Opinions about the constitutionality of socialized healthcare

[bigrebnc1775]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

So far my opinion remains unchallenged, in my opinion.

I challenged it on the first or second page. you did say you agreed with most oif what I said.

 

[Article 15]

Sure Yep I am all talk. Mr. Government plant.

I know.

One day not too far in the distant future you will say to yourself that silly fucker was right.

Sure, I will

OH by the way why do I need to do something now?

If you want to wait til the "not too far distant future" that's fine but I'm saying that you and your guns aren't going to do anything about it now, in the not too distant future, or ever.

The constitution is still intact we still have the bill of rights are you suggesting they we are going to lose those rights?

No, that's what you are suggesting.

is that why Mr. Government plant wants me to make a move?

I want you to put your money where your mouth is.

Is there something going on that you are not supposed to tell Mr. government plant?

You tell me. You are the one advocating the violent overthrowing of the government, not I.

I'm for free and fair elections and the peaceful transition of power.

 

[manifold]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

So far my opinion remains unchallenged, in my opinion.

I challenged it on the first or second page. you did say you agreed with most oif what I said.

I did agree with most of what you said, and what I agreed with didn't conflict with the opinion stated in the OP.

 

[Charles_Main]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

I feel that much of what hte federal government pays for with public funds is unconstitutional, therefore socialized medicine is as well.

The only thing the federal government was originally granted constitutional power to tax for is the national defense such as military personell and border security.

The rest is supposed to be up to the individual states.

Yeah yeah yeah dont even go there either...i know we could go down the road of "indivdual states leads to slavery" (the typical comment) but you said this was supposed to be my opinion and there you have it.

I find the fact that we have strayed from the strict restrictions of power for the federal governmnet placed on it during our founding is what has led to the majority of our troubles as a nation.

No individual States could not lead to slavery. States rights do have limits. Walking all over civil rights would be one of them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So far my opinion remains unchallenged, in my opinion.

I challenged it on the first or second page. you did say you agreed with most oif what I said.

I did agree with most of what you said, and what I agreed with didn't conflict with the opinion stated in the OP.

Correction this was what you agreed with

Quote: Originally Posted by bigrebnc1775
You know that with the next appointment to the supreme court the healthcare law will not be ruled unconstutional. No matter who is in control of the government.
So if you do not mind read my singnature.
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

Your reply was:
I'm not so sure about Kagan being needed to decide this is constitutional, but as for the rest I think you're 100% correct, inasmuch as it would take a rebellion to get your way on this one. But you need poor people to wage a war. Good luck getting poor people to fight against access to free healthcare.

 

[manifold]

Yup, and none of that conflicts with the OP.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know.

One day not too far in the distant future you will say to yourself that silly fucker was right.

Sure, I will

OH well being a slave to the government won't be so bad for you.

If you want to wait til the "not too far distant future" that's fine but I'm saying that you and your guns aren't going to do anything about it now, in the not too distant future, or ever.

Really you think not? I am sure when the time comes we will just have to wait and see but I do hope you are right, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.


No, that's what you are suggesting.
No I wasn't as long as the Bill of rights remain intact nothing will happen.

is that why Mr. Government plant wants me to make a move?

I want you to put your money where your mouth is.

One person against the government I don't like the odds I'll wait and let the government make the first move. I will allow them that much.

Is there something going on that you are not supposed to tell Mr. government plant?

You tell me. You are the one advocating the violent overthrowing of the government, not I.
You seem to think somethings going to happen so you want me to react to something that does not exist. so what do you know?
I'm for free and fair elections and the peaceful transition of power.

That makes two of us.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yup, and none of that conflicts with the OP.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

However this was my challenge to your thread.
Post 3
We already have a program that provides healthcare for people who do not have the money. It's called Medicaid and Medicare. What is unconstitutional about this new law is forcing people to have coverage who do not want nor need it. It is the loophole that will ensnare the American people in the control trap of the federal Government. If the government is big and powerful enough to give you anything and everything they are also big and powerful enough to take it away. When the enforcement of this new law starts the government will be able to control your life.

 

[manifold]

The OP made no mention of the current bill and clearly defined 'socialized healthcare' for the purposes of this discusssion.

You challenged the current bill, and I accept and agree with you there.

You have not challenged the OP.

 

[Article 15]

One day not too far in the distant future you will say to yourself that silly fucker was right.

Sure, I will

OH well being a slave to the government won't be so bad for you.

If you want to wait til the "not too far distant future" that's fine but I'm saying that you and your guns aren't going to do anything about it now, in the not too distant future, or ever.

Really you think not? I am sure when the time comes we will just have to wait and see but I do hope you are right, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.


No, that's what you are suggesting.
No I wasn't as long as the Bill of rights remain intact nothing will happen.



I want you to put your money where your mouth is.

One person against the government I don't like the odds I'll wait and let the government make the first move. I will allow them that much.

Is there something going on that you are not supposed to tell Mr. government plant?

You tell me. You are the one advocating the violent overthrowing of the government, not I.
You seem to think somethings going to happen so you want me to react to something that does not exist. so what do you know?
I'm for free and fair elections and the peaceful transition of power.

That makes two of us.

Funny how on the last page the three percenters, with yourself included, were going to air their grievence with HCR with the barrel of a gun and when challenged on it you backpedal to, "as long as the Bill of Rights is intact nothing will happen."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure, I will

OH well being a slave to the government won't be so bad for you.

If you want to wait til the "not too far distant future" that's fine but I'm saying that you and your guns aren't going to do anything about it now, in the not too distant future, or ever.

Really you think not? I am sure when the time comes we will just have to wait and see but I do hope you are right, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.


No, that's what you are suggesting.
No I wasn't as long as the Bill of rights remain intact nothing will happen.



I want you to put your money where your mouth is.

One person against the government I don't like the odds I'll wait and let the government make the first move. I will allow them that much.



You tell me. You are the one advocating the violent overthrowing of the government, not I.
You seem to think somethings going to happen so you want me to react to something that does not exist. so what do you know?
I'm for free and fair elections and the peaceful transition of power.

That makes two of us.

Funny how on the last page the three percenters, with yourself included, were going to air their grievence with HCR with the barrel of a gun and when challenged on it you backpedal to, "as long as the Bill of Rights is intact nothing will happen."

I am sure I mentioned that somewhere. Oh yeah it was when the tenth amendment was mentioned and precedence over ruled the tenth. However, you are streching what I said just a little to far. I will say this as long as the government does not take any rights away nothing will happen.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well it is my opinion that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is unconstitutional, including this health care bill. I'm also aware that case law doesn't agree with me. However, I'm also of the opinion that case law has very little to do with the Constitution, and more to do with the opinion of what judges think the Constitution should be.

The Constitution gives no express power to the federal government to provide health care for anyone, therefore, under the 10th Amendment, socialized health care would have to be unconstitutional.

You are at odds with the total history of the United States. Your arguments always go back to the beginning. Yet in the beginning the majority and the courts disagree with you. To have a country you would want, would have us looking very different as a nation. We might never have been able to win WWII or more? Why do you dislike America?

The ever classic "Why do you hate America?" response.

Not really. Dislike and hate are two separately distinct emotions.

Your opposition goes back to the earliest interpretations and policies adopted by the first Americans. You always seem opposed to what they decided. You were opposed in one thread to the legality of the Constitutional convention itself.

You are in effect, always opposed to how the history of American constitutional government has unfolded.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well it is my opinion that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is unconstitutional, including this health care bill. I'm also aware that case law doesn't agree with me. However, I'm also of the opinion that case law has very little to do with the Constitution, and more to do with the opinion of what judges think the Constitution should be.

The Constitution gives no express power to the federal government to provide health care for anyone, therefore, under the 10th Amendment, socialized health care would have to be unconstitutional.

You are at odds with the total history of the United States. Your arguments always go back to the beginning. Yet in the beginning the majority and the courts disagree with you. To have a country you would want, would have us looking very different as a nation. We might never have been able to win WWII or more? Why do you dislike America?

The Constitution means today exactly what it meant when it was written over 200 years ago. They provided us with a process for amending it to fit the changing times. They did not say that judges could just change the meaning of what the Constitution says at their mere whim to satisfy their own political ideology.

Really? Do you even know who Chief Justice Marshall and Thomas Jefferson were? What about Madison and Hamilton? They all played parts in accepting the rulings of Judges over interpretations of the Constitution -- which went to the heart of what the Constitution means/meant.

Do they have continuing education courses in your area of the boondocks?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The OP made no mention of the current bill and clearly defined 'socialized healthcare' for the purposes of this discusssion.

You challenged the current bill, and I accept and agree with you there.

You have not challenged the OP.

I did. Since the Constitution does not give authority for the government to provide health care the government has no authority to do so, as per the 10th Amendment. You may not agree with it, but it challenges your assertion that it's not unconstitutional.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are at odds with the total history of the United States. Your arguments always go back to the beginning. Yet in the beginning the majority and the courts disagree with you. To have a country you would want, would have us looking very different as a nation. We might never have been able to win WWII or more? Why do you dislike America?

The ever classic "Why do you hate America?" response.

Not really. Dislike and hate are two separately distinct emotions.

Your opposition goes back to the earliest interpretations and policies adopted by the first Americans. You always seem opposed to what they decided. You were opposed in one thread to the legality of the Constitutional convention itself.

You are in effect, always opposed to how the history of American constitutional government has unfolded.

Dislike and hate may be two separate emotions, but for the purpose of your argument there's no need for a distinction. Either argument is ridiculous, as you know full well.

The earliest interpretations of the Constitution are what I agree with. Maybe you've heard of the Federalist Papers? The Federalist Papers argued that the Constitution would limit the federal government to only be able to do that which is explicitly permitted by the Constitution, and even shut down the idea of a broad interpretation of certain clauses in the Constitution, such as the general welfare clause, that were causing some dissent. And only after the Constitution was safely ratified did the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution come into play. The idea of implied powers, of course, was summarily rejected until after the Constitution was ratified. Why do you think that was?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

REALLY? Are you a government plant that would like for me to make a statement against the government? A wise man said let them make the first move.

So you are a pussy and a coward. Figures.

Yep your right Mr. Government plant I am a coward. Please don't send the black suit guys to my house, but if you do bring a couple extra body bags. One for me and three for the first three that bust through my door.

Hey KGB says we should smoke this one fatty style.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yup, and none of that conflicts with the OP.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

However this was my challenge to your thread.
Post 3
We already have a program that provides healthcare for people who do not have the money. It's called Medicaid and Medicare. What is unconstitutional about this new law is forcing people to have coverage who do not want nor need it. It is the loophole that will ensnare the American people in the control trap of the federal Government. If the government is big and powerful enough to give you anything and everything they are also big and powerful enough to take it away. When the enforcement of this new law starts the government will be able to control your life.

Yeah and medicare/medicade are unconstitutional as those powers were not specifically granted to the federal government, therefore they are relegated to the states. My state is an example of trying to make healthcare work...even if we are wayyyy overbudget and in the red in a bad way now.