If universal health care is so great...

[Oddball]

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written. You far right reactionaries and libertarians cry boo hoo because knowlegable people laugh at you when you start stuttering. You simply can't carry the argument.

And then the 2nd Amendment case is carried through incorporation by a 'conservative' court.

Every moderate and centrist Republican American is laughing at you fools.

Well, we already know what progressive Fabian democrats like you think...I'll reserve judgment on what any "centrist" republican says or doesn't say when one shows up.

 

[Bern80]

The Big Fitz's are the ones who wish to create the economic police state that permits Americans to be tools of the libertarians.

Libertarianism is lack of control dimwit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude, you, since you are not even a reactionary GOP, have no idea what a real Republican believes. Reagan and his followers were an abortion and an aberration. The history of the last decade and the impending GOP defeats in November and 2012 will allow the Party to be recast historically.

Watch closely and learn, poseur.

 

[Bern80]

That's the point. You have never shown where it wasn't. If you don't like it, kiddo, take it up with SCOTUS.

Eh eh. You JUST got done telling me how CRYSTAL CLEAR the constitution is on this. Shouldn't be hard for you to tell me where that power is granted to the fed. So let's see it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You made the claim. You back it up, or shut up. If you offer the evidence, then I can respond to that. But the evidence is NOT your interp of the Constitution. That is merely your opinion and does not count. Give us the evidence.

 

[Bern80]

You made the claim. You back it up, or shut up. If you offer the evidence, then I can respond to that. But the evidence is NOT your interp of the Constitution. That is merely your opinion and does not count. Give us the evidence.

Go back an read. I have not. YOU claimed the authority is granted. So learn me smart guy and show me where. If I did, quote it. I've only been in this thread the last couple pages so shouldn't be hard to find, if I did.

And why is the same not required. You hold everyone else to some standard but not yourself? Pretty chicken shit Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

 

[Bern80]

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

You are a piece of work. You can't find what you accussed me of so you want to change the rules again?

 

[Oddball]

OK, guys, break's over...Gotta get these moved over to Jake the Fake's house, pronto!

 

[Immanuel]

...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.

Um, because getting an Amendment to the Constitution is not all that easy. Just ask the supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Equal Rights Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.

The ERA was passed out of Congress in 1972 and has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, it is possible that the ERA could become the 28th Amendment. The ERA could also be ratified by restarting the traditional process of passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states.

Wow!! 87 years young and still kickin'

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

You guys stated the law was unconstitutional. I told you were full of crap and asked for the evidence. You, as Dud so well pointed out, are moving the goals posts. They fail is on you, guys. Straighten out or fail tonight. Dud already has, so you might as well join him.

 

[Bern80]

Let's just look at the structure of your argument so far, irregardles of the subject and see how miserably you fail. You start by accussing me of stating something I never did then you state that if someone makes an affirmative claim they must provide evidence for it. Fair enough if the rule applies to everyone. But you also made a claim:

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

Yet inexplicably you don't have to back yours up.

EPIC FAIL, WEASEL.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pay attention, for I will say this once.

Burden of Proof: On the folks who make the first claim. You all did.
Counter Proof: Based on the evidence of the affirmative, the CP offers rebuttal and new evidence.

Fact: Since you posted no evidence other than opinion, I have no need to rebut opinion.

Conclusion: You fail.

Thus endeth the lesson. Good night.

 

[Bern80]

Pay attention, for I will say this once.

Burden of Proof: On the folks who make the first claim. You all did.
Counter Proof: Based on the evidence of the affirmative, the CP offers rebuttal and new evidence.

Fact: Since you posted no evidence other than opinion, I have no need to rebut opinion.

Conclusion: You fail.

Thus endeth the lesson. Good night.

The only lesson that you have given everyone here is "How to be a weasel 101".

ARTICLE I SECTION 8 YOU SNIVELING WEASEL. PROVIDE HEALTH CARE ISN'T THERE AND THE FED CAN ONLY DO WHAT IS ENUMERATED THERE. THAT IS NOT OPINION BECAUSE JEFFERSON AND MADISON SAID SO THE GUYS WHO FUCKING WROTE IT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for stop weaseling. Your side made the claim, you have to support it first, then I respond. That is how grown ups do it.

You posted Article I Section 8 as evidence. I will counter with : Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. // This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. // The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Thus endeth the lesson. The U.S. has the right to make law under the supreme authority of the United States. And I have not even added the 'general welfare clause'.

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

[Bern80]

Thank you for stop weaseling. Your side made the claim, you have to support it first, then I respond. That is how grown ups do it.

You posted Article I Section 8 as evidence. I will counter with : Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. // This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. // The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Thus endeth the lesson. The U.S. has the right to make law under the supreme authority of the United States. And I have not even added the 'general welfare clause'.

Thus endeth the lesson.

There is no lesson here. How does your warped brain rationalize that the government has the authority to provide healthcare from that?

To break it down, the part you bolded says the constitution is the supreme law of land as are any laws and treaties made 'in pursuance thereof' (which means said laws must be in compliance with the constitution). Try again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means. Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we? So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS. Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.

 

[Bern80]

What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means. Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we? So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS. Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.

Since you beleive we are on the same footing why is it I must provide evidence and you don't?

And frankly my position is not an opinion. We are debating what authority the constitution grants the federal government. Lucky us the framers told us in Article I Section 8. Article VI simply states that the constitution and the laws made in accordance with are the law of the land. Please explain how this is evidence that the fed has the authroity to provide healthcare. I don't get how that can even be an opinion since it has ZERO to do with the subject. I have had many people site various parts of the constituion where they beleive the authority is granted, but Article VI is a first. Me thinks you dont' understand what it means.

 

[Oddball]

What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means. Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we? So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS. Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.

Since you beleive we are on the same footing why is it I must provide evidence and you don't?

He's a librul, which means that they're exempt from the rules which apply to everyone else.

 

[Yukon.]

Liberals make the rules that apply to the intellectually inferior conservatives. If it weren't for the Liberal states like New York and california the US is just a collection of right-wing, religious zealot farmers who don't particularily approve of coloured people..