The 10th Amendment

[PMZ]

You mean we currently live in a healthier environment where people naturally live longer due to the basic inexpensive medicines available at the supermarket? If your argument is that we currently live in healthier times requiring less insurance than the more dangerous times of years past then I completely agree with you. Times certainly are different.

When you get older you too will get to visit hospitals where every room is a technological wonder and every pill rivals the finest caviar in price. We just can't help our inclination to stay alive as long as possible.

Or, maybe you won't have to wait that long. The big C or some drunk going the wrong way at 75mph may well be your ticket to wonderland.

Isn't it good to know though that whatever gets you to the point of needing your life saved, at least you won't be dumping your bills on others?

When a person is charged for care, they receive the bill. When that person doesn't pay, it goes to a collection agency. When seven years passes that negative inquiry is removed from that person's credit history. If they file bankruptcy the debt is lost and their score goes down.

At what point do they send the bill to someone else? Never.

Another deflection PMZ.

About 6% of every hospital bill is for uncollected bills. Your hope that the effort that goes into saving sick poor people comes as a miracle is almost childlike in naïveté.

 

[ShawnChris13]

When you get older you too will get to visit hospitals where every room is a technological wonder and every pill rivals the finest caviar in price. We just can't help our inclination to stay alive as long as possible.

Or, maybe you won't have to wait that long. The big C or some drunk going the wrong way at 75mph may well be your ticket to wonderland.

Isn't it good to know though that whatever gets you to the point of needing your life saved, at least you won't be dumping your bills on others?

When a person is charged for care, they receive the bill. When that person doesn't pay, it goes to a collection agency. When seven years passes that negative inquiry is removed from that person's credit history. If they file bankruptcy the debt is lost and their score goes down.

At what point do they send the bill to someone else? Never.

Another deflection PMZ.

About 6% of every hospital bill is for uncollected bills. Your hope that the effort that goes into saving sick poor people comes as a miracle is almost childlike in naïveté.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

6% of every bill is for uncollected payments!? How much of it is for malpractice lawsuits(which cost infinitely more than unpaid treatment)!? How much of that bill is taxes!? (Probably around 10% huh, but don't complain about that) how much of it is for research and development!? (Another cost to all this great medicine, yet no one is passing laws to reduce that cost, or is that because many of them receive government grants in the first place?) how much of that bill is for profit!?

Unless you can break down those bills into those categories, and more, 6% doesn't mean one. Single. Thing. Period. (I kinda stole that phrase from somebody ;p )

 

[PMZ]

When a person is charged for care, they receive the bill. When that person doesn't pay, it goes to a collection agency. When seven years passes that negative inquiry is removed from that person's credit history. If they file bankruptcy the debt is lost and their score goes down.

At what point do they send the bill to someone else? Never.

Another deflection PMZ.

About 6% of every hospital bill is for uncollected bills. Your hope that the effort that goes into saving sick poor people comes as a miracle is almost childlike in naïveté.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

6% of every bill is for uncollected payments!? How much of it is for malpractice lawsuits(which cost infinitely more than unpaid treatment)!? How much of that bill is taxes!? (Probably around 10% huh, but don't complain about that) how much of it is for research and development!? (Another cost to all this great medicine, yet no one is passing laws to reduce that cost, or is that because many of them receive government grants in the first place?) how much of that bill is for profit!?

Unless you can break down those bills into those categories, and more, 6% doesn't mean one. Single. Thing. Period. (I kinda stole that phrase from somebody ;p )

The world is neither as you want it to be, or as you've been told that it is.

http://www.acainternational.org/products-health-care-collection-statistics-5434.aspx

 

[ShawnChris13]

About 6% of every hospital bill is for uncollected bills. Your hope that the effort that goes into saving sick poor people comes as a miracle is almost childlike in naïveté.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

6% of every bill is for uncollected payments!? How much of it is for malpractice lawsuits(which cost infinitely more than unpaid treatment)!? How much of that bill is taxes!? (Probably around 10% huh, but don't complain about that) how much of it is for research and development!? (Another cost to all this great medicine, yet no one is passing laws to reduce that cost, or is that because many of them receive government grants in the first place?) how much of that bill is for profit!?

Unless you can break down those bills into those categories, and more, 6% doesn't mean one. Single. Thing. Period. (I kinda stole that phrase from somebody ;p )

The world is neither as you want it to be, or as you've been told that it is.

http://www.acainternational.org/products-health-care-collection-statistics-5434.aspx

Another deflection toon in which you repeat your previous posts, while at the same time giving me a web site that says the same thing you said. If you wanted to say 'I don't know' that's really all you needed to say. Instead of trying to sound wise and worldly.

Did you expect me to say "please explain to me the mysteries of the universe which you clearly understand!" after that post or was that just for your benefit?

 

[PMZ]

6% of every bill is for uncollected payments!? How much of it is for malpractice lawsuits(which cost infinitely more than unpaid treatment)!? How much of that bill is taxes!? (Probably around 10% huh, but don't complain about that) how much of it is for research and development!? (Another cost to all this great medicine, yet no one is passing laws to reduce that cost, or is that because many of them receive government grants in the first place?) how much of that bill is for profit!?

Unless you can break down those bills into those categories, and more, 6% doesn't mean one. Single. Thing. Period. (I kinda stole that phrase from somebody ;p )

The world is neither as you want it to be, or as you've been told that it is.

http://www.acainternational.org/products-health-care-collection-statistics-5434.aspx

Another deflection toon in which you repeat your previous posts, while at the same time giving me a web site that says the same thing you said. If you wanted to say 'I don't know' that's really all you needed to say. Instead of trying to sound wise and worldly.

Did you expect me to say "please explain to me the mysteries of the universe which you clearly understand!" after that post or was that just for your benefit?

Apparently you believe that there are infinite realities that you are entitled to pick among.

There's one. The one that we all exist in. It must be inconvenient for you vis a vis health care.

That is, in no way, my problem.

I can only portray reality to you. Whether you accept or resist it is your choice. Neither reality nor I care a whit.

 

[ShawnChris13]

The world is neither as you want it to be, or as you've been told that it is.

http://www.acainternational.org/products-health-care-collection-statistics-5434.aspx

Another deflection toon in which you repeat your previous posts, while at the same time giving me a web site that says the same thing you said. If you wanted to say 'I don't know' that's really all you needed to say. Instead of trying to sound wise and worldly.

Did you expect me to say "please explain to me the mysteries of the universe which you clearly understand!" after that post or was that just for your benefit?

Apparently you believe that there are infinite realities that you are entitled to pick among.

There's one. The one that we all exist in. It must be inconvenient for you vis a vis health care.

That is, in no way, my problem.

I can only portray reality to you. Whether you accept or resist it is your choice. Neither reality nor I care a whit.

More conjecture based on nothing that I've said. Please, PMZ explain to me the mysteries of the universe that I don't understand. Happy?

Now just understand that you are only arguing what the left has given you as points to throw out. Reality is much deeper than CNN. There are consequences to ill advised laws and we are suffering them while government reaps the benefits.

 

[PMZ]

Another deflection toon in which you repeat your previous posts, while at the same time giving me a web site that says the same thing you said. If you wanted to say 'I don't know' that's really all you needed to say. Instead of trying to sound wise and worldly.

Did you expect me to say "please explain to me the mysteries of the universe which you clearly understand!" after that post or was that just for your benefit?

Apparently you believe that there are infinite realities that you are entitled to pick among.

There's one. The one that we all exist in. It must be inconvenient for you vis a vis health care.

That is, in no way, my problem.

I can only portray reality to you. Whether you accept or resist it is your choice. Neither reality nor I care a whit.

More conjecture based on nothing that I've said. Please, PMZ explain to me the mysteries of the universe that I don't understand. Happy?

Now just understand that you are only arguing what the left has given you as points to throw out. Reality is much deeper than CNN. There are consequences to ill advised laws and we are suffering them while government reaps the benefits.

There are consequences to every action as well as inaction.

Government is all of us. It's ours to use or misuse. That's the glory of democracy.

Of all of the dumb things that Reagan said, the prize winner was that government is not the solution. It's the problem. He should have been fired on the spot for shirking his sworn duty to find solutions.

There is much to improve in our health care non system. ACA is only a start. But that's the beginning of all journeys.

Conservatives here are whining a crescendo, "the sky is falling" exactly in tune to Republican political propaganda.

Everybody else is going about their business and thinking, this must be another Benghazi thing that was all smoke and no fire.

There is not a revealing secret to the universe. Life is solving problems. Sometimes they are your problems, sometimes the problems of others. Some we have solutions for, some we have to try some things to see what works best.

I am, frankly, a little fed up at the moment with conservative drama queens.

It's a lead, follow, or get out of the way world. There is little political future in staying in the way.

 

[BillyZane]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

 

[PMZ]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

The founders made their contribution and died a long time ago. They left behind for us to do, the day to day running of what they envisioned. We've done that with remarkable success. Through big and small issues.

One thing that they realized is that every issue would be viewed from multiple perspectives and the only way to make decisions, given that, is by majority rule, as they did.

That means that for every decision, slightly more than half would be pleased, slightly less, displeased.

The outgoing conservative movement was media raised to be unhappy with no more than half of the pie. They were taught that they were entitled to more.

I'm not sorry to see them go. Now we can get back to the work that the founders left for us to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

The Founding Fathers would not have forced anybody to work nor taken any action if somebody refused to do so. They were of one mind that liberty allowed people to choose what course in life they would take. They were of one mind that liberty meant we chose and nobody chose for us. But liberty includes accepting the consequences of the choices we make. And they were almost all very wealthy men who did not consider it in any way immoral to be prosperous. Nor did they have any right to take away a person's liberty to pay his employees whatever he offered to pay or to profit however he was able to profit from his enterprises.

As for the general welfare, a careful reading of the writings, transcripts of speeches, letters, and other documents they left us makes it very clear that the general welfare was policy that would allow society as a whole to benefit and the federal government would be given no power of any kind to benefit an individual, entity, or any special interest.

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.
general welfare

 

[PMZ]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

The Founding Fathers would not have forced anybody to work nor taken any action if somebody refused to do so. They were of one mind that liberty allowed people to choose what course in life they would take. They were of one mind that liberty meant we chose and nobody chose for us. But liberty includes accepting the consequences of the choices we make. And they were almost all very wealthy men who did not consider it in any way immoral to be prosperous. Nor did they have any right to take away a person's liberty to pay his employees whatever he offered to pay or to profit however he was able to profit from his enterprises.

As for the general welfare, a careful reading of the writings, transcripts of speeches, letters, and other documents they left us makes it very clear that the general welfare was policy that would allow society as a whole to benefit and the federal government would be given no power of any kind to benefit an individual, entity, or any special interest.

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.
general welfare

What the founding fathers all agreed to is in the Constitution. What they couldn't agree to was in advertising for various positions, the Federalist Papers as an example, but not in the Constitution.

People have spent their lives studying the Constitution as the bylaws for government, and the best of the best ended up as Federal Court Justices.

They've made a ton of decisions, popular and unpopular, but through the process defined in great detail what the founders only broad brushed.

Today we have special interests attempting to hijack that process to get more from government of what they believe that they are entitled to.

This, tyranny was, as you'd expect, anticipated in the Constitution and that's why they protected the Constitution with the bulwarks that they did.

The good news is that the system is working as designed, resisting arbitrary changes. The bad news is that there are forces in society trying to co-opt it.

 

[Listening]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

You do realize that if we followed the constitution, it would be easier to do this. You would not do it at the federal level where you have to try and figure out how to compromise all the permutations that 320,000,000 people can create when looking out for "number one" (and don't let the left kid you....that's all they care about too).

At a state level you could make these changes more readily and tailor things to a smaller group of people whose interests could be more focused.

That is why claims that "things are woking" are bullshyt. We've put everthing at the federal level (and to your point General Welfare was attached to the idea that the Congress needed to do whatever was needed to fullfill the VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WERE GIVEN UNDER THE COTUS.

Join us on the thread about would you change.

The Constitution was designed to changes (via an amendment process), not via the courts. There are those who would argue that Marburry v. Madison has been grossly overstepped. And they would be right.

 

[PMZ]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

You do realize that if we followed the constitution, it would be easier to do this. You would not do it at the federal level where you have to try and figure out how to compromise all the permutations that 320,000,000 people can create when looking out for "number one" (and don't let the left kid you....that's all they care about too).

At a state level you could make these changes more readily and tailor things to a smaller group of people whose interests could be more focused.

That is why claims that "things are woking" are bullshyt. We've put everthing at the federal level (and to your point General Welfare was attached to the idea that the Congress needed to do whatever was needed to fullfill the VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WERE GIVEN UNDER THE COTUS.

Join us on the thread about would you change.

The Constitution was designed to changes (via an amendment process), not via the courts. There are those who would argue that Marburry v. Madison has been grossly overstepped. And they would be right.

You must be anxiously awaiting your Federal Court Justice appointment, when your whining will be elevated to relevant.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

You do realize that if we followed the constitution, it would be easier to do this. You would not do it at the federal level where you have to try and figure out how to compromise all the permutations that 320,000,000 people can create when looking out for "number one" (and don't let the left kid you....that's all they care about too).

At a state level you could make these changes more readily and tailor things to a smaller group of people whose interests could be more focused.

That is why claims that "things are woking" are bullshyt. We've put everthing at the federal level (and to your point General Welfare was attached to the idea that the Congress needed to do whatever was needed to fullfill the VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WERE GIVEN UNDER THE COTUS.

Join us on the thread about would you change.

The Constitution was designed to changes (via an amendment process), not via the courts. There are those who would argue that Marburry v. Madison has been grossly overstepped. And they would be right.

You must be anxiously awaiting your Federal Court Justice appointment, when your whining will be elevated to relevant.

All your arguments must mean that you're the final authority on the law. You keep saying people are whining when they disagree with policy and show the unconstitutionality of laws being passed today. When you can not continue with logic, you claim others are whining.

 

[PMZ]

You do realize that if we followed the constitution, it would be easier to do this. You would not do it at the federal level where you have to try and figure out how to compromise all the permutations that 320,000,000 people can create when looking out for "number one" (and don't let the left kid you....that's all they care about too).

At a state level you could make these changes more readily and tailor things to a smaller group of people whose interests could be more focused.

That is why claims that "things are woking" are bullshyt. We've put everthing at the federal level (and to your point General Welfare was attached to the idea that the Congress needed to do whatever was needed to fullfill the VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WERE GIVEN UNDER THE COTUS.

Join us on the thread about would you change.

The Constitution was designed to changes (via an amendment process), not via the courts. There are those who would argue that Marburry v. Madison has been grossly overstepped. And they would be right.

You must be anxiously awaiting your Federal Court Justice appointment, when your whining will be elevated to relevant.

All your arguments must mean that you're the final authority on the law. You keep saying people are whining when they disagree with policy and show the unconstitutionality of laws being passed today. When you can not continue with logic, you claim others are whining.

I am absolutely not an expert or authority on the law. That's why I rely on those who are for legal advice. I don't pretend that what I wish for is true.

Reality rules.

 

[BillyZane]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

The Founding Fathers would not have forced anybody to work nor taken any action if somebody refused to do so. They were of one mind that liberty allowed people to choose what course in life they would take. They were of one mind that liberty meant we chose and nobody chose for us. But liberty includes accepting the consequences of the choices we make. And they were almost all very wealthy men who did not consider it in any way immoral to be prosperous. Nor did they have any right to take away a person's liberty to pay his employees whatever he offered to pay or to profit however he was able to profit from his enterprises.

As for the general welfare, a careful reading of the writings, transcripts of speeches, letters, and other documents they left us makes it very clear that the general welfare was policy that would allow society as a whole to benefit and the federal government would be given no power of any kind to benefit an individual, entity, or any special interest.

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.
general welfare

Actually, no it doesn't become clear.

Jefferson's writing after the fact are irrelevant to the document itself.

We are ONLY talking about the actual COTUS here. Not ancillary documents. A clause that relies on the interpretation of other writings to make its meaning clear is a poorly written clause.

You WANT it to mean something, and so it does. To you.

Now personally, I agree with you. So called entitlement benefits are far and beyond the scope of the federal government. But unlike you, I recognize that that is my OPINION.

 

[BillyZane]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

You do realize that if we followed the constitution, it would be easier to do this. You would not do it at the federal level where you have to try and figure out how to compromise all the permutations that 320,000,000 people can create when looking out for "number one" (and don't let the left kid you....that's all they care about too).

At a state level you could make these changes more readily and tailor things to a smaller group of people whose interests could be more focused.

That is why claims that "things are woking" are bullshyt. We've put everthing at the federal level (and to your point General Welfare was attached to the idea that the Congress needed to do whatever was needed to fullfill the VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WERE GIVEN UNDER THE COTUS.

Join us on the thread about would you change.

The Constitution was designed to changes (via an amendment process), not via the courts. There are those who would argue that Marburry v. Madison has been grossly overstepped. And they would be right.

Sir, I agree with you 100%. The federal government , as a result of BOTH major parties, oversteps every day. It's disgusting.

Here I am merely pointing out that in many places the COTUS is vague.

 

[Listening]

You do realize that if we followed the constitution, it would be easier to do this. You would not do it at the federal level where you have to try and figure out how to compromise all the permutations that 320,000,000 people can create when looking out for "number one" (and don't let the left kid you....that's all they care about too).

At a state level you could make these changes more readily and tailor things to a smaller group of people whose interests could be more focused.

That is why claims that "things are woking" are bullshyt. We've put everthing at the federal level (and to your point General Welfare was attached to the idea that the Congress needed to do whatever was needed to fullfill the VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WERE GIVEN UNDER THE COTUS.

Join us on the thread about would you change.

The Constitution was designed to changes (via an amendment process), not via the courts. There are those who would argue that Marburry v. Madison has been grossly overstepped. And they would be right.

You must be anxiously awaiting your Federal Court Justice appointment, when your whining will be elevated to relevant.

All your arguments must mean that you're the final authority on the law. You keep saying people are whining when they disagree with policy and show the unconstitutionality of laws being passed today. When you can not continue with logic, you claim others are whining.

With the GOP holding something like 30 state houses and poised to grab a few more, it is going to be easier to get the states to start pushing back on the Federal Government.

The question is: Is the tribal GOP (of which I am a member) going to coalesce to really make some good things happen.

I look forward to a discussion of health care within my state. I could let a fifth grader write the law and get something better than Obamacare.

 

[Listening]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

You do realize that if we followed the constitution, it would be easier to do this. You would not do it at the federal level where you have to try and figure out how to compromise all the permutations that 320,000,000 people can create when looking out for "number one" (and don't let the left kid you....that's all they care about too).

At a state level you could make these changes more readily and tailor things to a smaller group of people whose interests could be more focused.

That is why claims that "things are woking" are bullshyt. We've put everthing at the federal level (and to your point General Welfare was attached to the idea that the Congress needed to do whatever was needed to fullfill the VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WERE GIVEN UNDER THE COTUS.

Join us on the thread about would you change.

The Constitution was designed to changes (via an amendment process), not via the courts. There are those who would argue that Marburry v. Madison has been grossly overstepped. And they would be right.

Sir, I agree with you 100%. The federal government , as a result of BOTH major parties, oversteps every day. It's disgusting.

Here I am merely pointing out that in many places the COTUS is vague.

Thanks.

Join us over here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/329899-if-we-rewrote-the-constitution.html

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

You do realize that if we followed the constitution, it would be easier to do this. You would not do it at the federal level where you have to try and figure out how to compromise all the permutations that 320,000,000 people can create when looking out for "number one" (and don't let the left kid you....that's all they care about too).

At a state level you could make these changes more readily and tailor things to a smaller group of people whose interests could be more focused.

That is why claims that "things are woking" are bullshyt. We've put everthing at the federal level (and to your point General Welfare was attached to the idea that the Congress needed to do whatever was needed to fullfill the VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WERE GIVEN UNDER THE COTUS.

Join us on the thread about would you change.

The Constitution was designed to changes (via an amendment process), not via the courts. There are those who would argue that Marburry v. Madison has been grossly overstepped. And they would be right.

The Tenth Amendment was negated by TR Roosevelt when he, via executive fiat, declared that the government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly PROHIBIT rather than be restricted only to that which the Constitution allowed. And he had successfully packed the courts with like minded individuals and was so personally popular, nobody had the balls at the time to challenge this concept. It turned the Constitution on its head and started a snowball rolling.

Such power was too addictive and exhilarating for future Congresses and Presidents to challenge, and FDR gave that snowball a huge push with his New Deal, and LBJ escalated it to warp speed with his Great Society initiatives. As a result that snowball has grown to the enormous, ever more authoritarian, ever more intrusive, and ever more costly and ineffective and inefficient monstrosity of a federal government that we now have. And the Tenth Amendment has been emptied of any meaning whatsoever.

I do believe it will take another amendment to correct this and restore the Tenth Amendment.