and do not like it.....thats just wrong.

 

[keee keee]

When I was againt the Amnesty bill I was called a "RACIST" Now I am against OBAMACARE I am now called "UNAMERICAN" That makes me a racist unamerican againts Illegal imigration and government run health care OBAMACARE. I"m still a non racist American that is mad as hell at these democrats and will not forget these cretins Nov.2010 I will show up and vote these loser out if possible. Who the hell do these people think they are, did they forget who they work for? Hopefully they will be with the unemployed next November, the unemployed Americans currently and I am one of them don't deserve not having a job but these cretin deserve being unemployed!!!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

The difference between that and no health insurance? Seriously?

Everything "only goes so far".

so those who have serious problems,and rather costly diseases,those who may need daily professional help,the elderly with their meds....those people and others experiencing similar problems....those people are still fucked...right Nik?....

Those people aren't fucked now. Those people have coverage.

do they?....if what you say is true...how come EVERY pro NHC person i have posed that question too has avoided answering it?....Chris,Old Rocks....all have danced around it or just ignored the question....the truth is these people with serious problems or "expensive" diseases have a rough time getting what they need when they reach the "LIMIT".....my point is Allie....that the way the pro-NHC people are putting this out there...and i mean dipshits like Chris....EVERYTHING that happens to you will be covered,there are no limits like a private plan may have....and this is BULLSHIT....but Chris wont say...no there will be limits....same thing with Rocks.....so im saying....what the hell will be the dam difference?....the people who need help will still just get help to a point....and then its sorry...this whole plan was put forth not only for those without Ins.....but for those who are rejected for the condition they have or its to costly and the Ins tells them we cant go no further....

 

[American Horse]

Of course medicare only goes so far. It should be funded better. Regardless, look at polls more people on medicare are satisfied with their health coverage than people who are on private insurance.

That and the fact that, without medicare, a lot more old folks would be dead

What's not to be satisfied with for those who are on it? I began paying into it in 1966, as most likely everyone else did who is on it now as a result of having become a senior citizen. But I remind you that all the years that those people (like me) who paid into it, also paid into a private plan during all those intervening years, so it was a prepayment for future benefits (like SS), anticipating a time when medical costs would become more than would be able to be endured on retirement income. Medicare is not cheap. Right now for a 68 year old, the cost of Medicare is about $350/month, which is about 30% of an entire SS check, but that monthly payment eliminates a deductible. Retired people, for whom Medicare was designed, can no longer afford deductibles.

But Medicare is about to be rolled into the new Healthcare reform act. We've been told that it is bankrupt. So this is how it is to be "fixed" - by rolling it into a vastly larger plan inside of which benefits to those who’ve long paid into it will be "trimmed or pared back." The affect of rolling it into this vastly larger system is to begin to settle the long complained about issue of Medicare, once and for all: this is to be its final solution; or its effective elimination; this calls into question your statement which I have set in bold text.