Living Document or Not?

[Tech_Esq]

Ahhh, that's better. This thread has just been made a thousand times better. Amazing, once you get rid of Snarkey, life is a little be brighter. I would encourage everyone to banish the troll.

 

[konradv]

As a citizen of Virginia, I would just be happy to have the mandate off, so I could keep the insurance I presently have and not be told I have to have a different plan with provisions I don't need.

Can you tell me when, "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" became ineffective? Seems to me you're worried about something that doesn't exist!!!

Guess you didn't actually read the bill. Or, you read it, you didn't understand it. It sounds to me like you just bought the hype, hook, line and sinker. You should really do yourself a favor and become educated about the things you think you support.

The provisions of the law say that you must have a "qualified health insurance plan" those qualifications will be determined by a board. If your plan does not meet the coverage required, then you have to get another plan. Since, I have an HSA and a high deductible plan that excludes things like maternity coverage, that you will be required to have, my plan will not be a "qualified plan."

You get it?

Yeah, you have a dumb plan.

 

[Tech_Esq]

As a citizen of Virginia, I would just be happy to have the mandate off, so I could keep the insurance I presently have and not be told I have to have a different plan with provisions I don't need.

Can you tell me when, "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" became ineffective? Seems to me you're worried about something that doesn't exist!!!

Guess you didn't actually read the bill. Or, you read it, you didn't understand it. It sounds to me like you just bought the hype, hook, line and sinker. You should really do yourself a favor and become educated about the things you think you support.

The provisions of the law say that you must have a "qualified health insurance plan" those qualifications will be determined by a board. If your plan does not meet the coverage required, then you have to get another plan. Since, I have an HSA and a high deductible plan that excludes things like maternity coverage, that you will be required to have, my plan will not be a "qualified plan."

You get it?

Yeah, you have a dumb plan.

OK, I'll entertain this for a minute. Why do you think, in your infinite familiarity with my life, circumstances and needs, do you think the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan I'm carrying is dumb?

I can't wait.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, keep reading that website, son, but it is not going to tell you what you want it to tell you. You have fail in this thread.

I fail? Do we really need to show people again, what a miserable little hypocrite of a weasel you are. What a dishonest little weasel you are. You may recall this gem from a while ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by JakeStarkey
Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?
to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.

 

[Liability]

My point on severability comes from Atty Gen. Cuccinelli. His point was if the law does not contain a severability clause (like most contracts do), then the court cannot, as a matter of law, "save parts of the law." If it does contain that, then you are right, it gets treated like the AZ law just did. The court has to parse it and see what parts to strike and what parts are retained.

So, that's his opinion, I don't really have an independent basis for saying one way or the other. I haven't done independent research on that point of law.

A severability clause is like belts and suspenders. It is a clear expression of legislative intent to the effect that a legislature affirmatively wishes to preserve as much of their act as possible should a court later find a part or parts to be Constitutionally invalid.

However, as a general rule, Courts will not rule on the constitutionality of an entire act when asked to consider only a portion of it. And general principles of Judicial restraint normally require that a ruling be as limited as necessary to address the actual case or controversy.

Now all of that ^ is pretty much from memory and I am not about to engage in a whole lot of legal research, to be candid here. But, I did come across this which is pretty much right on point:

“Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.” Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 684 (1987) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108 (1976)).

Nice. Thanks for the effort on that. I get the point, but to the point of the quote, I wonder if you remove the heart and soul of the health care plan, the requirement for everyone to purchase it, does meet the test the court states "Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted...."?

I'm not sure it does, but I'm sure it's one the judge will have to ponder. It seems to me that the house of cards falls if people don't have to purchase insurance. It would completely screw up the pools because not enough healthy people would sign up. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. As a citizen of Virginia, I would just be happy to have the mandate off, so I could keep the insurance I presently have and not be told I have to have a different plan with provisions I don't need.

Hm. Good points. I heard that the Obama Administration, in order to avoid a ruling at odds with their agenda, actually acknowledged that the legislation can be classified as a "tax." Why? Because courts are reluctant to deny the authority of Congress to tax. But they might not be anywhere quite so reluctant to deny Congress the authority to mandate that Americans are obliged to buy anything (it's not regulating anything if you make the rubes do the buying).

So there we have a clue. It's all about the money and the power, not "health."

And would congress have passed this crap if they couldn't confiscate some more of our wealth? Pffft. Let's not be silly. Jokey would lie and say "yes." But then he is a liar. No. Obviously, unless this bullshit comes with fat purse strings, there's no real "point" to passing it or having it on our law books from the perspective of the thieves we call the Democrat party.

 

[Liability]

Do the assholes that run this place know how to close a thread ?

What's the matter, stink-hole? Getting too close for comfort, you dishonest asshole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern and Tech, unable to offer fact to support opinion, simply go back to name calling.

This is why the GOP has been losing: no programs of merit or worth. Absolutely nothing.

And, yet, the far right bozos belief that fall elections will favor them? Really?

 

[Bern80]

Bern and Tech, unable to offer fact to support opinion, simply go back to name calling.

So your contention is that it is not a fact that the constitution does not grant the authority to the fed to require private purchases of people?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sooner or later you will realize your use of double negatives will trip you up each time you use them. I will rephrase my answer to reply to what I think was the purpose of your statment.

The elastic clause of the Constitution covers the purpose of the health insurance reform bill.

 

[Liability]

Sooner or later you will realize your use of double negatives will trip you up each time you use them. I will rephrase my answer to reply to what I think was the purpose of your statment.

The elastic clause of the Constitution covers the purpose of the health insurance reform bill.

Hiding behind the stupid term "elastic clause" is cheesy. Typical of you, cheese-dick.

It is the "necessary and proper" clause.

And if an act is neither necessary nor otherwise proper (i.e., it violates the other provisions of the Constitution) then the necessary and proper clause shouldn't provide any refuge.

You truly are a ******* lying jism-gargler.

 

[Bern80]

Sooner or later you will realize your use of double negatives will trip you up each time you use them. I will rephrase my answer to reply to what I think was the purpose of your statment.

The elastic clause of the Constitution covers the purpose of the health insurance reform bill.

You mean this one?

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

This is almost as bad as citing Article VI. This clause is part of Article 1, Section 8. The key word here is 'foregoing'. As in the stuff that comes before it. Meaning congress has the power to do what is neccessary and proper to accomplish the enumerated powers granted to it. Those powers read as follows:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The second part of that clause essentially refers to any powers the constitution grants the government. What it means is that congress can pass laws that allow them to accomplish the things the constitution grants them the authority to do. Sooooo, that takes us back to square one. Where in the constitution is the authority granted to the federal govenment to require people to make private purchases?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sure SCOTUS will answer in the affirmation the law is constitutional. For, you see, nether you nor I am authorities on the Constitution, and this is mere chatter.

 

[Liability]

Sooner or later you will realize your use of double negatives will trip you up each time you use them. I will rephrase my answer to reply to what I think was the purpose of your statment.

The elastic clause of the Constitution covers the purpose of the health insurance reform bill.

You mean this one?

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

This is almost as bad as citing Article VI. This clause is part of Article 1, Section 8. The key word here is 'foregoing'. As in the stuff that comes before it. Meaning congress has the power to do what is neccessary and proper to accomplish the enumerated powers granted to it. Those powers read as follows:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The second part of that clause essentially refers to any powers the constitution grants the government. What it means is that congress can pass laws that allow them to accomplish the things the constitution grants them the authority to do. Sooooo, that takes us back to square one. Where in the constitution is the authority granted to the federal govenment to require people to make private purchases?

On the mark! That is exactly the point and very well and concisely stated. There is no honest answer to that question. Jokey isn't one to be deterred by that whole "honest" thing however. Jokey is a compulsive liar. His answer should be good for some laughs, but nothing more.

 

[Liability]

I am sure SCOTUS will answer in the affirmation the law is constitutional. For, you see, nether you nor I am authorities on the Constitution, and this is mere chatter.

Oh what a classic. The pathetic lying shithead is "sure," but even he realizes that he isn't an authority on the matter. So his certainty is baseless.

And his grasp of English? Remarkable. Is he a cheese-dick?

Off hand, most reasonable people would probably "answer in the affirmation."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability, you are mindless chattering chipmunk. Go find a nut.

 

[Liability]

Liability, you are mindless chattering chipmunk. Go find a nut.

Jokey, you have been dismissed, you lying fraud piece of crap.

Go **** yourself and don't bother reporting back.

 

[Bern80]

I am sure SCOTUS will answer in the affirmation the law is constitutional. For, you see, nether you nor I am authorities on the Constitution, and this is mere chatter.

Expertise is not required to understand it. You cite the clause as supporting your opinion, but can't explain why? The framers wrote the document so that the citizens could understand it. It's not greek and it's not written such that only the most esteemed of academians can understand it. It was written so that YOU would be able to understand it. I guess they aimed too high. You have claimed time and again how blatantly obvious it is that the constitution allows the fed to require people to purchase health care. Yet for some inexplicable reason you can't pont to anything in the document that supports it. You tried Article VI in another thread, which was ******* hilarious. Now you're trying THIS? Okay, fine. What authority or duty granted by the constitution would that be that would allow government to pass such a law to accomplish that?

 

[oreo]

The Constitution of the United Stated of America is the document that organizes our system of government and secures our rights as citizens of this great Nation. You might have heard or read in recent time that this document is a “Living Document”. You might even recall that Al Gore made this point in 2000 during the presidential campaign. You may also be aware that Barrack Obama supports this concept as he wrote in his book, “The Audacity of Hope”. Many others also support this idea and have written about it over the years but does that make it a reality?

Progressives believe this wholeheartedly as it was they who originally started this concept, going back to Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as well their Supreme Court Justices Louise Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes. They created the idea that instead of referring to the actual document we could refer to our own case law and their decisions in future matters. They believed they knew better than the founding fathers. These very same progressives were those who supported eugenics’ and it’s use it to eliminate the black race. These initiatives where hidden in plain sight mixed with more tame ideals such reductions in corruption and improvements to government efficiency.

Ask yourself if our Constitution was intended to be a “Living” Constitution why is that we never heard of witnessed those words until 1937 when Prof. Howard McBain wrote a book with that title. No earlier record shows any reference to this and you certainly will not find this mentioned by any of our founding fathers but our education system teaches this as a guiding principle to our youth. There is no shortage of this concept anywhere you look so to the undiscerning eye this seems like a logical and sound rationale. You will read books and articles by classically trained Authors and journalist referring to this concept like it’s understood fact without regard to the original source documents.

Now the Progressives of the early 20th Century did bring us some key ideas that I will not attempt to challenge here although each can be in great length. They did bring us Child Labors laws and the idea of “Trust Busting” as well as Prohibition. OK, maybe Prohibition didn’t work out so well, but I digress. They also supported Conservationism and Reclamation as well as Union Labor. Even though they are responsible for these changes does not make it right for them to change the entire foundation of our Government. Let us not overlook or dismiss the thoughts and words of those who designed this great nation.

In Federalist 45, ”the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite”. The Constitution from its very origin was the frame of a national government made up of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers. Thomas Jefferson said it best, “Let no more be heard of trust in men, but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” And possibly the most powerful of his arguments, “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Do our leaders follow this guideline today? You be the judge.

Cheers.

The U.S. Constitution was formed to protect the citizens of this country from an ever powerful Federal Government. That was what it's original intent was.

Obviously--the constitution has been interpreted in many different scenarios--according to who is nominated to be a U.S. supreme court justice.

However--as we witness now--the 14th admendment to the constitution guaranteeing that all born within our borders are automatically a U.S. citizen. This has been horribly abused--by illegals entering this country and having "anchor" babies.

Republicans are now calling that this admendment be changed to state that at least one parent of the anchor baby has to be a U.S. citizen. But--it takes 2/3's of the states to agree to this--to change the constitution.

Obviously our forefathers did not see this coming about--and the constitution needs to be changed for the benefit of good--for all this countries legal citizens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sure SCOTUS will answer in the affirmation the law is constitutional. For, you see, nether you nor I am authorities on the Constitution, and this is mere chatter.

Expertise is not required to understand it. You cite the clause as supporting your opinion, but can't explain why? The framers wrote the document so that the citizens could understand it. It's not greek and it's not written such that only the most esteemed of academians can understand it. It was written so that YOU would be able to understand it. I guess they aimed too high. You have claimed time and again how blatantly obvious it is that the constitution allows the fed to require people to purchase health care. Yet for some inexplicable reason you can't pont to anything in the document that supports it. You tried Article VI in another thread, which was ******* hilarious. Now you're trying THIS? Okay, fine. Citing that still would require you to show where government has the authority to require private purchases of people so that they can create the 'necessary and proper' laws to do so.

Bern, thank you for the clarity of what you expect here. Debate all you want, but it is worthless in and of itself because you see through the prism of bias. You discount information on your side that undercuts your argument while it ignores positive information one the other side. You are not an authority, so I merely quoted the clause that will be used to find the law is in fact constitutional.

This is what I mean about you guys demanding your own reality and your own definitions. It is not how the world works. Your logic and philosophy are meaningless. However, if you make a premise or thesis or prompt, and support it with objective information or data or something, then I will be glad to do that.

 

[Liability]

I am sure SCOTUS will answer in the affirmation the law is constitutional. For, you see, nether you nor I am authorities on the Constitution, and this is mere chatter.

Expertise is not required to understand it. You cite the clause as supporting your opinion, but can't explain why? The framers wrote the document so that the citizens could understand it. It's not greek and it's not written such that only the most esteemed of academians can understand it. It was written so that YOU would be able to understand it. I guess they aimed too high. You have claimed time and again how blatantly obvious it is that the constitution allows the fed to require people to purchase health care. Yet for some inexplicable reason you can't pont to anything in the document that supports it. You tried Article VI in another thread, which was ******* hilarious. Now you're trying THIS? Okay, fine. Citing that still would require you to show where government has the authority to require private purchases of people so that they can create the 'necessary and proper' laws to do so.

Bern, thank you for the clarity of what you expect here. Debate all you want, but it is worthless in and of itself because you see through the prism of bias. * * * *

Whereas you, Jokey, don't "see" at all and just outright and deliberately lie. You are a ******* fraud, a scumbag, a piece of shit and completely worthless. I thought I told you to go **** yourself, eat shit and stay away.

Go.