It takes roughly 4000 words to create an entire Government...

[Navy1960]

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly per5
mitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations con6
sistent with this Act, all health care and related services
7 (including insurance coverage and public health activities)
8 covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to
9 personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
10 high quality health care or related services.


I will let you all read this section of the bill and bascially absorb it for yourselves. While yes, technically illegal immigrants cannot qualify for affordibilty credits, they canot be denied the ability to purchase into the the "public option" THAT IS TAX PAYER FUNDED. So the debate about illegal immigrants is mute when it comes to this bill as this bill does allow those THAT HAVE BROKEN THE LAW to enter this nation the ability to purchase health insurance that is funded by you and me. If this doesn't bother you, then I suggest you also advocate that criminals be allowed to seek Govt. compensation for the time they were incarcerated.

 

[obama2ndterm]

What , Republicans have a health plan? That would be no. NO like everything they vote on NO.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I see we have a new leftist troll on the board. Welcome, enjoy getting slaughtered intellectually, Obama2ndterm. Yeah. Right.

Are you kidding? He already committed suicide intellectually, its now just butchering the corpse.

 

[Navy1960]

What , Republicans have a health plan? That would be no. NO like everything they vote on NO.

To provide comprehensive solutions for the health care
system of the United States, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
5 ‘‘Patients’ Choice Act’’.

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

That would be yes, 2nd term. in fact I do believe that someone else on this thread had posted a link to a similar site with the same bill. the Bill is HR 2520 in case your interested. and is not 1900 plus pages and does not create a new entitlement program, nor does it take away benefits from Seniors, however what it does do, is provide a method by which those that need and want low cost affordable healthcare have a way to get it.

 

[obama2ndterm]

More insurers bills from the wing nuts.Why can't they come up with a decent plan?No, this plan does not take awy from seniors, not a penny. is that Republicans defending medicare? pretty hypocritical!

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What , Republicans have a health plan? That would be no. NO like everything they vote on NO.

You negged me?
You crazy shit.

 

[obama2ndterm]

How many clowns here await their social security every month? a big amount, I bet!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

and nearly a 1,000,000 words to "fix" healthcare? I call shenanigans.

Also, does anyone disagree with the assumption that because politicians continue to use lawyer-eese language in their bills that then intend to deceive the American people? If they wanted the people involved they would use 8th grade sentence structure and vocabulary. By this fact alone, I trust Bin Laden over any of our politicians. That is all. God save the Republic.

Its a good thing the Constitution is absolutely crystal clear on the working details of every aspect of the government and that there's absolutely no debate of the meaning of any part of it....wait a minute...

Unfortunately, when it comes to the law and logic, clarity and functionality requires words, and simplier is not necessarily better.

For example: Euclid motivated all of what we know of Euclidean Geometry with 5 postulates, 5 common notions, and a few definitions. As "clear" as those postulates appear, once you start applying logic to them you realize they have massive holes. David Hilbert, probably the greatest mathematical mind since Gauss, set about to plug the holes and found he had to use 23 axioms, and leave terms undefined. Even with that, not all the logical holes are plugged.

Point is: If you want a clear system that will not require later interpretation, it needs words to describe all possible scenarios.

 

[Liberty]

and nearly a 1,000,000 words to "fix" healthcare? I call shenanigans.

Also, does anyone disagree with the assumption that because politicians continue to use lawyer-eese language in their bills that then intend to deceive the American people? If they wanted the people involved they would use 8th grade sentence structure and vocabulary. By this fact alone, I trust Bin Laden over any of our politicians. That is all. God save the Republic.

Its a good thing the Constitution is absolutely crystal clear on the working details of every aspect of the government and that there's absolutely no debate of the meaning of any part of it....wait a minute...

Unfortunately, when it comes to the law and logic, clarity and functionality requires words, and simplier is not necessarily better.

For example: Euclid motivated all of what we know of Euclidean Geometry with 5 postulates, 5 common notions, and a few definitions. As "clear" as those postulates appear, once you start applying logic to them you realize they have massive holes. David Hilbert, probably the greatest mathematical mind since Gauss, set about to plug the holes and found he had to use 23 axioms, and leave terms undefined. Even with that, not all the logical holes are plugged.

Point is: If you want a clear system that will not require later interpretation, it needs words to describe all possible scenarios.

What part of the constitution confuses you? I have read it probably hundreds of times and everything seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

What part of the constitution confuses you? I have read it probably hundreds of times and everything seems pretty clear to me.

Prior to the 25th ammendment, what part of the Constitution spells out the line of succession of the Office of the Presidency.

I'd also add, that while you may claim to understand all of it, other folks that also claim to understand all of it are likely to have a different opinion. Point out which part of the Constitution gives a mechanism for settling disputes about meaning in the Constitution.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I can add more if you want:

Specifically, which part of the Constitution allows for the formation of the CIA, FBI, or NSA under the control of the federal government?

Which part provides for the creation of the IRS?

Which part of the Constitution defines what "arms" are protected by the Bill of Rights, specifically, why is it illegal for me to purchase surface to air missles yet legal for me to purchase handguns?

Which part allows the Supreme Court to interfer with election processes?

The point is: The brevity of the Constitution creates a false sense of understanding. Much of what the State and Federal governments claim to be able to do is dependent on their interpretation of the Constitution, while a longer Constitution would elminate the need for interpretation. Shorter is not always better.

 

[Navy1960]

Article III
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Think that pretty much answers your question.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Article III
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Think that pretty much answers your question.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution?

If so you're far ahead of the game. Most Conservatives I've encountered online would rather slit their own throats than give that answer.

BTW: That wasn't my only question.

 

[Navy1960]

As for the IRS;

16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

As for the IRS;

16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So you agree it required an ammendment (and clarification), in order to fully create the power for the Federal Government to levy income taxes? It wasn't in the Constitution as originally written?

 

[Navy1960]

Article III
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Think that pretty much answers your question.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution?

If so you're far ahead of the game. Most Conservatives I've encountered online would rather slit their own throats than give that answer.

I believe that it is the job of the USSC to rule on the constitionality of the laws passed by congress and as such if you choose to call that the power to interpret the Constitution then of course that is your choice. I'm not a "living document" advocate as you may well assume, however as someone who try's to understand the Constitution as best I can, I would rather see it as Madison saw it, and that is document that sets limitations on Govt. and gives a mechanism by which it can be amended by it's citizens. That is why in this current healthcare debate why those that wish for a "single payer" simply do not advocate for a constitutional amendment that would make healthcare a right protected under the constitution. Taking your interpretation observation one step further, the USSC has already ruled once before that the only group of Americans actually guaranteed healthcare under the constitution are prisoners.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

and nearly a 1,000,000 words to "fix" healthcare? I call shenanigans.

BTW, your 4000 word limit doesn't seem to include the Ammenments. Without the Ammendments, the Constitution is 4551 words long.

It takes another 3069 words to spell out the gaps that have been found in the Constitution since its original writing using the Ammendment process and we STILL have disagreements on what it all means.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I believe that it is the job of the USSC to rule on the constitionality of the laws passed by congress and as such if you choose to call that the power to interpret the Constitution then of course that is your choice. I'm not a "living document" advocate as you may well assume, however as someone who try's to understand the Constitution as best I can, I would rather see it as Madison saw it, and that is document that sets limitations on Govt. and gives a mechanism by which it can be amended by it's citizens. That is why in this current healthcare debate why those that wish for a "single payer" simply do not advocate for a constitutional amendment that would make healthcare a right protected under the constitution. Taking your interpretation observation one step further, the USSC has already ruled once before that the only group of Americans actually guaranteed healthcare under the constitution are prisoners.

Huh.

You and I aren't as far apart as you might think. For the record, I believe that this whole Health care thing should be handled at the State level, both due to Constitutional reasons and due to the fact its more likely the State Governments will have a better handle on what their citizens will need than the Federal Government.

 

[Navy1960]

As for the IRS;

16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So you agree it required an ammendment (and clarification), in order to fully create the power for the Federal Government to levy income taxes? It wasn't in the Constitution as originally written?

What you choose to call a clairfication I choose to call and addition, because prior to this clairification i would point you to the 10th Amendment,.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

further; I would also point you to

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

[Navy1960]

I believe that it is the job of the USSC to rule on the constitionality of the laws passed by congress and as such if you choose to call that the power to interpret the Constitution then of course that is your choice. I'm not a "living document" advocate as you may well assume, however as someone who try's to understand the Constitution as best I can, I would rather see it as Madison saw it, and that is document that sets limitations on Govt. and gives a mechanism by which it can be amended by it's citizens. That is why in this current healthcare debate why those that wish for a "single payer" simply do not advocate for a constitutional amendment that would make healthcare a right protected under the constitution. Taking your interpretation observation one step further, the USSC has already ruled once before that the only group of Americans actually guaranteed healthcare under the constitution are prisoners.

Huh.

You and I aren't as far apart as you might think. For the record, I believe that this whole Health care thing should be handled at the State level, both due to Constitutional reasons and due to the fact its more likely the State Governments will have a better handle on what their citizens will need than the Federal Government.

Personally on the healthcare debate, I believe that the state level would serve as a much better place both from a constitutional standpoint as well as serving the needs of it's citizens to solve this healthcare issue. The Federal Govt. can IMHO and does have the power to suppliment any state program it wishes with tax breaks, credits, etc. One other thing of note here, this will also the allow the citizens of each state a direct role in choosing for themselves whats the best path to travel as far as healthcare is concerned, as many states would require a ballot measure in order to achieve this.