Please show me the word "Christ" in the U.S. Constitution.

[NYcarbineer]

You are not arbiter of what the Constitution authorizes.

Are you?

I am telling you who is, if you'd pay attention.

James Madison would be a good arbiter of the Constitution, wouldn't you say?

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

And Hamilton argued for the existence of implied powers.

Are you keeping up? I already mentioned the petulance of the Federalists.

After the fact, even. After the Constitution was ratified.

Which only proves that you picking out one framer as some sort of proof as to what the Constitution means is nonsensical.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Erm, what? Strawman argument. Have you read Article 1, Section 8, yet? What about United States v. Butler? Read that yet? Come back when you do and we shall discuss this some more.

Sure, when you're done arguing with straw man arguments.

So you are suggesting that the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land, is a straw man argument? That's amusing. You should take that joke to Vegas. I'm sure it will get a few laughs.

Oh my good lord. You said my argument was a straw man argument. That's what I was referring to. And now you say otherwise.

Lefties are the reason that arguments with lefties are always in circles.

It is a straw man argument since no one here but you made any claim about coercion. But since you brought it up, the Constitution does, in fact, provide the government with enforcement powers. You didn't know this? I'm not surprised, since you have obviously never even bothered to read it.

Okay, you're too stupid to continue with. I'll end here.

I am not the one who brought up coercion; we had been discussing welfare programs for some time previous.

And the government has enforcement powers? You don't say. What a revelation.

Like what? Medicaid? If the Court rules it unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

"abortion" and "education" are not in the constitution either so the feds granted themselves authority in those areas.!!!

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, what? Strawman argument. Have you read Article 1, Section 8, yet? What about United States v. Butler? Read that yet? Come back when you do and we shall discuss this some more.

Sure, when you're done arguing with straw man arguments.

So you are suggesting that the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land, is a straw man argument? That's amusing. You should take that joke to Vegas. I'm sure it will get a few laughs.

Oh my good lord. You said my argument was a straw man argument. That's what I was referring to. And now you say otherwise.

Lefties are the reason that arguments with lefties are always in circles.

It is a straw man argument since no one here but you made any claim about coercion. But since you brought it up, the Constitution does, in fact, provide the government with enforcement powers. You didn't know this? I'm not surprised, since you have obviously never even bothered to read it.

Okay, you're too stupid to continue with. I'll end here.

I am not the one who brought up coercion; we had been discussing welfare programs for some time previous.

And the government has enforcement powers? You don't say. What a revelation.

Erm, you said:
"The Constitution includes a job description for the officers and judges of the United States. It enumerates their powers. Coercion is not one of them.
Or can you show the class otherwise?"

I did. Any more stupid questions? No? Well, alrighty then.

 

[Conservative65]

Please show me the word Charity in the US Constitution.

Nope. No welfare, medicaide or other social bullshit. Zip. Nada. None. Zero.

Also ain't no Obamacare in there either. In fact there is no mention of healthcare at all in the Constitution.

Please show me the word Charity in the US Constitution.

Nope. No welfare, medicaide or other social bullshit. Zip. Nada. None. Zero.

Also ain't no Obamacare in there either. In fact there is no mention of healthcare at all in the Constitution.

Healthcare was not a significant portion of the average family's budget then.

Plus, in early America if you had whatever they could treat and could not pay they just MIGHT have thrown you out in the street to die. In the 50's something changed. Medical science evolved and some costly treatments came about. Seemed we picked a socialist system then where most everyone had a right to them expensive treatments.

None of you tripe still shows where "healthcare" is written in the Constitution.

Seems you socialist picked a system whereas you think one person is entitled to someone else's money. If you think they are, pay their medical bills for them voluntarily. When you do that you can make suggestions that I should.

 

[Conservative65]

"abortion" and "education" are not in the constitution either so the feds granted themselves authority in those areas.!!!

Actually, both of those are indirectly in the Constitution just not as a power of the federal government. A reading of the 10th Amendment would explain it well. Paying attention to what it say would keep you from thinking that the feds can do such a thing.

 

[TooTall]

Get your attacks correct. We have the number 1 med schools, doctors, medical research facilities, drug research facilities, hospital, clinics, test labs etc. However, I would agree we don't have the best health INSURANCE system in the world.

We certainly don't have the #1 system for covering all Americans either.

When you find an example of an American or a non-American being turned away from an emergency room for treatment, you should post it here on USMB. Don't count the government ran VA hospital system.

Hospitals can turn away non-emergencies.

Emergency rooms do not turn away anyone.

Actually, if a hospital receives Federal funding, it cannot refuse emergency room treatment to anyone. On the other hand, if it doesn't receive Federal funding, it can, in some cases, in some states, deny anyone who cannot pay.

Actually, I said Emergency rooms.

 

[Conservative65]

Where is the word marriage in the constitution? Where is the word abortion?

None of them are but try explaining that to those who want the government to be a unitary instead of a federal system. Both marriage and abortion, in an indirect way, are in the Constitution based on my reading of the 10th Amendment. The States under reserved powers have the ability to deal with them if they so choose. If they don't or do it in a manner the feds don't like, it doesn't give the feds, by default, the ability to deal with them.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If religion was really insignificant in this country and has no real place in our nation, they wouldn't have placed it's importance under the FIRST Amendment.

The 1st Amendment is there to keep such things from happening as, for example, angry bigoted Christians trying to ban the building of mosques in their community.

What such things? It clearly states that government is not allowed to favor one religious denomination, but all all the freedom to openly worship according to their conscience. Government was meant to stay out of religion period. What part of "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" do you NOT comprehend?

No it's not meant to 'stay out' of religion. It's meant to have the power to protect religious freedom.

You have religious freedom when you don't have government pushing laws dictating where, when, and how you may worship. If you want to place a nativity at a public store you own, or have a cross at a grave site, who cares. That is that individual's freedom to do so. How many times I had to endure the eyesore of those OWS protestors camped out on public lawns, but we have freedom of assembly laws. So why are we restricting religious freedom?

 

[Conservative65]

Please show me the word Charity in the US Constitution.

Nope. No welfare, medicaide or other social bullshit. Zip. Nada. None. Zero.

Also ain't no Obamacare in there either. In fact there is no mention of healthcare at all in the Constitution.

welfare is in the Constitution...

Not in the sense the bleeding hearts use it.

 

[orogenicman]

We certainly don't have the #1 system for covering all Americans either.

When you find an example of an American or a non-American being turned away from an emergency room for treatment, you should post it here on USMB. Don't count the government ran VA hospital system.

Hospitals can turn away non-emergencies.

Emergency rooms do not turn away anyone.

Actually, if a hospital receives Federal funding, it cannot refuse emergency room treatment to anyone. On the other hand, if it doesn't receive Federal funding, it can, in some cases, in some states, deny anyone who cannot pay.

Actually, I said Emergency rooms.

So did I. Your point?

 

[TooTall]

When you find an example of an American or a non-American being turned away from an emergency room for treatment, you should post it here on USMB. Don't count the government ran VA hospital system.

Hospitals can turn away non-emergencies.

Emergency rooms do not turn away anyone.

Actually, if a hospital receives Federal funding, it cannot refuse emergency room treatment to anyone. On the other hand, if it doesn't receive Federal funding, it can, in some cases, in some states, deny anyone who cannot pay.

Actually, I said Emergency rooms.

So did I. Your point?

Name a hospital that does NOT receive federal funding and also has an emergency room.

 

[jillian]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

case law is NOT irrelevant. the caselaw interpreting the constitution is binding law.

who on earth told you otherwise?

 

[jillian]

Get your attacks correct. We have the number 1 med schools, doctors, medical research facilities, drug research facilities, hospital, clinics, test labs etc. However, I would agree we don't have the best health INSURANCE system in the world.

We certainly don't have the #1 system for covering all Americans either.

When you find an example of an American or a non-American being turned away from an emergency room for treatment, you should post it here on USMB. Don't count the government ran VA hospital system.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

Since implied powers are a legitimate component of the Constitution, you are wrong.

I am right. The Constitution authorizes whatever can be passed legislatively and survive judicial review. Those are the rules of the Constitutional game.

Implied powers are not a legitimate component of the Constitution. That a few Federalists and Democrats thought they should be only made the issue one of contention. The petulance of the left doesn't constitutionally legitimize anything.

what are you blathering about?

 

[jillian]

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!

you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.

so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.

 

[jillian]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

You are not arbiter of what the Constitution authorizes.

he should probably go back to square one and have a look at Marbury v Madison.

 

[jillian]

Please show me the word Charity in the US Constitution.

Nope. No welfare, medicaide or other social bullshit. Zip. Nada. None. Zero.

Also ain't no Obamacare in there either. In fact there is no mention of healthcare at all in the Constitution.

Healthcare was not a significant portion of the average family's budget then.

Plus, in early America if you had whatever they could treat and could not pay they just MIGHT have thrown you out in the street to die. In the 50's something changed. Medical science evolved and some costly treatments came about. Seemed we picked a socialist system then where most everyone had a right to them expensive treatments.

If our system is socialist why are we the worst at providing health care than any other developed nation?

Why do Canadians and citizens of a lot of other countries come here for treatment if their system is so much better than ours?

the numbers aren't that great. do some"? probably if they have unlimited financial resources.

and that is the point. there is a difference between the ability of our medical personnel and our ability to DELIVER health care to people who need it.

one shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be treated for a chronic illness.

Like this millionaire?

"A federal appeals court in Boston today upheld a judge’s ruling that a transsexual inmate convicted of murder is entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex change operation as treatment for her severe gender identity disorder."

thanks for the deflection. it simply has nothing to do with what we were discussing. surely you can do better than that.

 

[Kosh]

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!

you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.

so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.

Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..

Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..

 

[orogenicman]

Hospitals can turn away non-emergencies.

Emergency rooms do not turn away anyone.

Actually, if a hospital receives Federal funding, it cannot refuse emergency room treatment to anyone. On the other hand, if it doesn't receive Federal funding, it can, in some cases, in some states, deny anyone who cannot pay.

Actually, I said Emergency rooms.

So did I. Your point?

Name a hospital that does NOT receive federal funding and also has an emergency room.

I cannot tell you right off hand what hospitals, if any, do not receive federal funding. All I can tell you is that that is the way the law is written. Ask any emergency room doctor or nurse. They will tell you the same thing.

 

[Kosh]

Healthcare was not a significant portion of the average family's budget then.

Plus, in early America if you had whatever they could treat and could not pay they just MIGHT have thrown you out in the street to die. In the 50's something changed. Medical science evolved and some costly treatments came about. Seemed we picked a socialist system then where most everyone had a right to them expensive treatments.

If our system is socialist why are we the worst at providing health care than any other developed nation?

Why do Canadians and citizens of a lot of other countries come here for treatment if their system is so much better than ours?

the numbers aren't that great. do some"? probably if they have unlimited financial resources.

and that is the point. there is a difference between the ability of our medical personnel and our ability to DELIVER health care to people who need it.

one shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be treated for a chronic illness.

Like this millionaire?

"A federal appeals court in Boston today upheld a judge’s ruling that a transsexual inmate convicted of murder is entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex change operation as treatment for her severe gender identity disorder."

thanks for the deflection. it simply has nothing to do with what we were discussing. surely you can do better than that.

And what post have you made that proves that you being far left understand the constitution?