Romney- finally explained by a constitutional expert.

[Maple]

The author isn't a "Constitutional Expert" as you claim. He describes himself as a "Political Junkie", nothing more. But that's OK, everyone is entitled to their opinion, myself included.

The article describes John Hancock "mandating" Militia Membership as Gov. of Massachusetts. So we're supposed to believe that State Militia service (Yesterdays National Guard) "mandated" by the Governor in 1790(?) is the basis for allowing the State run Health Care?

Hey, of the 55 Constitutional Convention Attendees, 15 owned large Plantations. Think I could use that as a basis to own slaves? See because if the state "mandates" it, it must be ok!

He did not say that he was a constitutional expert, but I can tell you he knows more about the constitution than you do and a mandate is a mandate period, whether it is the government requiring you to purchase a gun and ammunition at your own expense or one that requires you to purchase a health care plan. It is a state's issue................................. not a federal one period................................

If they government can make healthcare mandatory, then why dont they issue each of us a colt 1911? I mean, the 2nd amendment is in the constitution, but healthcare is not.

Healthcare is mandatory, for if you show up at any emergency room without a dime or an insurance plan you are still taken care of and the taxpayer flips the bill and so do the responsible people with ever increasing insurance premiums. Health care is mandatory as it is called the " hypocratic oath," taken by physicians and health care providers, that a person will not be denied care under any circumstance.

Health care " insurance" is not mandatory. There in lies the problem as insurance is a personal responsibility and one that many are not going to do as they rely on you to pay for it.

 

[Maple]

It is still a mandate, did you read long enough to see the early federal mandate that required sea going ships to have apothecary aboard? Did you read long enough to see the fence requirements and the mandate there and did you long read enough to see there was a mandate for civic services or be fined??

Those were all mandates and they were done by our founders.

There is nothing good about a Federal health care plan, if you take the time to read the difference between state's rights and federal ones it will become very clear to you. Also I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts on Romney's plan compared to Obama's plan, there is no comparison other than the mandate.

Now, if you are a conservative you believe in personal responsibility. Please tell me how you are going to get the population to practice " personal responsibility" without a mandate to do so. I have asked this question 100 times and 100 times I have NOT gotten one answer. Liberals do not believe in personal responsibility it's their idea that it is everyone else's responsibility. So where do you stand?

Use your critical thought process here. How are you going to get irresponsible people to practice personal responsibility when you keep flipping the bill for them without using a mandate??

I anxiously await your reply.

Stop giving them other peoples money, trust me, they will come around eventually when they have to, the nanny state is what causes irresponsibility, you take that away, you take that behavior away.
there it is, in a nutshell.

Thank You Grunt, I agree with your assesment, but health care providers take a hypocratic oath and they will turn none away under any circumstance. They will be cared for.

 

[Maple]

every mandate is not equal........


to compare the mandate of having a militia to defend the country to a mandate requiring people purchase health insurance has got to be one of the weakest attempts to defend romney i have ever seen.......


hell, by this "logic" the fact that we went form state militias to a standing federal one must mean that federal healthcare is good then.......

The ocean is a part of the federal governments authority, so they can mandate that.

Neither of which have anything to do with Commerce.


Both have mandates.

Now, if you are a conservative you believe in personal responsibility. Please tell me how you are going to get the population to practice " personal responsibility" without a mandate to do so. I have asked this question 100 times and 100 times I have NOT gotten one answer. Liberals do not believe in personal responsibility it's their idea that it is everyone else's responsibility. So where do you stand?

It's not up to the government or anyone else to make sure that we are all responsible. That is why we as Americans are free to do as we wish, but do so responsibly. It's not up to us to keep our fellow citizens in check, that's what communists do.

Whether you realize it or not, you are paying for people who do not have health insurance, yes, sure they are free to do what they want and they are using your wallet to ensure their irresponsibility. How do you like those apples?? I don't.

 

[Maple]

The ocean is a part of the federal governments authority, so they can mandate that.

Neither of which have anything to do with Commerce.


Both have mandates.

It's not up to the government or anyone else to make sure that we are all responsible. That is why we as Americans are free to do as we wish, but do so responsibly. It's not up to us to keep our fellow citizens in check, that's what communists do.

Whether you realize it or not, you are paying for people who do not have health insurance, yes, sure they are free to do what they want and they are using your wallet to ensure their irresponsibility. How do you like those apples?? I don't.

What do you say about the fence and the mandates imposed about that? Also what say you on the mandate for civil service by our founders. I fully understand the sea going ships, as a Federal issue, but that's not the case in these other two.

You can't build a fence on the ocean.

 

[grunt11b]

He did not say that he was a constitutional expert, but I can tell you he knows more about the constitution than you do and a mandate is a mandate period, whether it is the government requiring you to purchase a gun and ammunition at your own expense or one that requires you to purchase a health care plan. It is a state's issue................................. not a federal one period................................

If they government can make healthcare mandatory, then why dont they issue each of us a colt 1911? I mean, the 2nd amendment is in the constitution, but healthcare is not.

Healthcare is mandatory, for if you show up at any emergency room without a dime or an insurance plan you are still taken care of and the taxpayer flips the bill and so do the responsible people with ever increasing insurance premiums. Health care is mandatory as it is called the " hypocratic oath," taken by physicians and health care providers, that a person will not be denied care under any circumstance.

Health care " insurance" is not mandatory. There in lies the problem as insurance is a personal responsibility and one that many are not going to do as they rely on you to pay for it.

True, but with that being said then why the unconstitutional individual mandate in the new healthcare law? It's nothing less then a grab by the government that will result in the effect of our everyday lives. If found constitutional, the government will then be able to mandate what car or truck you drive "General Motors" and what electronics and light bulbs you buy "GE" and who you finance your mortgage through "Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac".
Do you now see where this is heading? Because they will then be able to mandate that you turn all hard assets like gold in, or turn your guns in. They would have complete control over your everyday lives. If this mandate is found constitutional, there will be no end to mandates on the american people, it will in effect mandate our personal liberties away.

 

[grunt11b]

Use your critical thought process here. How are you going to get irresponsible people to practice personal responsibility when you keep flipping the bill for them without using a mandate??

I anxiously await your reply.

Stop giving them other peoples money, trust me, they will come around eventually when they have to, the nanny state is what causes irresponsibility, you take that away, you take that behavior away.
there it is, in a nutshell.

Thank You Grunt, I agree with your assesment, but health care providers take a hypocratic oath and they will turn none away under any circumstance. They will be cared for.

It's a safety net, because we as Americans are a passionate people that care, regardless of how the current crop of idiots are representing us. This safety net is all that was needed, but the ever growing all seeing big brother wants to grab at even more of our lives and fortunes.

 

[grunt11b]

The ocean is a part of the federal governments authority, so they can mandate that.

Neither of which have anything to do with Commerce.


Both have mandates.

It's not up to the government or anyone else to make sure that we are all responsible. That is why we as Americans are free to do as we wish, but do so responsibly. It's not up to us to keep our fellow citizens in check, that's what communists do.

Whether you realize it or not, you are paying for people who do not have health insurance, yes, sure they are free to do what they want and they are using your wallet to ensure their irresponsibility. How do you like those apples?? I don't.

I dont either, but like I said before, this being the case, why the healthcare law then? It's nothing less than a power grab.

 

[grunt11b]

It's not up to the government or anyone else to make sure that we are all responsible. That is why we as Americans are free to do as we wish, but do so responsibly. It's not up to us to keep our fellow citizens in check, that's what communists do.

Whether you realize it or not, you are paying for people who do not have health insurance, yes, sure they are free to do what they want and they are using your wallet to ensure their irresponsibility. How do you like those apples?? I don't.

What do you say about the fence and the mandates imposed about that? Also what say you on the mandate for civil service by our founders. I fully understand the sea going ships, as a Federal issue, but that's not the case in these other two.

You can't build a fence on the ocean.

To be honest, I did not read the whole article, I did read the constitution though, and know what it says. If by fence you mean "Border Fence" then government can build one because they do have jurisdiction in the borders of this country and it is the governments responsibility to protect our borders.
But like I said, I did not read the article, because I dont need someone else trying to explain to me something I already know, because that just leads to their interpretation and not the actual verbatim of the constitution itself.

 

[Maple]

If they government can make healthcare mandatory, then why dont they issue each of us a colt 1911? I mean, the 2nd amendment is in the constitution, but healthcare is not.

Healthcare is mandatory, for if you show up at any emergency room without a dime or an insurance plan you are still taken care of and the taxpayer flips the bill and so do the responsible people with ever increasing insurance premiums. Health care is mandatory as it is called the " hypocratic oath," taken by physicians and health care providers, that a person will not be denied care under any circumstance.

Health care " insurance" is not mandatory. There in lies the problem as insurance is a personal responsibility and one that many are not going to do as they rely on you to pay for it.

True, but with that being said then why the unconstitutional individual mandate in the new healthcare law? It's nothing less then a grab by the government that will result in the effect of our everyday lives. If found constitutional, the government will then be able to mandate what car or truck you drive "General Motors" and what electronics and light bulbs you buy "GE" and who you finance your mortgage through "Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac".
Do you now see where this is heading? Because they will then be able to mandate that you turn all hard assets like gold in, or turn your guns in. They would have complete control over your everyday lives. If this mandate is found constitutional, there will be no end to mandates on the american people, it will in effect mandate our personal liberties away.

Federally, I think it is unconstutional, but I don't think so for the states. I want absolutely nothing to do with Obama care. Health care is a very complicated issue. For instance, car insurance rates are different for different states. They rate the accident rate for states and determine the rates for that individual state. In MA, they have a higher income and higher health care costs. Health insurance companies rate the costs of health care, for instance, a hip replacement operation may cost $5,000 in one state and $50,000 in another. Not only that, the incidence of disease is different for different states, some have a higher obesity rate than others, therefore a higher incidence of a debilitating type II diabetes. My state has a higher incidence of MS. They rate the costs of treatment and incidence of disease and the costs of treating those diseases and they determine from those facts what are they are going to quote for a certain state. The same way car insurance does it, but both use the age of the applicant as well.

To attempt to solve health care through a federal program is simply insane, it all needs to be handled through the individual states. Personally, I am flat tired of allowing people to not purchase a health care plan, show up at my local emergency room, drive up my costs of insurance premiums and my taxes so they can live like paracites on everyone else's dime. So until we can come up with a solution to enforce personal responsibility I am for a mandate to get it done. That's why I call Romney a courageous conservative, because there are no more free rides in the state of MA.

I hope my state does the same, after Obama care is ruled unconstitutional, which I am hoping it will be.

I am also a flat tax proponent as I see nothing fair in 47% of the population who pay no federal income tax yet enjoy the same benefits that the rest of us get to pay for. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game.

 

[Maple]

Healthcare is mandatory, for if you show up at any emergency room without a dime or an insurance plan you are still taken care of and the taxpayer flips the bill and so do the responsible people with ever increasing insurance premiums. Health care is mandatory as it is called the " hypocratic oath," taken by physicians and health care providers, that a person will not be denied care under any circumstance.

Health care " insurance" is not mandatory. There in lies the problem as insurance is a personal responsibility and one that many are not going to do as they rely on you to pay for it.

True, but with that being said then why the unconstitutional individual mandate in the new healthcare law? It's nothing less then a grab by the government that will result in the effect of our everyday lives. If found constitutional, the government will then be able to mandate what car or truck you drive "General Motors" and what electronics and light bulbs you buy "GE" and who you finance your mortgage through "Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac".
Do you now see where this is heading? Because they will then be able to mandate that you turn all hard assets like gold in, or turn your guns in. They would have complete control over your everyday lives. If this mandate is found constitutional, there will be no end to mandates on the american people, it will in effect mandate our personal liberties away.

Federally, I think it is unconstutional, but I don't think so for the states. I want absolutely nothing to do with Obama care. Health care is a very complicated issue. For instance, car insurance rates are different for different states. They rate the accident rate for states and determine the rates for that individual state. In MA, they have a higher income and higher health care costs. Health insurance companies rate the costs of health care, for instance, a hip replacement operation may cost $5,000 in one state and $50,000 in another. Not only that, the incidence of disease is different for different states, some have a higher obesity rate than others, therefore a higher incidence of a debilitating type II diabetes. My state has a higher incidence of MS. They rate the costs of treatment and incidence of disease and the costs of treating those diseases and they determine from those facts what are they are going to quote for a certain state. The same way car insurance does it, but both use the age of the applicant as well.

To attempt to solve health care through a federal program is simply insane, it all needs to be handled through the individual states. Personally, I am flat tired of allowing people to not purchase a health care plan, show up at my local emergency room, drive up my costs of insurance premiums and my taxes so they can live like paracites on everyone else's dime. So until we can come up with a solution to enforce personal responsibility I am for a mandate to get it done. That's why I call Romney a courageous conservative, because there are no more free rides in the state of MA.

I hope my state does the same, after Obama care is ruled unconstitutional, which I am hoping it will be.

I am also a flat tax proponent as I see nothing fair in 47% of the population who pay no federal income tax yet enjoy the same benefits that the rest of us get to pay for. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game.

I have noticed that no one yet has come up with a solution that will get irresponsible people to pay for their own healthcare insurance without a mandate to do so. If someone could come up with a solution that does not involve a mandate, I would be all for it. So far, no takers and no solutions.

 

[Greenbeard]

You are dead on right, the people blowing in the political winds are the same people who tout "personal responsibility" yet since Obamacare is so unpopular, which I agree, have now decided to jump on the band wagon for political favor, flip flop on their original positions because they don't have the political courage or conviction to stand behind one of their major platforms, which is "personal responsibility.

A very awkward situation.

To attempt to solve health care through a federal program is simply insane, it all needs to be handled through the individual states.

Which is how the ACA works.

 

[Dirty]

Romney was opposed to a mandate, tried to veto it, but was overridden by the 85% democratic legislature.

You're starting to take on some of the characteristics of your candidate, the way you're flopping around here. Minutes after writing this nonsense, you flipped to lauding Romney's courage[/url] in pursuing a mandate:

And for all of you conservatives who tout PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, yet the minute someone issues a mandate enforcing PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, you cry foul. Unless you mandate PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY you are never going to get it. And PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is a conservative platform, it is what we tout, it is what we are all about, but if you are not willing to enforce it, then quit touting it, because it's not going to happen.

Mitt Romney was courageous enough to enforce Personal Responsibility.

The reality, of course, is that Romney vetoed eight provisions in Massachusetts' health reform law and the individual mandate was not among them. He was, at the time, adhering pretty closely to conservative doctrine of the day--as you're doing here, they sold the individual mandate concept as part of their personal responsibility shtick. The rightwing Heritage Foundation came up with it, and the '90s leadership of the GOP (including Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole) were believers in it. That's why you had even far right zealots like Jim DeMint praising the Romney model when it passed a few years ago.

That's the great irony, isn't it? Romney, the unprincipled technocrat who actually implemented the ideas of the rightwing thoughtleaders and think tanks, now finds his relationship with his party on the rocks because the party itself has few, if any, core principals and shifted abruptly with the political winds. Personally, I think they're a match made in heaven.

Some are so into “party loyalty” they won’t even question a guy like Romney. Give me Perry any day of the week.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist.’ ‘pure’ or otherwise. It’s contrived nonsense like ‘strict constructionism.’

There is also no way to know the ‘original intent’ of the Framers, they were as diverse and as at odds with each other then as we are today; they held many different positions on many different subjects and changed those positions during the course of a lifetime.

Scalia himself concedes as much in Heller and his invention of ‘original understanding.’

He did not say that he was a constitutional expert, but I can tell you he knows more about the constitution than you do and a mandate is a mandate period, whether it is the government requiring you to purchase a gun and ammunition at your own expense or one that requires you to purchase a health care plan. It is a state's issue................................. not a federal one period................................

It’s not so much an issue of knowing the Constitution, but knowing its case law – you and the article’s author have demonstrated you know neither.

 

[JoeB131]

my problem with RomneyCare and ObamaCare is that they don't address the real problem.

The real problem is NOT that we have 46 million uninsured. Most of them are uninsured by choice or transitorily. A 26 year old won't usually buy insurance because at 26, you rarely have health problems. It's when you are younger or older that you do.

The real problem is that medical inflation is rising at three times the rate of regular inflation, and the various mechanism we've devised for paying for it aren't keeping up. R/O Care tried to increase the resource pool by MANDATING insurance payments for people who probably don't need it. It would be like making non-drivers buy auto insurance because the cost of repairing cars was too expensive for the people who do drive.

 

[Political Junky]

Romney insists that he is consistent.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdVRB9x_DAA]Mitt Romney Says He is Pro-Choice in 2002 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[grunt11b]

Healthcare is mandatory, for if you show up at any emergency room without a dime or an insurance plan you are still taken care of and the taxpayer flips the bill and so do the responsible people with ever increasing insurance premiums. Health care is mandatory as it is called the " hypocratic oath," taken by physicians and health care providers, that a person will not be denied care under any circumstance.

Health care " insurance" is not mandatory. There in lies the problem as insurance is a personal responsibility and one that many are not going to do as they rely on you to pay for it.

True, but with that being said then why the unconstitutional individual mandate in the new healthcare law? It's nothing less then a grab by the government that will result in the effect of our everyday lives. If found constitutional, the government will then be able to mandate what car or truck you drive "General Motors" and what electronics and light bulbs you buy "GE" and who you finance your mortgage through "Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac".
Do you now see where this is heading? Because they will then be able to mandate that you turn all hard assets like gold in, or turn your guns in. They would have complete control over your everyday lives. If this mandate is found constitutional, there will be no end to mandates on the american people, it will in effect mandate our personal liberties away.

Federally, I think it is unconstutional, but I don't think so for the states. I want absolutely nothing to do with Obama care. Health care is a very complicated issue. For instance, car insurance rates are different for different states. They rate the accident rate for states and determine the rates for that individual state. In MA, they have a higher income and higher health care costs. Health insurance companies rate the costs of health care, for instance, a hip replacement operation may cost $5,000 in one state and $50,000 in another. Not only that, the incidence of disease is different for different states, some have a higher obesity rate than others, therefore a higher incidence of a debilitating type II diabetes. My state has a higher incidence of MS. They rate the costs of treatment and incidence of disease and the costs of treating those diseases and they determine from those facts what are they are going to quote for a certain state. The same way car insurance does it, but both use the age of the applicant as well.

To attempt to solve health care through a federal program is simply insane, it all needs to be handled through the individual states. Personally, I am flat tired of allowing people to not purchase a health care plan, show up at my local emergency room, drive up my costs of insurance premiums and my taxes so they can live like paracites on everyone else's dime. So until we can come up with a solution to enforce personal responsibility

I am for a mandate to get it done.

That's why I call Romney a courageous conservative, because there are no more free rides in the state of MA.
Romney is not a conservative, he is a RINO, and I am not for giving up my constitutional rights for it like you are. No matter what the costs. Personal responsibility will only begin when we get politicians in office who will reform all these programs that create dependents.

I hope my state does the same, after Obama care is ruled unconstitutional, which I am hoping it will be.

It will, if you can get enough signatures to have it placed on the ballot, somehow I feel that wont happen though. Noone wants government run healthcare. I know I dont, I use to go to the VA, it sucks.

I am also a flat tax proponent as I see nothing fair in 47% of the population who pay no federal income tax yet enjoy the same benefits that the rest of us get to pay for. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game.

I agree 100%, a flat/fair tax would bring the underground economy into the mix, and bring the revenues needed to government to help overcome this debt.
I know I screwed this one up with the format, but what you said is in red, my response is in blue.

 

[grunt11b]

True, but with that being said then why the unconstitutional individual mandate in the new healthcare law? It's nothing less then a grab by the government that will result in the effect of our everyday lives. If found constitutional, the government will then be able to mandate what car or truck you drive "General Motors" and what electronics and light bulbs you buy "GE" and who you finance your mortgage through "Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac".
Do you now see where this is heading? Because they will then be able to mandate that you turn all hard assets like gold in, or turn your guns in. They would have complete control over your everyday lives. If this mandate is found constitutional, there will be no end to mandates on the american people, it will in effect mandate our personal liberties away.

Federally, I think it is unconstutional, but I don't think so for the states. I want absolutely nothing to do with Obama care. Health care is a very complicated issue. For instance, car insurance rates are different for different states. They rate the accident rate for states and determine the rates for that individual state. In MA, they have a higher income and higher health care costs. Health insurance companies rate the costs of health care, for instance, a hip replacement operation may cost $5,000 in one state and $50,000 in another. Not only that, the incidence of disease is different for different states, some have a higher obesity rate than others, therefore a higher incidence of a debilitating type II diabetes. My state has a higher incidence of MS. They rate the costs of treatment and incidence of disease and the costs of treating those diseases and they determine from those facts what are they are going to quote for a certain state. The same way car insurance does it, but both use the age of the applicant as well.

To attempt to solve health care through a federal program is simply insane, it all needs to be handled through the individual states. Personally, I am flat tired of allowing people to not purchase a health care plan, show up at my local emergency room, drive up my costs of insurance premiums and my taxes so they can live like paracites on everyone else's dime. So until we can come up with a solution to enforce personal responsibility I am for a mandate to get it done. That's why I call Romney a courageous conservative, because there are no more free rides in the state of MA.

I hope my state does the same, after Obama care is ruled unconstitutional, which I am hoping it will be.

I am also a flat tax proponent as I see nothing fair in 47% of the population who pay no federal income tax yet enjoy the same benefits that the rest of us get to pay for. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game.

I have noticed that no one yet has come up with a solution that will get irresponsible people to pay for their own healthcare insurance without a mandate to do so. If someone could come up with a solution that does not involve a mandate, I would be all for it. So far, no takers and no solutions.

I already gave you one, and it's the only one that is doable. If you want government run healthcare so bad just move to Massachusetts, but dont expect the rest of us to go along with a mandate that only 35% of americans like yourself would approve of in the name of personal responsibility.

 

[grunt11b]

There is no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist.’ ‘pure’ or otherwise. It’s contrived nonsense like ‘strict constructionism.’

There is also no way to know the ‘original intent’ of the Framers, they were as diverse and as at odds with each other then as we are today; they held many different positions on many different subjects and changed those positions during the course of a lifetime.

Scalia himself concedes as much in Heller and his invention of ‘original understanding.’

He did not say that he was a constitutional expert, but I can tell you he knows more about the constitution than you do and a mandate is a mandate period, whether it is the government requiring you to purchase a gun and ammunition at your own expense or one that requires you to purchase a health care plan. It is a state's issue................................. not a federal one period................................

It’s not so much an issue of knowing the Constitution, but knowing its case law – you and the article’s author have demonstrated you know neither.

I'd rather stick with the constitution, rather than some case law that allowed a progressive to distort and the judge to legislate from the bench the constitutions original intent.

 

[Maple]

There is no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist.’ ‘pure’ or otherwise. It’s contrived nonsense like ‘strict constructionism.’

There is also no way to know the ‘original intent’ of the Framers, they were as diverse and as at odds with each other then as we are today; they held many different positions on many different subjects and changed those positions during the course of a lifetime.

Scalia himself concedes as much in Heller and his invention of ‘original understanding.’

He did not say that he was a constitutional expert, but I can tell you he knows more about the constitution than you do and a mandate is a mandate period, whether it is the government requiring you to purchase a gun and ammunition at your own expense or one that requires you to purchase a health care plan. It is a state's issue................................. not a federal one period................................

It’s not so much an issue of knowing the Constitution, but knowing its case law – you and the article’s author have demonstrated you know neither.

I'd rather stick with the constitution, rather than some case law that allowed a progressive to distort and the judge to legislate from the bench the constitutions original intent.

You would rather not stick with a constitution that up-held mandates enforced which forced personal responsibility, by the posts you have seen, well then you are going to pay for it, as you already are. You are not a conservative in my view. Because personal responsibility TRUMP'S ALL.