Living Document or Not?

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

OK jake lets do it this way, you mention positive information. What positive information do you have.
Next does a person have to be an authority on thieves when they are being Robbed?
Since you want some with expertise and Authority here he is U.S. District Judge
Henry E. Hudson
washingtonpost.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, bigreb, this is not a Socratic dialogue.

But what we can do is this. You can make the statement "The 10th Amendment has not been repealed." Explain why that applies to health insurance reform or other laws you don't like. Then give us some argumentation and other evidence on that.

Next, anyone of us who disagrees can meet your discussion point by point, giving our evidence in rebuttal. Then we can add our points that have not been added yet.

Then you can respond, and the opposition can respond, and so forth and so on.

If we do this honestly and forthrightly, understanding that we have to guard against our bias, we might actually have a very enjoyable and worthwhile discussion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, bigreb, this is not a Socratic dialogue.

But what we can do is this. You can make the statement "The 10th Amendment has not been repealed." Explain why that applies to health insurance reform or other laws you don't like. Then give us some argumentation and other evidence on that.

Next, anyone of us who disagrees can meet your discussion point by point, giving our evidence in rebuttal. Then we can add our points that have not been added yet.

Then you can respond, and the opposition can respond, and so forth and so on.

If we do this honestly and forthrightly, understanding that we have to guard against our bias, we might actually have a very enjoyable and worthwhile discussion.

Thats what I thought, You can't discuss anything because you are limited in you abilites to have a debate. You can't counter an argument without making more rules to suit your tap dance.
Lets start here
The purpose of the 10th Amendment is to define the establishment and division of power between the Federal government and state governments. This amendment also protects these powers from both entities. This amendment was used to define the federal taxing power, federal police power, and federal regulations. The Founding Fathers established this country on the Compact Theory. This theory states that the federal government is a compact of the states, and that the government was a creation of the states.

Your counter will be?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You attack, bigrebnc1775, because you don't want the format to be fair.

Your posting is your opinion. You have no evidence. You do make an argument of philosophy, a states' right limited national power philosophy. That was ended forever with the Civil War as well as the passage of the 14th Amendment that guarantees due process and equality before the law in every state.

However, your argument also is undermined by the legislation that enacted the first U.S. National Bank in 1791. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both made that legislation happen, although no provision was made for a national bank in the U.S. Constitution. The elastic clause of the Constitution provides Congress the power to enact all legislation that comports with the goals of the Constitution.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents the passage of legislation by Congress that comports with the U.S. Constitution. The final decider of what the Constitution means is the Supreme Court.

Your turn.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You attack, bigrebnc1775, because you don't want the format to be fair.

Your posting is your opinion. You have no evidence. You do make an argument of philosophy, a states' right limited national power philosophy. That was ended forever with the Civil War as well as the passage of the 14th Amendment that guarantees due process and equality before the law in every state.

However, your argument also is undermined by the legislation that enacted the first U.S. National Bank in 1791. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both made that legislation happen, although no provision was made for a national bank in the U.S. Constitution. The elastic clause of the Constitution provides Congress the power to enact all legislation that comports with the goals of the Constitution.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents the passage of legislation by Congress that comports with the U.S. Constitution. The final decider of what the Constitution means is the Supreme Court.

Your turn.

Thank you you just proved my point. I gave you a chance to give a counter and you had a little tantrum. Thanks for proving just how right I am.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

ok Jake I will give you one more shot this is the intent and purpose of having a centerilzed government
1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
The healthcare issue is a state issue and the Federal Government does not have that authority to force the issue.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Maybe you're right. Unfortunately because of what the clause says, you can only be right if you can find somewhere else in the constitution where government has the authority over something that render such a law necessary and proper. I have read the document start to finish several times, I have read what the framers meant by what they said. And I can see no where in the constitution, a power that would even remotely be considered to allow government to require private purchases of people. You seem to think it's quite obvious, yet in two feeble attempts you haven't come even close.

As far as discounting information, you have provided basically nothing to discount in the first place. You're too much of a weasel to do that. Only after x number of pages did you get around to citing anything at all. And when you did it was so absurd as to be laughable. This is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of someone (you) not having a basic understanding of how sentence structure effects meaning. So why don't you tell us what you think clause 18 means in your own words and why it gives the government the authority to require people purchase health insurance.

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.

I'm not demanding my own reality. The rules of basic english have been around long before me. When you say that Article I, Section8, clause 18 is your evidence that government can require people to purchase health insurance, what you are saying is SOMEWHERE ELSE in the constitution the fed has been granted some power that makes such a law necessary and proper. That is not a VERSION of reality. That is what the ******* clause says and what anyone with a high school education should be able to understand. The onus is still on you to show us where that authority is granted because you are the one making the affirmative statement that government DOES have the constitutional authority to pass such a law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You righties know that you are losing, Bern, when you all pull this nonsense.

bigrebnc1775 called a well-reasoned and thought-out rebuttal a "tantrum." Why? He could not counter it. Every point he made I demolished. That is why most of you righties attack me instead of my message. Because if we keep it to the subject, you always lose.

I am typing slowly Bern so you can understand. You said or inferred that a certain piece of legislation is unconstitutional, without any evidence other than your argumentation. So I happily noted the clause that demolished your assumption, but you happily ignore it.

Bern, you are not an authority on the Constitution. Now if you want to post something that supports your inference, go for it.

But you are not an authority.

 

[Yurt]

you guys are wasting your time with jake...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You righties know that you are losing, Bern, when you all pull this nonsense.

bigrebnc1775 called a well-reasoned and thought-out rebuttal a "tantrum." Why? He could not counter it. Every point he made I demolished. That is why most of you righties attack me instead of my message. Because if we keep it to the subject, you always lose.

I am typing slowly Bern so you can understand. You said or inferred that a certain piece of legislation is unconstitutional, without any evidence other than your argumentation. So I happily noted the clause that demolished your assumption, but you happily ignore it.

Bern, you are not an authority on the Constitution. Now if you want to post something that supports your inference, go for it.

But you are not an authority.

I did counter it
ok Jake I will give you one more shot this is the intent and purpose of having a centerilzed government
1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
The healthcare issue is a state issue and the Federal Government does not have that authority to force the issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You righties know that you are losing, Bern, when you all pull this nonsense.

bigrebnc1775 called a well-reasoned and thought-out rebuttal a "tantrum." Why? He could not counter it. Every point he made I demolished. That is why most of you righties attack me instead of my message. Because if we keep it to the subject, you always lose.

I am typing slowly Bern so you can understand. You said or inferred that a certain piece of legislation is unconstitutional, without any evidence other than your argumentation. So I happily noted the clause that demolished your assumption, but you happily ignore it.

Bern, you are not an authority on the Constitution. Now if you want to post something that supports your inference, go for it.

But you are not an authority.

I did counter it
ok Jake I will give you one more shot this is the intent and purpose of having a centerilzed government
1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
The healthcare issue is a state issue and the Federal Government does not have that authority to force the issue.

bigreb, you did not counter anything. You have to respond to my response, not just post material from the Constitution. Why? You are not a constitutional authority.

Answer my rebuttal, or lose.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You righties know that you are losing, Bern, when you all pull this nonsense.

bigrebnc1775 called a well-reasoned and thought-out rebuttal a "tantrum." Why? He could not counter it. Every point he made I demolished. That is why most of you righties attack me instead of my message. Because if we keep it to the subject, you always lose.

I am typing slowly Bern so you can understand. You said or inferred that a certain piece of legislation is unconstitutional, without any evidence other than your argumentation. So I happily noted the clause that demolished your assumption, but you happily ignore it.

Bern, you are not an authority on the Constitution. Now if you want to post something that supports your inference, go for it.

But you are not an authority.

I did counter it
ok Jake I will give you one more shot this is the intent and purpose of having a centerilzed government
1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
The healthcare issue is a state issue and the Federal Government does not have that authority to force the issue.

bigreb, you did not counter anything. You have to respond to my response, not just post material from the Constitution. Why? You are not a constitutional authority.

Answer my rebuttal, or lose.

Starting with the tantrum again and you lose. I did counter you now put up or shut up.

this is the intent and purpose of having a centerilzed government
1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
The healthcare issue is a state issue and the Federal Government does not have that authority to force the issue.
If you disagree with this take it up with James Madison and Federalist 41

OH and why wouldn't you want me to use some thing from the Constitution? Is it because you can't counter against the truth?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bigreb loses the discussion. Dismissed. Your opinion counts for absolutely nothing, son.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bigreb loses the discussion. Dismissed. Your opinion counts for absolutely nothing, son.

In other words you have no counter so you run.. That was the easiest debate I have ever had.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You were countered, and you could not answer, bigreb.

I invite everyone to go back and review the posts.

You and your opinion are not authoritative. That's all that matters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You were countered, and you could not answer, bigreb.

I invite everyone to go back and review the posts.

You and your opinion are not authoritative. That's all that matters.

You ran you said it was over.
Question before you go you posted this three postr back
bigreb, you did not counter anything. You have to respond to my response, not just post material from the Constitution. Why? You are not a constitutional authority.
This isn't my opinion

You do not want me to post factual information and in your next repoly you do noyt want me to post my opinion which I haven't so which do you not want?
Oh also what have you been posting it's either from the constitution or your opinion?

Now As I said this is not my opinion this came from James Madison Federalist 41
this is the intent and purpose of having a centerilzed government
1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
The healthcare issue is a state issue and the Federal Government does not have that authority to force the issue.
If you disagree with this take it up with James Madison and Federalist 41

 

[Bern80]

I am typing slowly Bern so you can understand. You said or inferred that a certain piece of legislation is unconstitutional, without any evidence other than your argumentation. So I happily noted the clause that demolished your assumption, but you happily ignore it.

Bern, you are not an authority on the Constitution. Now if you want to post something that supports your inference, go for it.

But you are not an authority.

The only thing clear here is that it is you that has zero grasp of the document. You don't grasp that it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to understand the document. You clearly don't understand thing one about it. You are like a blind man throwing darts at dart board hoping you hit something that can be considered close to rationale. Look at the ******* scorecard moron. You don't even have the ability to intelligently articulate WHY those things support your position. You are the one who keeps saying it does because you say so. You are the one with no evidence. You are too busy being a troll to see that.

Clause 18 is evidence of nothing without pointing to the section of the constitution that would make such a law necessary and proper. Until you can do that you have no case that requiring people to purchase health insurance is constitutional. You can deny it all you like. It doesn't change reality. For government to do anything it has to be granted that authority via the constitution. Requiring private purchases of people is not there.

I will help. Let's play fill in the blank. The federal government has the duty/authority to ____________ according to the constitution. Making a law requiring people to purchase health insurance necessary and proper. What pre tell goes in the blank and where is it in the constition. I am sure you will cop out again with this is just an opinion. Sorry, it's not. I'm also sorry you don't have the ability to comprehend basic english.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern and bigreb fail again.

Neither want to deal with facts, evidence, information, then go to logic and analysis.

They simply want to spew what they believe as truth. It is not, they are wrong, and demonstrate they have no idea how to discuss the important issues of the day.

Posting parts of the Constitution without reputable commentary is not discussion, guys. It is merely you revealing that you can't think.

 

[Bern80]

Bern and bigreb fail again.

Neither want to deal with facts, evidence, information, then go to logic and analysis.

They simply want to spew what they believe as truth. It is not, they are wrong, and demonstrate they have no idea how to discuss the important issues of the day.

Posting parts of the Constitution without reputable commentary is not discussion, guys. It is merely you revealing that you can't think.

I can't help it if you don't understand clause 18. What it says is government can pass laws that are neccessary and proper for fulfilling its duties laid out in the constitution. Not just that it can pass laws it thinks are neccessary and proper. If you disagree, make your case.

Otherwise you would still need to point out what part of the constitution would make such a law necessary and proper. If you can't do either of those things, you fail. Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because the law is considered constitutional until a court decides otherwise. You have to give a case where it is not. You don't begin with the Constitution, then leave it there. Why? You are not an authority on it. Go find someone who is considered an expert, and then post what s/he thinks about it with facts and evidence.

If you can't do this, then you fail.