Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[bigrebnc1775]

That's gobbledygook. Someone decides. In a democracy it's the majority. In a plutocracy or aristocracy, it's a minority.

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

Your first sentence is correct but irrelevant because it's never happened.

Your second is gobbledygook.

Just keep lying to yourself, it does not change reality

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's gobbledygook. Someone decides. In a democracy it's the majority. In a plutocracy or aristocracy, it's a minority.

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

Constitutional limitations are what make democracy viable in a pluralistic society. Without them, letting someone you disagree with run things becomes intolerable.

A constitution and rule of law doesn't work in a democracy

 

[Ava]

You are only wrong believing that we have rule by minority.

We used to and gave it up in favor of universal suffrage democracy.

Actually I said nothing like that. We live in a country where the majority doesn't rule and the minority is protected. There by it's a Republic, with rule of law.

That's gobbledygook. Someone decides. In a democracy it's the majority. In a plutocracy or aristocracy, it's a minority.

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority. ...Edmund Burke

This is what we have today.....oppression and stagnation....

 

[dblack]

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

Constitutional limitations are what make democracy viable in a pluralistic society. Without them, letting someone you disagree with run things becomes intolerable.

A constitution and rule of law doesn't work in a democracy

What do you mean?

 

[PMZ]

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

Your first sentence is correct but irrelevant because it's never happened.

Your second is gobbledygook.

Just keep lying to yourself, it does not change reality

If SCOTUS says that all unconstitutional laws have been adjudicated as such, what's left is, by definition, Constitutional.

What you believe along those lines is irrelevant. We can't allow something as fundamental as our Constitution to be changed by every nutball movement that comes along.

 

[PMZ]

Actually I said nothing like that. We live in a country where the majority doesn't rule and the minority is protected. There by it's a Republic, with rule of law.

That's gobbledygook. Someone decides. In a democracy it's the majority. In a plutocracy or aristocracy, it's a minority.

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority. ...Edmund Burke

This is what we have today.....oppression and stagnation....

But it's the least tyrannical government possible.

What you want is total freedom for you, which only tyrants have.

 

[PMZ]

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

Constitutional limitations are what make democracy viable in a pluralistic society. Without them, letting someone you disagree with run things becomes intolerable.

A constitution and rule of law doesn't work in a democracy

" A constitution and rule of law doesn't work in a democracy"

America is proof that you are wrong.

 

[dblack]

It seems there's some equivocation going on around the term 'a democracy'. Those criticizing it seem to be assuming unlimited and/or direct democracy, which I'm not sure is fair - unless that's actually what those defending it are arguing for. I don't think PMZ has been advocating for anything beyond a constitutionally limited, representative democracy and I tend to agree that that's the "the worst kind of government except for all the others" - ie, the best we've come up with thus far.

This question of whether Constitutional limitations have been maintained is, at least as PMZ is presenting it, definitional - if the Court says our government is following Constitutional limitations, it is. But that's just evading the point.

There's no denying that the ways in which those limits have been interpreted has changed over the years, and that's really where the problem lies. For constitutional limitations to meaningfully limit democratic power, they must resist change. That's why the framers made it so difficult to change the Constitution.

Changing the Constitution shouldn't be something we avoid, when it's necessary, but taking shortcuts and pushing judges to simply reinterpret it hasn't served us well. It's not only changed specific limitations without real consensus, it's watered down the overall power of the Constitution to constrain the federal government.

All of this puts us in the position where our democracy is coming apart at the seams. Without solid guarantees that political opponents won't run roughshod over our most cherished values, adversaries have everything to lose with each successive election cycle. The bitter, polarized, political climate is a direct result of our diminished maintenance of the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Constitutional limitations are what make democracy viable in a pluralistic society. Without them, letting someone you disagree with run things becomes intolerable.

A constitution and rule of law doesn't work in a democracy

" A constitution and rule of law doesn't work in a democracy"

America is proof that you are wrong.

majority does not rule sorry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

Constitutional limitations are what make democracy viable in a pluralistic society. Without them, letting someone you disagree with run things becomes intolerable.

A constitution and rule of law doesn't work in a democracy

It makes our democratic constitutional republic work. Always has, except for the War of Southern Agression, in which the Old South was executed.

 

[PMZ]

It seems there's some equivocation going on around the term 'a democracy'. Those criticizing it seem to be assuming unlimited and/or direct democracy, which I'm not sure is fair - unless that's actually what those defending it are arguing for. I don't think PMZ has been advocating for anything beyond a constitutionally limited, representative democracy and I tend to agree that that's the "the worst kind of government except for all the others" - ie, the best we've come up with thus far.

This question of whether Constitutional limitations have been maintained is, at least as PMZ is presenting it, definitional - if the Court says our government is following Constitutional limitations, it is. But that's just evading the point.

There's no denying that the ways in which those limits have been interpreted has changed over the years, and that's really where the problem lies. For constitutional limitations to meaningfully limit democratic power, they must resist change. That's why the framers made it so difficult to change the Constitution.

Changing the Constitution shouldn't be something we avoid, when it's necessary, but taking shortcuts and pushing judges to simply reinterpret it hasn't served us well. It's not only changed specific limitations without real consensus, it's watered down the overall power of the Constitution to constrain the federal government.

All of this puts us in the position where our democracy is coming apart at the seams. Without solid guarantees that political opponents won't run roughshod over our most cherished values, adversaries have everything to lose with each successive election cycle. The bitter, polarized, political climate is a direct result of our diminished maintenance of the Constitution.

I would disagree on only one point. The only limitations to government in the Constitution are "rights". Specific areas of life the government is restricted from legislating within.

Those have been honored without exception.

Presuming that the Constitution says more about the reach of government is a myth.

I understand why people who are not willing to settle for the half of the time that democracy averages for anyone getting their way, would like more. The tension in most marriages and partnerships is the same.

But, as you point out, there is no more freedom to be had than majority rule.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your first sentence is correct but irrelevant because it's never happened.

Your second is gobbledygook.

Just keep lying to yourself, it does not change reality

If SCOTUS says that all unconstitutional laws have been adjudicated as such, what's left is, by definition, Constitutional.

What you believe along those lines is irrelevant. We can't allow something as fundamental as our Constitution to be changed by every nutball movement that comes along.

And what you just stated has nothing to do with what I have said. What nut ball group are you talking about?

 

[PMZ]

Just keep lying to yourself, it does not change reality

If SCOTUS says that all unconstitutional laws have been adjudicated as such, what's left is, by definition, Constitutional.

What you believe along those lines is irrelevant. We can't allow something as fundamental as our Constitution to be changed by every nutball movement that comes along.

And what you just stated has nothing to do with what I have said. What nut ball group are you talking about?

Conservatism.

 

[dblack]

It seems there's some equivocation going on around the term 'a democracy'. Those criticizing it seem to be assuming unlimited and/or direct democracy, which I'm not sure is fair - unless that's actually what those defending it are arguing for. I don't think PMZ has been advocating for anything beyond a constitutionally limited, representative democracy and I tend to agree that that's the "the worst kind of government except for all the others" - ie, the best we've come up with thus far.

This question of whether Constitutional limitations have been maintained is, at least as PMZ is presenting it, definitional - if the Court says our government is following Constitutional limitations, it is. But that's just evading the point.

There's no denying that the ways in which those limits have been interpreted has changed over the years, and that's really where the problem lies. For constitutional limitations to meaningfully limit democratic power, they must resist change. That's why the framers made it so difficult to change the Constitution.

Changing the Constitution shouldn't be something we avoid, when it's necessary, but taking shortcuts and pushing judges to simply reinterpret it hasn't served us well. It's not only changed specific limitations without real consensus, it's watered down the overall power of the Constitution to constrain the federal government.

All of this puts us in the position where our democracy is coming apart at the seams. Without solid guarantees that political opponents won't run roughshod over our most cherished values, adversaries have everything to lose with each successive election cycle. The bitter, polarized, political climate is a direct result of our diminished maintenance of the Constitution.

I would disagree on only one point. The only limitations to government in the Constitution are "rights". Specific areas of life the government is restricted from legislating within. ....

That's a fundamental misconception of the Constitution, and here I'd offer you the same response you're giving others - the Court disagrees with you. They still require that any law implemented by the federal government rests on specific powers granted by the Constitution. In fact most of the 'work' they do involves finding ways to rationalize federal power in terms of the enumerated powers. If your view held sway, they wouldn't bother.

 

[PMZ]

It seems there's some equivocation going on around the term 'a democracy'. Those criticizing it seem to be assuming unlimited and/or direct democracy, which I'm not sure is fair - unless that's actually what those defending it are arguing for. I don't think PMZ has been advocating for anything beyond a constitutionally limited, representative democracy and I tend to agree that that's the "the worst kind of government except for all the others" - ie, the best we've come up with thus far.

This question of whether Constitutional limitations have been maintained is, at least as PMZ is presenting it, definitional - if the Court says our government is following Constitutional limitations, it is. But that's just evading the point.

There's no denying that the ways in which those limits have been interpreted has changed over the years, and that's really where the problem lies. For constitutional limitations to meaningfully limit democratic power, they must resist change. That's why the framers made it so difficult to change the Constitution.

Changing the Constitution shouldn't be something we avoid, when it's necessary, but taking shortcuts and pushing judges to simply reinterpret it hasn't served us well. It's not only changed specific limitations without real consensus, it's watered down the overall power of the Constitution to constrain the federal government.

All of this puts us in the position where our democracy is coming apart at the seams. Without solid guarantees that political opponents won't run roughshod over our most cherished values, adversaries have everything to lose with each successive election cycle. The bitter, polarized, political climate is a direct result of our diminished maintenance of the Constitution.

I would disagree on only one point. The only limitations to government in the Constitution are "rights". Specific areas of life the government is restricted from legislating within. ....

That's a fundamental misconception of the Constitution, and here I'd offer you the same response you're giving others - the Court disagrees with you. They still require that any law implemented by the federal government rests on specific powers granted by the Constitution. In fact most of the 'work' they do involves finding ways to rationalize federal power in terms of the enumerated powers. If your view held sway, they wouldn't bother.

Regardless of what you believe the work of SCOTUS is, they do it as prescribed. What we have is what the Constitution prescribes.

I think that it is useful to consider that the Constitution is a product of diplomatic compromise. Opposing views were resolved. Mostly the opposing perspectives stemmed from states rights vs a strong union. Not between strong vs weak government.

Like we expect from diplomacy both sides were satisfied. The federalist thought that the general clauses adequately described a strong union. The states rights people thought that the specific limitations did not usurp the authority of the separate colonies. The autocratic founders really didn't worry much about we, the people, but understood that their vision ultimately rested at our pleasure as we didn't have a traditional aristocracy in place.

The bottom line, which is the strength of the document, is that it can be interpreted multiple ways. But, as time has gone on, the strong union has become our greatest strength, reinforcing that interpretation.

You don't have to agree with the conclusions of history but they will remain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just keep lying to yourself, it does not change reality

If SCOTUS says that all unconstitutional laws have been adjudicated as such, what's left is, by definition, Constitutional.

What you believe along those lines is irrelevant. We can't allow something as fundamental as our Constitution to be changed by every nutball movement that comes along.

And what you just stated has nothing to do with what I have said. What nut ball group are you talking about?

He answered your question correctly, bigreb. That you disagree with that means nothing at all except that you are susceptible to nutball thinking.

 

[dblack]

I would disagree on only one point. The only limitations to government in the Constitution are "rights". Specific areas of life the government is restricted from legislating within. ....

That's a fundamental misconception of the Constitution, and here I'd offer you the same response you're giving others - the Court disagrees with you. They still require that any law implemented by the federal government rests on specific powers granted by the Constitution. In fact most of the 'work' they do involves finding ways to rationalize federal power in terms of the enumerated powers. If your view held sway, they wouldn't bother.

Regardless of what you believe the work of SCOTUS is, they do it as prescribed. What we have is what the Constitution prescribes.

I think that it is useful to consider that the Constitution is a product of diplomatic compromise. Opposing views were resolved. Mostly the opposing perspectives stemmed from states rights vs a strong union. Not between strong vs weak government.

Like we expect from diplomacy both sides were satisfied. The federalist thought that the general clauses adequately described a strong union. The states rights people thought that the specific limitations did not usurp the authority of the separate colonies. The autocratic founders really didn't worry much about we, the people, but understood that their vision ultimately rested at our pleasure as we didn't have a traditional aristocracy in place.

The bottom line, which is the strength of the document, is that it can be interpreted multiple ways. But, as time has gone on, the strong union has become our greatest strength, reinforcing that interpretation.

You don't have to agree with the conclusions of history but they will remain.

I s'pose. But the view that explicitly protected rights are the only limits on federal government isn't one that the Court has adopted - yet. Our government is, nominally, constrained to the powers delegated to it by the states via the Constitution.

 

[boedicca]

We're saved! Sebelius has a new book!

 

[PMZ]

That's a fundamental misconception of the Constitution, and here I'd offer you the same response you're giving others - the Court disagrees with you. They still require that any law implemented by the federal government rests on specific powers granted by the Constitution. In fact most of the 'work' they do involves finding ways to rationalize federal power in terms of the enumerated powers. If your view held sway, they wouldn't bother.

Regardless of what you believe the work of SCOTUS is, they do it as prescribed. What we have is what the Constitution prescribes.

I think that it is useful to consider that the Constitution is a product of diplomatic compromise. Opposing views were resolved. Mostly the opposing perspectives stemmed from states rights vs a strong union. Not between strong vs weak government.

Like we expect from diplomacy both sides were satisfied. The federalist thought that the general clauses adequately described a strong union. The states rights people thought that the specific limitations did not usurp the authority of the separate colonies. The autocratic founders really didn't worry much about we, the people, but understood that their vision ultimately rested at our pleasure as we didn't have a traditional aristocracy in place.

The bottom line, which is the strength of the document, is that it can be interpreted multiple ways. But, as time has gone on, the strong union has become our greatest strength, reinforcing that interpretation.

You don't have to agree with the conclusions of history but they will remain.

I s'pose. But the view that explicitly protected rights are the only limits on federal government isn't one that the Court has adopted - yet. Our government is, nominally, constrained to the powers delegated to it by the states via the Constitution.

In the beginning, when the Constitution was written, it was close to true that the colonies were all the government that existed. The Constitutional Congress was almost like an attempt to unify Europe or herd cats.

IMO, the Federalists pulled off a major diplomatic victory in the Constitution as it was ratified.

After that, the direction of the country evolved by natural selection. What worked best prevailed and grew.

And our DNA, the Constitution, became what supported success. A strong union.

 

[PMZ]

We're saved! Sebelius has a new book!

She may need help on Web site design but not on skewering Republicans.