If universal health care is so great...

[Bern80]

What Bern does not get is that he is not a constitutional expert.

Never claimed to be one, I simply looked at the document, understood it, and looked up what the writer said he meant by it to make sure I had derived its correct intent.

He is entitled to his opinion, and we all have one.

What opinion would that be?

He needs some clear and convincing evidence to support his claim: he doesn't, though.

What is more convincing than the words of the person who wrote it explaining what he meant by it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for getting to the point. But the issue is " originalism", is it not, and in your opinion whether that should greatly influence the courts? But that is not what SCOTUS goes by and hasn't for a long time. Thank heavens.

 

[Bern80]

Thank you for getting to the point. But the issue is " originalism", is it not, and in your opinion whether that should greatly influence the courts? But that is not what SCOTUS goes by and hasn't for a long time. Thank heavens.

No the issue is not originalism. The issue is what powers are granted to the fed by the constitution. The constitution tells what they are and in case there is confusion, there are historical writings by those that wrote it that tell us what they mean. Non-original is just a nice way of saying the consitution doesn't allow what I want it to so I'm, going to a) ignore it or b) twist the what is said to make it mean what I want it to.

Cite something in the consitution, somewhere, that indicates government has the authority to provide health care and/or has the power to tax people for not purchasing something. Hell, use a 'non-originalist' interpretation if you want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS defines the interpretation of the Constitution, not your or me.

 

[Bern80]

SCOTUS defines the interpretation of the Constitution, not your or me.

A weasely way of saying that you have nothing. Thanks for playing. I love how you weasely libs always resort to that excuse. As if SCOTUS always interprets the constitution correctly. It's official weasel. YOU are the one that has lost the discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, you are a reactionary, not an honest Republican conservative. The GOP does not need your kind. SCOTUS interprets and defines the Constitution, not you.

Try this approach in a freshman history or government class, other than as exploratory, but rather as definitive analysis, and you will fail the class.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, you are a reactionary, not an honest Republican conservative. The GOP does not need your kind. SCOTUS interprets and defines the Constitution, not you.

Try this approach in a freshman history or government class, other than as exploratory, but rather as definitive analysis, and you will fail the class.

Who is the one here that can not answer a single question directed at them? You call me a reactionary, so what am I reacting to exactly? Yes I happen to think I'm right, but you're just being a weasel. You can't even make a simple argument.

For the record I'm not a Republican and not much of a conservative either. What your kind doesn't understand is that there is difference betweeen the OPINION (because that is what the ruling of the SCOTUS judges is called) SCOTUS judge is and what the true intent of the words written are. After all this going back and forth the best argument for government providing health care and requiring people to purchase it is SCOTUS defines the constitution? Weak weasel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, you have a right to your opinion. But you do not have a right to (1) your own reality, and (2) your own definitions. SCOTUS gets to interpret and define the Constitution, while you get to obey those interpretations and definitions. It's easy.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, you have a right to your opinion. But you do not have a right to (1) your own reality, and (2) your own definitions. SCOTUS gets to interpret and define the Constitution, while you get to obey those interpretations and definitions. It's easy.

They have that power. Whether they always interpret it correctly is the question here. To pretend they always do get it right is simply being naive. And not taking a position on anything as you do is simply being a weasel. Hell you can't even explain WHAT my opinion is or why it is an opinion at all. SCOUTS hasn't ruled one way or the other on things like SS or medicare or Obamacare. So your weasel argument about SCOTUS getting to interpret the constitution is entirely irrelevant. Stop lecturing other people about making decent arguments until you can actually gain the ability to make an argument that addresses the argument. I will help you.

The argument is:

The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to provide health care nor does have the authority to require people to purchase insurance.

Your weasel response was.

SCOTUS interprets the constitution. Please explain to us all how that is evidence against the above argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't care what your opinion is, kiddo. I do expect to give evidence, current evidence, of what the constitutional landscape is like. What Madison or Hamilton or whoever thought 220 years ago informs one's understanding, but constitutional interpretation has developed in all of those years. Bern, we are not going back, no matter how much you cry about it.

So go for it, wild man, but who cares?

 

[Bern80]

I don't care what your opinion is, kiddo. I do expect to give evidence, current evidence, of what the constitutional landscape is like. What Madison or Hamilton or whoever thought 220 years ago informs one's understanding, but constitutional interpretation has developed in all of those years. Bern, we are not going back, no matter how much you cry about it.

So go for it, wild man, but who cares?

Translation: "I don't like what the authors wrote, so I'm going to 'interpret' (which is your code word for ignore whether you choose to admit it or not) it to fit what I want." Developing interpretation is not progress. It is slowly removing your freedoms that it originally garunteed and you are too busy being a weasel to see it.

I expect my debate opponent to provide evidence as well and I hate to hoble you out of the gate, but saying it has been interpreted differently isn't evidence of a damn thing. It is clear that you are unable to cite anything in the constitution that supports your stance. So now I'm going to put words in YOUR mouth.

The only argument I (Weasel) have left is that I think the constitution is too old and it is okay to ignore it for 'righteous' causes.

If you have the balls to answer yes, great. You unfortunately then must contend with the question, what prevents tyranny (the very thing the framers sought to prevent)?

If you answer No then you have to cite where the constitution supports your argument, which, as far as I can tell is simply I'm wrong (though you can't seem to explain why).

Good luck, weasel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following, "Translation: "I don't like what the authors wrote, so I'm going to 'interpret' (which is your code word for ignore whether you choose to admit it or not) it to fit what I want" defines exactly what Bern is trying to do. He is ignoring the rule and rationale for a Supreme Court, he has ignored A. Hamilton's and other Founders' and nine states' support for judicial review at the time, and merrily carries along in his la la land. Come closer, Bern. Here's a hint. Closer. What you think does not matter, will not effect anyone here, has no effect on the larger world. In other word, you are the weakest link.

 

[frazzledgear]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

The Constitution is a contract between WE THE PEOPLE and the government. It was created and set up for the sole benefit of WE THE PEOPLE and never for the benefit of government or any other manmade institution. The idea that our manmade institutions somehow have greater rights than we do as individuals and that man must exist as the slaves of their own creations is truly revolting. But an idea the left wholeheartedly embraces in their deluded belief that manmade institutions are more humane and caring than our species that created them! And that belief itself is truly nothing short of pure evil that has historically caused misery, pain and suffering on a nearly unimaginable scale. It is the stuff of Frankenstein science fiction but there really are people who firmly believe that our creations are more humane than the species that created it when the exact opposite has been repeatedly proved.

The Constitution says that WE THE PEOPLE agree to be governed by the rules and laws WE THE PEOPLE have decided and establishes the means for WE THE PEOPLE to alter, change or modify that contract as WE THE PEOPLE see fit throughout the years. It is why the Constitution has actually left so much unnamed powers still in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE and NOT in the hands of government. We have no right to force future generations to live by our mores and morals just like past ones did not have the right to force us to live by theirs. But the left wants all future generations forced to live by the current mores and morals of TODAY no matter what progress or changes are made - which is why they resort to using activist judges to pretend a matter of changing the law to suit the current times is actually a matter of permanent Constitutional issues that binds all future generations even though it isn't. The left demands our courts IMPOSE their personal will on us all regardless and with rulings that force all future generations to live by them as well even though not constitutional issues whatsoever. I never fail to be amazed, revolted and scared SHITLESS by the people who want to know why government doesn't just declare this or that to be "legal" or "illegal" as if this is all about whatever government wants. This is NEVER about what government wants but ONLY about what WE THE PEOPLE want. The ONLY thing that makes this nation unique in the world.

GOVERNMENT is not our master in this country -unlike EVERY other nation in the world. In any other country it is all about whatever government wants and NOT about what the people who must live by those rules want. You want THAT kind of system where government just decides on its own what the rules will be and FUCK what you may think of that -then go move to another country. Iran is doing nicely with their new law the ruling mullah assholes think is founded in their bastardized version of Islam to punish people for having the "wrong" haircuts even! But STOP trying to turn this nation into just one more pale copy of an historically known failure of a system!

In THIS country WE THE PEOPLE decide what rules and laws we AGREE to be governed by. NOT what government =which means the arrogant puffballs who happen to TEMPORARILY occupy government at the moment decide they will ram down our throats against our will -want to do. I think they fail to realize their occupation IS temporary and too often as if they believe themselves to be dictators. Like Pelosi with the ARROGANCE of saying WE THE PEOPLE are not allowed to know what is in a bill until after it is passed! You have to be NUTS and DESPISE our system to believe that woman deserves to continue holding that office. The sheer arrogance is jaw dropping. But maybe for some people it requires the individual saying such a HORRIFIC thing to have an "R" after their name instead of "D" before they are even able to grasp that level of government arrogance that should be promptly SQUASHED as dangerous.

In OUR system of government, government is SUPPOSED to have ZERO -get this one -ABSOLUTELY NO ability to change or modify the Constitution in any way. Only WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be able to do that and then only after the majority of people in 2/3rds of the states vote in favor of changing, modifying or adding to our Constitution. The LAWS we live under are supposed to able to be changed by each generation as they see fit for themselves without any past generation forcing a future one to live by their personal morals. It is supposed to be difficult to change, but not impossible -but government has NO RIGHT whatsoever to alter it on its own. Liberals want future generations to be FORCED to live by their own personal morals no matter what may change in the future. The fact we have some judges and justices willing to give government that unilateral authority in direct violation of our Constitution only tells us all that we have judges and justices that in spite of the vow to uphold and defend our Constitution -never had any intention of doing so, lied under oath when they vowed to do so and believe that government should be our master instead of WE THE PEOPLE being master of the institution that was the creation of man in the first place.

The idea of being slave to our own creation is the stuff of science fiction where man's creation ends up turning against him. And when it comes to man's creation of government, history has repeatedly proven that it can and always will turn on its own creators unless man keeps constant vigil to limit the power and ability of government to do so. But the left LOVES the idea of man becoming slave and victim to his own creation and will argue that faceless institutions are actually more humane than humanity and more humane than the species that created it -which is itself insane. The notion of man existing for the benefit of the system he created is the founding principle of liberalism. In spite of the fact that history has repeatedly proven that is not only a lie on a monumental scale -but one that has cost the lives of BILLIONS already. And will undoubtedly cost the lives of billions more until our species finally learns the REAL lessons of history. The truly depressing reality is the fact it doesn't appear this generation is the one that has finally figured that lesson out once and for all. But considering the deplorable education in our public school systems, it is a lesson they were never taught already existed.

 

[frazzledgear]

SCOTUS defines the interpretation of the Constitution, not your or me.

Actually the Constitution was originally written in language that the common person could easily understand for himself and did not need a "special" interpreter at all. People used to sit around and readily argue what was and was not constitutional based on the actual language of the Constitution which is NOT mired in mystique whatsoever. The left is guilty of fostering the notion that understanding our Constitution requires this "special" thing beyond the capability of the average person -which the founders would have LOUDLY rejected. Oh and DID.

LEGALLY the Supreme Court is the last step of interpretation. But MORALLY, the average person can easily figure out the original intent of the founders as the founders intended it to be in the first place. And it is the average person on the street the founders intended to be able to easily interpret the Constitution so they could understand and see when a branch of their government was going haywire and off track. A contract between the governed and government where the left insists the governed can't possibly understand the terms is ludicrous! And a lie. How else do YOU expect a people to know when their own government is violating the contract made between WE THE PEOPLE about the rules and laws we agree to be governed -and a government engaged in what governments throughout history have ALWAYS done without exception -to try and expand its scope and range of power at the expense of the governed.

I think if the founders could "re-do" anything in the Constitution they would have included term limits. The notion that someone would make a career out of "ruling" would have nauseated them even far, far more than it does me. And that is pretty bad.

 

[Bern80]

The following, "Translation: "I don't like what the authors wrote, so I'm going to 'interpret' (which is your code word for ignore whether you choose to admit it or not) it to fit what I want" defines exactly what Bern is trying to do. He is ignoring the rule and rationale for a Supreme Court, he has ignored A. Hamilton's and other Founders' and nine states' support for judicial review at the time, and merrily carries along in his la la land. Come closer, Bern. Here's a hint. Closer. What you think does not matter, will not effect anyone here, has no effect on the larger world. In other word, you are the weakest link.

Translation: The weasel has nothing. History shows Hamilton was considered an outsider in terms of his views (he wanted there to be a king inthe colonies). Can you or can you not, point to something in the constitution that supports your opinion? I am ignoring nothing. I understand that SCOTUS has the last say on the costituion. The point I am making is they don't always get it right. That isn't a matter of opinion. You can't expect that 9 people of different political persuasions and their own opinions, nominated by partisan presidents are ALWAYS going to interpret the constitution correvtion. Second, bringing it up is irrelevant because they have not rendered an opinion on what we are talking about. You've made all of two counter arguments in this thread citing article VI for god knows what reason, and then what the role of SCOTUS is. Neither has anything to do with what we are talking. Keep trying weasel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

The Constitution is a contract between WE THE PEOPLE and the government. It was created and set up for the sole benefit of WE THE PEOPLE and never for the benefit of government or any other manmade institution. The idea that our manmade institutions somehow have greater rights than we do as individuals and that man must exist as the slaves of their own creations is truly revolting. But an idea the left wholeheartedly embraces in their deluded belief that manmade institutions are more humane and caring than our species that created them! And that belief itself is truly nothing short of pure evil that has historically caused misery, pain and suffering on a nearly unimaginable scale. It is the stuff of Frankenstein science fiction but there really are people who firmly believe that our creations are more humane than the species that created it when the exact opposite has been repeatedly proved.

The Constitution says that WE THE PEOPLE agree to be governed by the rules and laws WE THE PEOPLE have decided and establishes the means for WE THE PEOPLE to alter, change or modify that contract as WE THE PEOPLE see fit throughout the years. It is why the Constitution has actually left so much unnamed powers still in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE and NOT in the hands of government. We have no right to force future generations to live by our mores and morals just like past ones did not have the right to force us to live by theirs. But the left wants all future generations forced to live by the current mores and morals of TODAY no matter what progress or changes are made - which is why they resort to using activist judges to pretend a matter of changing the law to suit the current times is actually a matter of permanent Constitutional issues that binds all future generations even though it isn't. The left demands our courts IMPOSE their personal will on us all regardless and with rulings that force all future generations to live by them as well even though not constitutional issues whatsoever. I never fail to be amazed, revolted and scared SHITLESS by the people who want to know why government doesn't just declare this or that to be "legal" or "illegal" as if this is all about whatever government wants. This is NEVER about what government wants but ONLY about what WE THE PEOPLE want. The ONLY thing that makes this nation unique in the world.

GOVERNMENT is not our master in this country -unlike EVERY other nation in the world. In any other country it is all about whatever government wants and NOT about what the people who must live by those rules want. You want THAT kind of system where government just decides on its own what the rules will be and FUCK what you may think of that -then go move to another country. Iran is doing nicely with their new law the ruling mullah assholes think is founded in their bastardized version of Islam to punish people for having the "wrong" haircuts even! But STOP trying to turn this nation into just one more pale copy of an historically known failure of a system!

In THIS country WE THE PEOPLE decide what rules and laws we AGREE to be governed by. NOT what government =which means the arrogant puffballs who happen to TEMPORARILY occupy government at the moment decide they will ram down our throats against our will -want to do. I think they fail to realize their occupation IS temporary and too often as if they believe themselves to be dictators. Like Pelosi with the ARROGANCE of saying WE THE PEOPLE are not allowed to know what is in a bill until after it is passed! You have to be NUTS and DESPISE our system to believe that woman deserves to continue holding that office. The sheer arrogance is jaw dropping. But maybe for some people it requires the individual saying such a HORRIFIC thing to have an "R" after their name instead of "D" before they are even able to grasp that level of government arrogance that should be promptly SQUASHED as dangerous.

In OUR system of government, government is SUPPOSED to have ZERO -get this one -ABSOLUTELY NO ability to change or modify the Constitution in any way. Only WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be able to do that and then only after the majority of people in 2/3rds of the states vote in favor of changing, modifying or adding to our Constitution. The LAWS we live under are supposed to able to be changed by each generation as they see fit for themselves without any past generation forcing a future one to live by their personal morals. It is supposed to be difficult to change, but not impossible -but government has NO RIGHT whatsoever to alter it on its own. Liberals want future generations to be FORCED to live by their own personal morals no matter what may change in the future. The fact we have some judges and justices willing to give government that unilateral authority in direct violation of our Constitution only tells us all that we have judges and justices that in spite of the vow to uphold and defend our Constitution -never had any intention of doing so, lied under oath when they vowed to do so and believe that government should be our master instead of WE THE PEOPLE being master of the institution that was the creation of man in the first place.

The idea of being slave to our own creation is the stuff of science fiction where man's creation ends up turning against him. And when it comes to man's creation of government, history has repeatedly proven that it can and always will turn on its own creators unless man keeps constant vigil to limit the power and ability of government to do so. But the left LOVES the idea of man becoming slave and victim to his own creation and will argue that faceless institutions are actually more humane than humanity and more humane than the species that created it -which is itself insane. The notion of man existing for the benefit of the system he created is the founding principle of liberalism. In spite of the fact that history has repeatedly proven that is not only a lie on a monumental scale -but one that has cost the lives of BILLIONS already. And will undoubtedly cost the lives of billions more until our species finally learns the REAL lessons of history. The truly depressing reality is the fact it doesn't appear this generation is the one that has finally figured that lesson out once and for all. But considering the deplorable education in our public school systems, it is a lesson they were never taught already existed.

Sheer lunacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When Bern writes, "I understand that SCOTUS has the last say on the costituion" he admits fail on the issue.

Now to the larger issue: yes, the SC can get things wrong; yes, we should point those things out; and, no, Bern, based on everything you have written reveals you truly do not understand the document.

 

[Bern80]

When Bern writes, "I understand that SCOTUS has the last say on the costituion" he admits fail on the issue.

Now to the larger issue: yes, the SC can get things wrong; yes, we should point those things out; and, no, Bern, based on everything you have written reveals you truly do not understand the document.

What do I not understand? What is there in it that supports your position? What is your position weasel? Why is it so difficult for you to answer these questions when you claim it is so crystal clear?

 

[JakeStarkey]

When Bern writes, "I understand that SCOTUS has the last say on the costituion" he admits fail on the issue.

Now to the larger issue: yes, the SC can get things wrong; yes, we should point those things out; and, no, Bern, based on everything you have written reveals you truly do not understand the document.

What do I not understand? What is there in it that supports your position? What is your position weasel? Why is it so difficult for you to answer these questions when you claim it is so crystal clear?

You are cut when you get angry, Little Weasel. We all know what your opinion is. We all know that it is just your opinion. All of the necessary questions have been answered. What don't you understand?

 

[Bern80]

When Bern writes, "I understand that SCOTUS has the last say on the costituion" he admits fail on the issue.

Now to the larger issue: yes, the SC can get things wrong; yes, we should point those things out; and, no, Bern, based on everything you have written reveals you truly do not understand the document.

What do I not understand? What is there in it that supports your position? What is your position weasel? Why is it so difficult for you to answer these questions when you claim it is so crystal clear?

You are cut when you get angry, Little Weasel. We all know what your opinion is. We all know that it is just your opinion. All of the necessary questions have been answered. What don't you understand?

You know what weasel? I get it now. Your problem is a fundamental lack of understanding of the english language. The one part of the constitution you did attempt to cite way back had ZERO to do with what we we're talking about. You can't explain what my opinion is or why it is actually an opinion. I'm dealing with an intellectual neophyte on top of being a weasel that won't provide evidence or have the integrity to answer direct questions.