CDZ In My Opinion The Only Way......

[Robo]

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

 

[Fishlore]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for our Constitution, your beliefs about its limitations are not shared with the courts or the Congress. I'm afraid your broad interpretation of the X Amendment as a tool to return the federal government to its 18th century role and powers just won't work. The Constitution, as its own internal evidence shows, is not a fixed or perfect plan. That is why it has mechanism for its own alteration and updating.

Our American society, or as the Constitution puts it, "We, the People" is a constantly changing entity effected by all sorts of technological, demographic, scientific, social and other forces. Constitutional fundamentalism is even less workable than Christian fundamentalism. Life just isn't that simple and calling me names won't strengthen your argument.

 

[Toronado3800]

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

I sort of agree with you. Mandatory national insurance is a beautiful thing in my opinion but the implementation stretched a liberal reading of the Constitution.

BUT, let a doctor function w/o his prescriptions, Chinese equipment, VOIP phone calls, billing system or anything cross the state line and see how he does if we want to get literal.

Also, the day Presidents gained the power to declare the Korean, Vietnam, Grenadan, Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghan Wars proved no party cares much for the Constitution.

Oh lord, not to mention when we decided our Georgia didn't have the right of succession.

 

[Marion Morrison]

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

Interesting concept, looks to me like it could work by and large. On the other hand, my state government is not so good.

 

[yiostheoy]

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

"Collect money" ???

What money ???

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for our Constitution, your beliefs about its limitations are not shared with the courts or the Congress. I'm afraid your broad interpretation of the X Amendment as a tool to return the federal government to its 18th century role and powers just won't work. The Constitution, as its own internal evidence shows, is not a fixed or perfect plan. That is why it has mechanism for its own alteration and updating.

Our American society, or as the Constitution puts it, "We, the People" is a constantly changing entity effected by all sorts of technological, demographic, scientific, social and other forces. Constitutional fundamentalism is even less workable than Christian fundamentalism. Life just isn't that simple and calling me names won't strengthen your argument.

Under Self-Determination, the Constitution Would Have Been a Temporary Start-Up Document

The Founding Fodder were so stupid that they decreed that the Vice-President would be the one coming in second in the election. So, if Reagan had died when Hinckley shot him, Jimmy Carter would have become President. McGovern, who won only one state, would have become President after Nixon resigned.

As it is, the Vice-Presidency is a ludicrous office. The Speaker of the House, if of the President's party, should continue in his duties and leave them only to become President. So it would be Ryan, McConnell, or McCarthy. If all three positions were held by the opposite party, it would be the President's party's minority leader.

 

[Fishlore]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for our Constitution, your beliefs about its limitations are not shared with the courts or the Congress. I'm afraid your broad interpretation of the X Amendment as a tool to return the federal government to its 18th century role and powers just won't work. The Constitution, as its own internal evidence shows, is not a fixed or perfect plan. That is why it has mechanism for its own alteration and updating.

Our American society, or as the Constitution puts it, "We, the People" is a constantly changing entity effected by all sorts of technological, demographic, scientific, social and other forces. Constitutional fundamentalism is even less workable than Christian fundamentalism. Life just isn't that simple and calling me names won't strengthen your argument.

Under Self-Determination, the Constitution Would Have Been a Temporary Start-Up Document

The Founding Fodder were so stupid that they decreed that the Vice-President would be the one coming in second in the election. So, if Reagan had died when Hinckley shot him, Jimmy Carter would have become President. McGovern, who won only one state, would have become President after Nixon resigned.

As it is, the Vice-Presidency is a ludicrous office. The Speaker of the House, if of the President's party, should continue in his duties and leave them only to become President. So it would be Ryan, McConnell, or McCarthy. If all three positions were held by the opposite party, it would be the President's party's minority leader.

When the Constitution was written our two-party system did not exist and only a small minority of the adult population could vote. The thirteen states were economically independent and geographically isolated. Politics was a hobby for the wealthy elite. Donald Trump would have been right at home.

 

[Robo]

Of course the Congress and the courts won’t agree with me. My opinions are based on the litteral text of the Constitution as written in the English language, while the Congress and the Courts is made up of partisan political ideologues who’s agenda is to conduct power as fitted into their particular ideologies.

The broad definitions of the Constitution are not mine, they belong to those who would pervert the meanings of constitutional text such as the “General Welfare” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause and even the “Commerce” clause who’s bastardizations can easily be debunked with the written text of the founders themselves.

No document is perfect, and that’s why our founders included article 5 within it. Sadly our federal leaders found out very early, (almost before the ink was dry), that it was much easier to simply end run the Constitution, pervert it’s literal meanings and individual guarantees to establish a much more powerful federal government than the founders ever intended.

 

[Robo]

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

I sort of agree with you. Mandatory national insurance is a beautiful thing in my opinion but the implementation stretched a liberal reading of the Constitution.

BUT, let a doctor function w/o his prescriptions, Chinese equipment, VOIP phone calls, billing system or anything cross the state line and see how he does if we want to get literal.

Also, the day Presidents gained the power to declare the Korean, Vietnam, Grenadan, Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghan Wars proved no party cares much for the Constitution.

Oh lord, not to mention when we decided our Georgia didn't have the right of succession.

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

I sort of agree with you. Mandatory national insurance is a beautiful thing in my opinion but the implementation stretched a liberal reading of the Constitution.

BUT, let a doctor function w/o his prescriptions, Chinese equipment, VOIP phone calls, billing system or anything cross the state line and see how he does if we want to get literal.

Also, the day Presidents gained the power to declare the Korean, Vietnam, Grenadan, Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghan Wars proved no party cares much for the Constitution.

Oh lord, not to mention when we decided our Georgia didn't have the right of succession.

Every war we've been involved in since WWII has been unconstitutional according to any honest and logical reading of our Constitution. There's no constitutional authority for the Congress to put into effect a "War Powers Act" without a constitutional amendment. The Constitution gives the power to declare wars exclusively to the Congress, (Article One Section Eight)

 

[Fishlore]

I like parts of Robo's interpretation of the Constitution. The document is from a far different era and so, like the Bible, is open to an endless number of interpretations. That's fine; we are a democracy and have a mechanism for sorting out the interpretations and choosing the one that is favored by the greatest number of citizens. Our real problem is an electoral system which doesn't allow for an open discussion of the constitutional issues and a clear, honest vote by the citizens.

The Constitution says nothing about the two-party system which is backed by state laws in every state and supported by the all-important rules of procedure in Congress. The two-party organization has a greater impact on the lives of most American citizens than that ancient document preserved in its bullet-proof glass case. Too bad

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Of course the Congress and the courts won’t agree with me. My opinions are based on the literal text of the Constitution as written in the English language, while the Congress and the Courts is made up of partisan political ideologues whose agenda is to conduct power as fitted into their particular ideologies.

The broad definitions of the Constitution are not mine; they belong to those who would pervert the meanings of constitutional text such as the “General Welfare” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause and even the “Commerce” clause, whose bastardizations can easily be debunked with the written text of the founders themselves.

No document is perfect, and that’s why our founders included article 5 within it. Sadly our federal leaders found out very early, (almost before the ink was dry), that it was much easier to simply end run the Constitution, pervert it’s literal meanings and individual guarantees to establish a much more powerful federal government than the founders ever intended.

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Written Behind Closed Doors

The fact that, before supporting a proposed law, we can't ask only if it is good for the country, but first must ask whether it is Constitutional, proves that having a Constitutional overlord on our self-government is not good for the country.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Of course the Congress and the courts won’t agree with me. My opinions are based on the literal text of the Constitution as written in the English language, while the Congress and the Courts is made up of partisan political ideologues whose agenda is to conduct power as fitted into their particular ideologies.

The broad definitions of the Constitution are not mine; they belong to those who would pervert the meanings of constitutional text such as the “General Welfare” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause and even the “Commerce” clause, whose bastardizations can easily be debunked with the written text of the founders themselves.

No document is perfect, and that’s why our founders included article 5 within it. Sadly our federal leaders found out very early, (almost before the ink was dry), that it was much easier to simply end run the Constitution, pervert it’s literal meanings and individual guarantees to establish a much more powerful federal government than the founders ever intended.

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Written Behind Closed Doors

The fact that, before supporting a proposed law, we can't ask only if it is good for the country, but first must ask whether it is Constitutional, proves that having a Constitutional overlord on our self-government is not good for the country.

The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not Votes

With all the foaming-at-the-mouth Constitutionazis here and none of those drooling political bullies responded, I have to assume that for all practical purposes, the thread expired.

 

[Toronado3800]

Of course the Congress and the courts won’t agree with me. My opinions are based on the literal text of the Constitution as written in the English language, while the Congress and the Courts is made up of partisan political ideologues whose agenda is to conduct power as fitted into their particular ideologies.

The broad definitions of the Constitution are not mine; they belong to those who would pervert the meanings of constitutional text such as the “General Welfare” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause and even the “Commerce” clause, whose bastardizations can easily be debunked with the written text of the founders themselves.

No document is perfect, and that’s why our founders included article 5 within it. Sadly our federal leaders found out very early, (almost before the ink was dry), that it was much easier to simply end run the Constitution, pervert it’s literal meanings and individual guarantees to establish a much more powerful federal government than the founders ever intended.

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Written Behind Closed Doors

The fact that, before supporting a proposed law, we can't ask only if it is good for the country, but first must ask whether it is Constitutional, proves that having a Constitutional overlord on our self-government is not good for the country.

You might need to explain in more words before I can debate or argue.

I think you are saying since we have to ask if something is Constitutional before asking if it is good we are in trouble?

I'll say we used to amend the Constitution more frequently, maybe because it is closer to right now?

 

[task0778]

" I think you are saying since we have to ask if something is Constitutional before asking if it is good we are in trouble? "

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, so it would seem to be a good idea to make sure that whatever action is being considered actually conforms to what is legal. Should we not take the time to determine if the approach in question is the best way to achieve the 'good' result? IOW, is there a better way to do it? Do we want to set a bad precedent for future actions even if the desired outcome is a good idea?

 

[bt404]

" I think you are saying since we have to ask if something is Constitutional before asking if it is good we are in trouble? "

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, so it would seem to be a good idea to make sure that whatever action is being considered actually conforms to what is legal. Should we not take the time to determine if the approach in question is the best way to achieve the 'good' result? IOW, is there a better way to do it? Do we want to set a bad precedent for future actions even if the desired outcome is a good idea?

The Constitution evolves. It's not the bible, nor is it written by "god" or any other mythologic deity. It is written by human beings. Debates over the Constitution are worthless, UNLESS one debates its moral underpinnings, the moral foundations of which the Constitution was funded on.

 

[yiostheoy]

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

I sort of agree with you. Mandatory national insurance is a beautiful thing in my opinion but the implementation stretched a liberal reading of the Constitution.

BUT, let a doctor function w/o his prescriptions, Chinese equipment, VOIP phone calls, billing system or anything cross the state line and see how he does if we want to get literal.

Also, the day Presidents gained the power to declare the Korean, Vietnam, Grenadan, Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghan Wars proved no party cares much for the Constitution.

Oh lord, not to mention when we decided our Georgia didn't have the right of succession.

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

I sort of agree with you. Mandatory national insurance is a beautiful thing in my opinion but the implementation stretched a liberal reading of the Constitution.

BUT, let a doctor function w/o his prescriptions, Chinese equipment, VOIP phone calls, billing system or anything cross the state line and see how he does if we want to get literal.

Also, the day Presidents gained the power to declare the Korean, Vietnam, Grenadan, Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghan Wars proved no party cares much for the Constitution.

Oh lord, not to mention when we decided our Georgia didn't have the right of succession.

Every war we've been involved in since WWII has been unconstitutional according to any honest and logical reading of our Constitution. There's no constitutional authority for the Congress to put into effect a "War Powers Act" without a constitutional amendment. The Constitution gives the power to declare wars exclusively to the Congress, (Article One Section Eight)

You seem to have forgotten all about the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution by Congress.

It was a blank check for LBJ do to whatever he wanted to do.

Nixon inherited it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Of course the Congress and the courts won’t agree with me. My opinions are based on the literal text of the Constitution as written in the English language, while the Congress and the Courts is made up of partisan political ideologues whose agenda is to conduct power as fitted into their particular ideologies.

The broad definitions of the Constitution are not mine; they belong to those who would pervert the meanings of constitutional text such as the “General Welfare” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause and even the “Commerce” clause, whose bastardizations can easily be debunked with the written text of the founders themselves.

No document is perfect, and that’s why our founders included article 5 within it. Sadly our federal leaders found out very early, (almost before the ink was dry), that it was much easier to simply end run the Constitution, pervert it’s literal meanings and individual guarantees to establish a much more powerful federal government than the founders ever intended.

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Written Behind Closed Doors

The fact that, before supporting a proposed law, we can't ask only if it is good for the country, but first must ask whether it is Constitutional, proves that having a Constitutional overlord on our self-government is not good for the country.

You might need to explain in more words before I can debate or argue.

I think you are saying since we have to ask if something is Constitutional before asking if it is good we are in trouble?

I'll say we used to amend the Constitution more frequently, maybe because it is closer to right now?

The Constitution Is an Anti-Democratic Manifesto

Does SCROTUS have to amend the Constitution before it arbitrarily changes our laws? Why should we have to go through an intentionally obstructive Amendment process when we can simply repeal laws by a majority vote of Congress or through referendums? The Constitution is like a dictator who gives us a weak way to check him and then tells us we are free because of that. Free men would overthrow the dictator.

Why do we have to claim that Islam is not a religion in order to ban it? It seriously threatens our security; that should be all we need, not "passing Constitutional muster" like some cannon fodder parading before power-hungry warlords. Extreme obedience to Freedom of Religion is for simple-minded sheep.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

" I think you are saying since we have to ask if something is Constitutional before asking if it is good we are in trouble? "

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, so it would seem to be a good idea to make sure that whatever action is being considered actually conforms to what is legal. Should we not take the time to determine if the approach in question is the best way to achieve the 'good' result? IOW, is there a better way to do it? Do we want to set a bad precedent for future actions even if the desired outcome is a good idea?

Think With Your Brains, Not on Your Knees

Being overruled by a tiny elite's interpretation of an unnecessary Constitution has already had undesirable outcomes itself, so your scare story about the alternative is selective justification. Ignoring history, the political bullies who want to crush the will of the majority dishonestly claim that all American successes came from this "divinely inspired" document. Arabs actually believe that their oil wealth was a gift from Allah and wouldn't have been there if the Koran had never been written.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

" I think you are saying since we have to ask if something is Constitutional before asking if it is good we are in trouble? "

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, so it would seem to be a good idea to make sure that whatever action is being considered actually conforms to what is legal. Should we not take the time to determine if the approach in question is the best way to achieve the 'good' result? IOW, is there a better way to do it? Do we want to set a bad precedent for future actions even if the desired outcome is a good idea?

The Constitution evolves. It's not the bible, nor is it written by "god" or any other mythologic deity. It is written by human beings. Debates over the Constitution are worthless, UNLESS one debates its moral underpinnings, the moral foundations of which the Constitution was funded on.

Establishing an American House of Lords

It is just another layer of Establishment tyranny. In the few cases where the politicians are forced to obey the will of the people, they can get around that by ordering their Country Club buddies in SCROTUS to declare that the will of the people is unConstitutional. Anyone who supports that kangaroo and its enabling document either likes to get pushed around or likes the illusion that by supporting it, he can push the majority around and is one of the elite.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

I sort of agree with you. Mandatory national insurance is a beautiful thing in my opinion but the implementation stretched a liberal reading of the Constitution.

BUT, let a doctor function w/o his prescriptions, Chinese equipment, VOIP phone calls, billing system or anything cross the state line and see how he does if we want to get literal.

Also, the day Presidents gained the power to declare the Korean, Vietnam, Grenadan, Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghan Wars proved no party cares much for the Constitution.

Oh lord, not to mention when we decided our Georgia didn't have the right of succession.

If Republicans and Democrats, (elected or just voting supporters), really gave a damn about America’s healthcare and our Constitution, they’d repeal all federal healthcare programs because they’re not constitutional, (see amendment 10, United States Constitution), and distribute all federal collected money therewith to the States and or the people and support amendment 10 and simply allow the States and or the people to decide and or institute their own healthcare programs.

Also, every dime of healthcare money spent on healthcare and healthcare insurance should be exempt from all federal and State income taxation.

Furthermore, the only authority the federal government has over healthcare is the regulation of the commerce of it among the several States. Thus, Congress should pass and the President should sign legislation making interstate commerce of healthcare insurance a legal right of the customer.

I sort of agree with you. Mandatory national insurance is a beautiful thing in my opinion but the implementation stretched a liberal reading of the Constitution.

BUT, let a doctor function w/o his prescriptions, Chinese equipment, VOIP phone calls, billing system or anything cross the state line and see how he does if we want to get literal.

Also, the day Presidents gained the power to declare the Korean, Vietnam, Grenadan, Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghan Wars proved no party cares much for the Constitution.

Oh lord, not to mention when we decided our Georgia didn't have the right of succession.

Every war we've been involved in since WWII has been unconstitutional according to any honest and logical reading of our Constitution. There's no constitutional authority for the Congress to put into effect a "War Powers Act" without a constitutional amendment. The Constitution gives the power to declare wars exclusively to the Congress, (Article One Section Eight)

You seem to have forgotten all about the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution by Congress.

It was a blank check for LBJ do to whatever he wanted to do.

Nixon inherited it.

The Boat People Were Chickenhawks

Nixon was not stuck with anything. He could have said that, although the war was a good idea, the Democrats made such a mess of it that it was unwinnable.