Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Oddball]

loser.

This Fabian asshole gets stupider with every post!

Dude? who calls themselves Dude these days?

Take no notice of him; he's just obsessed with me. First he pitched a hissy-fit when I put him on ignore, and now he's stalking me to the point of homoeroticism. (Which, BTW, isn't my style at all.)

I threw no hissy fit about being on your iggy list, you lying phony baloney cockbag.

 

[Bern80]

At this point it is quit clear that it isn't that the Federalist papers mean 'jack shit'. It's that, that is what you would like them to mean because that is the most convenient for you.

And of course nobody on this thread who happens to share your interpretation of the Federalist Papers thinks anything of the sort.

They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.

 

[editec]

Consitution doesn't mention bullets either.

So?

 

[Oddball]

Consitution doesn't mention bullets either.

So?

It doesn't mention bullets because the Constitution isn't about doling out rights from on high.....It's about delineating the extremely limited areas where the feds may act.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.

If you have any opinion whatsoever, some people will think you're full of shit. Big surprise there...

 

[Bern80]

They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.

If you have any opinion whatsoever, some people will think you're full of shit. Big surprise there...

Yes they will. The problem with you, as with most liberals, is your inability to directly address challenge to your position. You change the subject, You're make statement that are so ridiculously stupid they almost bare no attention. Hell you have yet to answer one of the original questions as to what limits the federal government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants if the Section 8 is not to be interpreted to mean those are the things and the only things the fed can do.

When pressed on how we know that is how it was intended to be interpreted and presented with Madison's thoughts on the subject, you basically copped to Nik's response that the federalist papers mean 'jack shit'. Since you can't come up with reason why the constitution shouldn't be interpreted the way the author meant it to be interpreted (and ratified as such) that would leave the option that you just plain disagree with the constitution. That's just fine, because the framers gave us the ability to change it if we don't like it, but if that's the case, man up, grow a ******* pair and say so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.

If you have any opinion whatsoever, some people will think you're full of shit. Big surprise there...

Yes they will. The problem with you, as with most liberals, is your inability to directly address challenge to your position. You change the subject, You're make statement that are so ridiculously stupid they almost bare no attention. Hell you have yet to answer one of the original questions as to what limits the federal government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants if the Section 8 is not to be interpreted to mean those are the things and the only things the fed can do.

When pressed on how we know that is how it was intended to be interpreted and presented with Madison's thoughts on the subject, you basically copped to Nik's response that the federalist papers mean 'jack shit'. Since you can't come up with reason why the constitution shouldn't be interpreted the way the author meant it to be interpreted (and ratified as such) that would leave the option that you just plain disagree with the constitution. That's just fine, because the framers gave us the ability to change it if we don't like it, but if that's the case, man up, grow a ******* pair and say so.

I was just reading a quote from Thomas Jefferson on this subject. He said:

"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."

But, of course, people like Centrist know more than Jefferson did, I guess.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.

If you have any opinion whatsoever, some people will think you're full of shit. Big surprise there...

Yes they will. The problem with you, as with most liberals, is your inability to directly address challenge to your position. You change the subject, You're make statement that are so ridiculously stupid they almost bare no attention.

"And the trouble with you neocons is that you perpetually lie about what everyone else says."

Seriously, however, I did in fact answer the question you brought up: several times. Either you missed it (in which case man up, grow a pair, and admit to being wrong) or you're choosing to ignore it, in which there's not much point in continuing this particular back-and-forth.

So for the umpteenth time now:

Hell you have yet to answer one of the original questions as to what limits the federal government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants if the Section 8 is not to be interpreted to mean those are the things and the only things the fed can do.

What limits the government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants is in the things it is expressly forbidden to do (as enumerated in Section 9, which comes right after Section 8). The government is cannot tax anyone for the purpose of doing anything in Section 9.

When pressed on how we know that is how it was intended to be interpreted and presented with Madison's thoughts on the subject, you basically copped to Nik's response that the federalist papers mean 'jack shit'.

Wrong again. The Federalist Papers are a guide that COULD be legitimately used for interpreting some parts of the Constitution; they just don't have any force of law. Nor are they the only guide for interpretation, nor do they supersede every other interpretation.

Please tell me that you understand the above. If you can prove me wrong, by all means do so, but understanding the argument has to come first.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you have any opinion whatsoever, some people will think you're full of shit. Big surprise there...

Yes they will. The problem with you, as with most liberals, is your inability to directly address challenge to your position. You change the subject, You're make statement that are so ridiculously stupid they almost bare no attention.

"And the trouble with you neocons is that you perpetually lie about what everyone else says."

Seriously, however, I did in fact answer the question you brought up: several times. Either you missed it (in which case man up, grow a pair, and admit to being wrong) or you're choosing to ignore it, in which there's not much point in continuing this particular back-and-forth.

So for the umpteenth time now:

Hell you have yet to answer one of the original questions as to what limits the federal government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants if the Section 8 is not to be interpreted to mean those are the things and the only things the fed can do.

What limits the government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants is in the things it is expressly forbidden to do (as enumerated in Section 9, which comes right after Section 8). The government is cannot tax anyone for the purpose of doing anything in Section 9.

When pressed on how we know that is how it was intended to be interpreted and presented with Madison's thoughts on the subject, you basically copped to Nik's response that the federalist papers mean 'jack shit'.

Wrong again. The Federalist Papers are a guide that COULD be legitimately used for interpreting some parts of the Constitution; they just don't have any force of law. Nor are they the only guide for interpretation, nor do they supersede every other interpretation.

Please tell me that you understand the above. If you can prove me wrong, by all means do so, but understanding the argument has to come first.

In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect. The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect. The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.

You keep saying this and you never prove it. Aside from which, if your claim is correct, why would the framers have bothered with Section 9 in the first place?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect. The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.

You keep saying this and you never prove it. Aside from which, if your claim is correct, why would the framers have bothered with Section 9 in the first place?

Well I'm sure I've already posted the text of the amendment in this thread as proof, but I'll be glad to do so again.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

As to why they bothered with Article 1, Section 9 in the first place, the simple explanation is that it came before the 10th Amendment. Though I assume Section 9 was an idea of the Anti-Federalists considering the Federalist position was that the Constitution already limited the federal government to do only what was stated explicitly in the Constitution without a Bill of Rights.

 

[Bern80]

So for the umpteenth time now:

Hell you have yet to answer one of the original questions as to what limits the federal government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants if the Section 8 is not to be interpreted to mean those are the things and the only things the fed can do.

What limits the government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants is in the things it is expressly forbidden to do (as enumerated in Section 9, which comes right after Section 8). The government is cannot tax anyone for the purpose of doing anything in Section 9

If that is your answer it would be your position that framers intended for the fed to be able to tax what they want for whatever they went except for:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

about right?

Wrong again. The Federalist Papers are a guide that COULD be legitimately used for interpreting some parts of the Constitution; they just don't have any force of law. Nor are they the only guide for interpretation, nor do they supersede every other interpretation.

Please tell me that you understand the above. If you can prove me wrong, by all means do so, but understanding the argument has to come first.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. Madison was the primary author of the constitution and the words cited in the federalist papers tell us how he intended the document to be interpreted. That is a bit more forceful than saying 'gee I would sure like it if you interpreted it this way, but go ahead and do what you want'. If the federalist papers were mere guidelines of how we could interpret the document there would be little reason to write it in the first place.

 

[Tech_Esq]

If you have any opinion whatsoever, some people will think you're full of shit. Big surprise there...

Yes they will. The problem with you, as with most liberals, is your inability to directly address challenge to your position. You change the subject, You're make statement that are so ridiculously stupid they almost bare no attention.

"And the trouble with you neocons is that you perpetually lie about what everyone else says."

Seriously, however, I did in fact answer the question you brought up: several times. Either you missed it (in which case man up, grow a pair, and admit to being wrong) or you're choosing to ignore it, in which there's not much point in continuing this particular back-and-forth.

So for the umpteenth time now:

Hell you have yet to answer one of the original questions as to what limits the federal government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants if the Section 8 is not to be interpreted to mean those are the things and the only things the fed can do.

What limits the government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants is in the things it is expressly forbidden to do (as enumerated in Section 9, which comes right after Section 8). The government is cannot tax anyone for the purpose of doing anything in Section 9.

When pressed on how we know that is how it was intended to be interpreted and presented with Madison's thoughts on the subject, you basically copped to Nik's response that the federalist papers mean 'jack shit'.

Wrong again. The Federalist Papers are a guide that COULD be legitimately used for interpreting some parts of the Constitution; they just don't have any force of law. Nor are they the only guide for interpretation, nor do they supersede every other interpretation.

Please tell me that you understand the above. If you can prove me wrong, by all means do so, but understanding the argument has to come first.

First, you probably wouldn't know a neo-con if he bit you on the ass.

Second, you have an ass-backward view of Art. I, Sec. 8 and 9.

Third, you are correct that the Federalist Papers should be read to inform and elucidate and have no power of law. However, when the Federalist Papers speak directly on a point being considered, you ignore them at your peril. If you take a position directly contra the expressed view of the people who wrote the Constitution and that view was expressed and challenged at the time of adoption, you have the highest of walls to climb.

You are like the president acting alone in a Youngstown Sheet and Tube analysis. So far, you have yet to get your first foot off the ground to climb that high wall.

 

[Tech_Esq]

In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect. The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.

You keep saying this and you never prove it. Aside from which, if your claim is correct, why would the framers have bothered with Section 9 in the first place?

The nature and character of the Constitution is to create a limited government. To that end, there is an enumerated list of particulars that this limited government can do. All else is prohibited to it. If you insist on reading it as you do, I have a note from Mr. Madison to you:

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

In plain language, (paraphrasing Dickens) "If 'Centrist' says that, Centrist is a ass."

 

[Tech_Esq]

In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect. The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.

You keep saying this and you never prove it. Aside from which, if your claim is correct, why would the framers have bothered with Section 9 in the first place?

To expound on this point. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84 deals with the lack of a "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution. His defense of the Constitution includes the rights and protections accorded the people of the United States under Article I, Section 9. Why? Because these were particularly obnoxious features of rule by Great Britain. If you need any example of why royal titles were prohibited, review the movie Braveheart. The same thing could have happened in the US as happened to Scotland. Coopting of leaders by the King granting title and lands.

But, Hamilton says something else, much more important about the very Constitution itself and how it should be considered:

Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations.

 

[jillian]

The nature and character of the Constitution is to create a limited government. To that end, there is an enumerated list of particulars that this limited government can do. All else is prohibited to it. If you insist on reading it as you do, I have a note from Mr. Madison to you:

The nature and the character of the Constitution is to protect individual LIBERTIES from governmental interference. And that is why there is a right of privacy that logically flows from the Bill of Rights. As for Madison, again, intersting in terms of history, it isn't law. As you know, the caselaw would better set forth the limits that exist or do not.

 

[jillian]

But, of course, people like Centrist know more than Jefferson did, I guess.

I'd say he knows more than Jefferson's opinion did about our caselaw.

 

[jillian]

They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.

the people who actually know something about the law don't....

 

[jillian]

Yes they will. The problem with you, as with most liberals, is your inability to directly address challenge to your position. You change the subject, You're make statement that are so ridiculously stupid they almost bare no attention.

"And the trouble with you neocons is that you perpetually lie about what everyone else says."

Seriously, however, I did in fact answer the question you brought up: several times. Either you missed it (in which case man up, grow a pair, and admit to being wrong) or you're choosing to ignore it, in which there's not much point in continuing this particular back-and-forth.

So for the umpteenth time now:
What limits the government from taxing what it wants for whatever it wants is in the things it is expressly forbidden to do (as enumerated in Section 9, which comes right after Section 8). The government is cannot tax anyone for the purpose of doing anything in Section 9.

When pressed on how we know that is how it was intended to be interpreted and presented with Madison's thoughts on the subject, you basically copped to Nik's response that the federalist papers mean 'jack shit'.

Wrong again. The Federalist Papers are a guide that COULD be legitimately used for interpreting some parts of the Constitution; they just don't have any force of law. Nor are they the only guide for interpretation, nor do they supersede every other interpretation.

Please tell me that you understand the above. If you can prove me wrong, by all means do so, but understanding the argument has to come first.

In regards to Article 1, Section 9 being the only limit of the federal government's power you are incorrect. The 10th Amendment, once again, makes clear that anything not in the Constitution is not a power that the federal government has.

See, Kev, I don't know why anyone bothers with your meritless crap... '

i think they humor you.

 

[JimJones]

Who cares if its not in the Constitution?! Are you okay with families going bankrupt, with people (this one's for you BBD and children dying despite paying for health insurance because the insurance company drops their coverage due to a pre-existing condition of because the it eats into the multi-billion dollar insurance companies' profits? Where's the humanity, the compassion in allowing that to happen? Why is it all about money with you conservatives? WWJD?

Dude you have no clue. Do you actually know of a case where a child was dropped due to pre-existing? The reality (not your pie in the sky dream world) is every little pre-existing issues come up since the laws were changed to allow 60-90 days laps of coverage. As for the question, "is it all about the money? YES when your banking account is empty you don't run out and max out your credit card, thats exactly whats happening. As for compassion I WAS giving a good amount each year to the Childrens Home based out of Tampa Fl and St Jude Medical, which both do gr8 work. However, since Obama is taking my tax credits away becuase I worked hard to get over a certain income bracket I will now be forced to pay for my employees healthcare or charge me a penalty. I'll have to see what's left to give. Is it about the money...in DC it's all about the money. What country do you live in? The Dems in Congress don't want this plan so why do you? CONGRESS SCARED OF HEALTHCARE | BorderlineIQ