WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?

The antis are upset by free market competition among the insurance companies for our business.
 
Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
You have to purchase those from the government. Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.

So, the distinction that people are hanging their anti-constitutional hat on is the supplier?
Until someone can show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to be in the healthcare business, it's unconstitutional.
 
I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...

Guess what pea brains...

ap_logo.gif


ALeqM5gEMD8GKOOqD3mdZANB-4xt4RzApA
ALeqM5jsSCFN-NOFjbkLAK3AVnoq94rnRg


WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for — lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."
Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and — an old favorite — prohibit desecration of the American flag.

During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress — a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

Whole Article...

We are suffering a plague of expatriated Brazillian babies?:eek: Who knew?

It was stupid of the founders not to anticipate the invention of the commercial aircraft.:lol:
 
You have to purchase those from the government. Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.

So, the distinction that people are hanging their anti-constitutional hat on is the supplier?
Until someone can show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to be in the healthcare business, it's unconstitutional.

Medicare is in the health care business.

Social Security is in the financial planning business.

The Dept of Agriculture is in the farming business.

I presume you find all of those + oil royalties unconstitutional, right?
 
So, the distinction that people are hanging their anti-constitutional hat on is the supplier?
Until someone can show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to be in the healthcare business, it's unconstitutional.

Medicare is in the health care business.

Social Security is in the financial planning business.

The Dept of Agriculture is in the farming business.

I presume you find all of those + oil royalties unconstitutional, right?
Yup.
 
no, you aren't
you can CHOOSE to

Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
You have to purchase those from the government. Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.

Short term memory loss? It was the republicans that scuttled the public option. Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company. AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
 
Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
You have to purchase those from the government. Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.

Short term memory loss? It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.
Good!
Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company. AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
Until recently, you didn't have to purchase insurance from a company if you didn't want to. That freedom has been taken away.
 
You have to purchase those from the government. Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.

Short term memory loss? It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.
Good!
Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company. AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
Until recently, you didn't have to purchase insurance from a company if you didn't want to. That freedom has been taken away.

You mean the "freedom" to leach off of the public if you get sick or injured? Just like there is a responsibility to buy car insurance there should be a responsibility to not add to the outreageous costs of everyones medical expenses just because you "choose" to be irresponsible. Like it or not we live together and the only rational way to deal with some costs is to manage them colllectively. No one lives a whole life without some medical needs. Do you think you should be allowed to "Opt" out of police, Fire, street maitanance? etc?
 
Last edited:
The antis are upset by free market competition among the insurance companies for our business.

I see you know nothing about the healthcare plan either. Jake, if you are going to troll, learn your subject matter.
 
daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.

He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.
 
Short term memory loss? It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.
Good!
Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company. AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
Until recently, you didn't have to purchase insurance from a company if you didn't want to. That freedom has been taken away.

You mean the "freedom" to leach off of the public if you get sick or injured? Just like there is a responsibility to buy car insurance there should be a responsibility to not add to the outreageous costs of everyones medical expenses just because you "chose" to be irresponsible.

So what's going to change under Obamacare? People who can't afford their own policies will still be leaching off the rest of us, because their premiums will be paid by our tax dollars. Only now, it'll cost us more, because uninsured people who didn't get sick or hurt didn't cost us anything before. Now, we have to pay for their insurance.

Congratulations! You support a law that makes something else you object to even worse!
 
daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.

He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.
Astoundingly wrong. Just another day at the office for Statist Jakey.

I pay for my family's insurance coverage. Once I retire, I'll pay for my insurance as well. I have no problem with that.

You should try to understand this, Statist Jakey: Just because you're so incompetent you need the government to take care of you cradle to grave doesn't mean everyone else is.
 
Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
You have to purchase those from the government. Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.

Short term memory loss? It was the republicans that scuttled the public option. Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company. AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.

Talk about short term memory.

The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support. The Democrats in the Senate scuttled the Public Option because they did not like it. The Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing if they had any power to influence it, but thanks for giving them credit they do not deserve.
 
daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.

He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.
Astoundingly wrong. Just another day at the office for Statist Jakey.

I pay for my family's insurance coverage. Once I retire, I'll pay for my insurance as well. I have no problem with that.

You should try to understand this, Statist Jakey: Just because you're so incompetent you need the government to take care of you cradle to grave doesn't mean everyone else is.

Jake wrong? Hmm that seems to be a pattern around here.

Wait till he gets out of Jr high and get's out in the real world. he'll wisen up a bit.

My girfriend got a real kick out of his feebleness the other night. She had tears coming out of her eyes she was laughing so hard.
 
daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly. And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that. Too bad, Spoon: don't be stupid again.

Guys, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that.
 
Until someone can show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to be in the healthcare business, it's unconstitutional.

Medicare is in the health care business.

Social Security is in the financial planning business.

The Dept of Agriculture is in the farming business.

I presume you find all of those + oil royalties unconstitutional, right?
Yup.
OK, but we were discussing a line being drawn between Medicare and the Health Care reform bill. Someone was trying to draw a distinction between the two.
 
daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly. And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that. .

I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie?


waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything

Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.

starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that
 
daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly. And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that. .

I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie?


waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything

Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.

starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that
hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to
 

Forum List

Back
Top