WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?

[2Parties]

The Real ones are the ones who can recite the entire document by heart AND can recite all of the federalist and anti-federalist papers by heart.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art. Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern. The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party. The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.

 

[DiveCon]

Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art. Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern. The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party. The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.

i hope you are not alone on election night this year

 

[Bern80]

I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.

It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first?

RIP pea brain...

Am I required to buy a car? No. You said you are for expanding individual freedom. Removing choice is a restriction of freedom. Either you are lieing about the former or feel an exception must be made for the later. Pick one.

IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...

Still dodging. That says enough for me about the credibility of your position. Why am I required to pay in advance? That's not required even with insurance. You think doctors can figure the bill before they even do anything for me? Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well ok, responding to the OP.

Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.

AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?

Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.

So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.

I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.

The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?_r=1

 

[daveman]

Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art. Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern. The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party. The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.

Do you have your "stolen election!!" screeches cued up and ready to roll?

 

[DiveCon]

Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art. Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern. The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party. The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.

Do you have your "stolen election!!" screeches cued up and ready to roll?

dont you hope jokey isnt alone on election night?

 

[daveman]

Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art. Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern. The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party. The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.

Do you have your "stolen election!!" screeches cued up and ready to roll?

dont you hope jokey isnt alone on election night?

Or at least has the Suicide Hotline on speed-dial.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Am I required to buy a car? No. You said you are for expanding individual freedom. Removing choice is a restriction of freedom. Either you are lieing about the former or feel an exception must be made for the later. Pick one.

IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...

Still dodging. That says enough for me about the credibility of your position. Why am I required to pay in advance? That's not required even with insurance. You think doctors can figure the bill before they even do anything for me? Now you're just being ridiculous.

Because having a sizable portion and number of Americans without health care jeopardizes the welfare and security of the nation far more than not having car insurance. Bern80, I had forgotten just how challenged your are when it comes to critical thinking.

HC is legal, it is necessary, period.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives jeopardize the welfare and security of the nation

 

[Bern80]

IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...

Still dodging. That says enough for me about the credibility of your position. Why am I required to pay in advance? That's not required even with insurance. You think doctors can figure the bill before they even do anything for me? Now you're just being ridiculous.

Because having a sizable portion and number of Americans without health care jeopardizes the welfare and security of the nation far more than not having car insurance. Bern80, I had forgotten just how challenged your are when it comes to critical thinking.

Maybe it would, but it's irrelevant. We aren't talking about whether people should have health insurance or not, because the vast majority of people choose to have it anyway. The point is the CHOICE to have it or not. If people think choosing to not have insurance means they're not going to have to pay for services, they are sorely mistaken. They will pay for it one way or the other. If you get saddled with a giant bill because you decided to hedge your bets or something on getting sick or injured, tough shit. Treat the person and send them a bill.

HC is legal, it is necessary, period.

You call me mentally challenged and follow that up with this retarded statement? Word to the wise, review your wording for clarity in the future. Are you really trying to suggest that I am saying hospitals and doctors (Health Care) are not legal?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well ok, responding to the OP.

Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.

AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?

Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.

So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.

I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.

The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?_r=1

My guess is this was an attempt to prove the quoted post in error. As such it indicated the total lack of understanding of the subject matter, just like Obama did in his State of the Union address.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...

Still dodging. That says enough for me about the credibility of your position. Why am I required to pay in advance? That's not required even with insurance. You think doctors can figure the bill before they even do anything for me? Now you're just being ridiculous.

Because having a sizable portion and number of Americans without health care jeopardizes the welfare and security of the nation far more than not having car insurance. Bern80, I had forgotten just how challenged your are when it comes to critical thinking.

HC is legal, it is necessary, period.

No one is actually debating the legality of the new law, that would be absurd. The actual question is not is it legal, but is it Constitutional. If you knew anything about our legal system you would understand this, so you have just proven your complete lack of qualification to even discuss this topic.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Medicare and Social Security are constitutional. End of that subject. Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.

Talk about a strawman. Tell me what are you required to purchase under Medicare and Social Security?

 

[8537]

Medicare and Social Security are constitutional. End of that subject. Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.

Talk about a strawman. Tell me what are you required to purchase under Medicare and Social Security?

Medical insurance and a retirement plan.

 

[DiveCon]

Medicare and Social Security are constitutional. End of that subject. Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.

Talk about a strawman. Tell me what are you required to purchase under Medicare and Social Security?

Medical insurance and a retirement plan.

no, you aren't
you can CHOOSE to

 

[8537]

Talk about a strawman. Tell me what are you required to purchase under Medicare and Social Security?

Medical insurance and a retirement plan.

no, you aren't
you can CHOOSE to

Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.

 

[DiveCon]

Medical insurance and a retirement plan.

no, you aren't
you can CHOOSE to

Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.

ah, i see what you mean now
i thought you were saying you had to buy ANOTHER plan

 

[daveman]

Medical insurance and a retirement plan.

no, you aren't
you can CHOOSE to

Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.

You have to purchase those from the government. Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.

 

[8537]

no, you aren't
you can CHOOSE to

Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.

ah, i see what you mean now
i thought you were saying you had to buy ANOTHER plan

Oh - I should have been a bit less snippy and a bit more clear