Reply With Quote
they'd say the commerce clause.
but I'm not entirely convinced yet.
What are you talking about?
NM. Their opinion doesn't count because some of them owned slaves.
they'd say the commerce clause.
but I'm not entirely convinced yet.
Yeah they haven't done that in like, have they ever done that?
I'm baffled by the argument that the Cons ution is in any meaningful way implicated by this health care bill.
But it's hardly a surprise that Wild Cobra's response to legislation that he dislikes is to immediately make a vague claim that the legislation infringes upon some cons utional right.
What comes next is Wild Cobra's effort to construe the Cons ution in some entirely unique fashion.
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Cons ution To Be
ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Cons ution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.
"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Cons ution derives not from a close reading of the do ent but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."
According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Cons ution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.
"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Cons ution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."
"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Cons ution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the do ent was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."
According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Cons ution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."
Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Cons ution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."
"And let's not forget that when the Cons ution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.
Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Cons ution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.
"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Cons ution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."
Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Cons ution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.
"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."
"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."
http://www.theonion.com/content/news...te_defender_of
Wild Cobra, like all dittoheads, wraps every one of his warped views in the flag, the cons ution, and libertarianism (the last one is really hilarious). You don't like his interpretation, then get the out of the country because you're not a real American and are a threat to his fascist utopia.
What other products/services are required by the federal government to be purchased by all citizens as a condition of their existence (as opposed to say, a passport or postage)? And, yes, under which Article of the Cons ution is that permitted?
I have no idea, I'm not a cons utional scholar. I don't know if it's federal, but I'm pretty sure every single state requires auto insurance be purchased by anyone who wants to drive. Lest they become a risk to the overall system.
Now, if people want to sign away their rights to the healthcare system, commit to not using it when they become ill, that's fine. But it seems like there's at least some precedent calling insurance a requisite for a populace that intends to use a particular service.
Certainly these state requirements aren't called into question, at least legally, by anyone using a cons utional argument.
Difference is, you are required to purchase auto insurance for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on a public road.
I heard a Cons utional lawyer say this morning that Congress can impose taxes for the General Good, and that personal mandate to buy health insurance would be interpreted by SCOTUS as a tax and for the General Good.
I'm completely for a personal mandate, but only if the insurance is available under a public option.
The health insurance companies have successfully bribed enough Congressional s to force citizens to buy their ty products, a truly disastrous precedent.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-18-2010 at 03:42 PM.
Sure, possible, given that the Cons ution has been deconstructed over the years to mean whatever will expand the scale and scope of the federal government.
Of course, the robustness of the national economy, or the enhancement thereof, could also be deemed to be part of the "General Good." So perhaps we'll be required to spend a certain amount of our incomes and wealth to enhance the General Good soon enough. Or, there's always unintended consequences of finding what you want at the time in the Cons ution.
On the other hand, is a health insurance mandate inherently uncons utional?
I haven't seen that argument made anywhere. It's just all death panels and British people dying in the streets.
I'm not really even for that; universal health care is the best route, but a public option is the best anyone could ever hope for in a nation whose "center" is so far to the right.
Ah okay, but like I said, they can opt out, not drive.
Now obviously we don't have a public healthcare system, such as we do roadways. Therefore, the private sector provides the only existing option for healthcare. And so this system largely finds itself performing the services of what would be a public healthcare system, for the uninsured. At least to a degree. Which drives my costs up as an insured citizen. Which makes me feel like the uninsured are a threat to the system, to the responsibly insured like myself. Just like an uninsured driver were to be.
Now you show me the guy who gets cancer, doesn't have insurance, and just says, ' it,' and I'll admit I'm wrong.
But the way I see it, uninsured people having access to my healthcare system, however limited the access, is just driving up my costs and the burden taken on by the private sector. Rather than deny them care, it might be best that we simply require they assume responsibility for their inevitable participation in America's healthcare system?
Last edited by balli; 01-18-2010 at 03:41 PM.
Then there's the provision that an insurer cannot deny someone signing up with a pre-existing condition. Quite conceivable that many will not obtain insurance until they are sick, and will pay whatever fine for not having insurance.
Costs are driven up by improvements in the quality of care, paying for routine, small medical expenditures through a 3rd party payer (the price to the insured is much less than full price), and doctors seeking to make an extra buck from the insurer. As long as you want a top down approach with various mandates, cost control doesn't come except through some sort of rationing or forced economizing. Not to mention that paying less and expecting the same quality of care takes some faith.
If you want to expand coverage, provide a subsidy to those who want it and can't afford it, and be done with it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other things which politicians could deem to be in the interest of the General Good and require you to buy.
"you are required to purchase auto insurance for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on a public road."
The uninsured are privileged to get "safety net" medical care from public (taxpayer supported) hospitals MANDATED to turn away no one.
If public hospitals could turn away the uninsured (let that hemorrhaging mother and baby both die), then the uninsured should be able to stay uninsured. But that ain't the case.
public hospitals are one of the very few humanitarian/civilized aspects of US health care.
Universal coverage should be supported by universal (uncapped) contributions.
Obviously a more robust economy would reduce welfare expenditures so let's require everyone to spend more to stimulate the economy. Or, down with evil repug pitbull savers.
Further, let's bear in mind that the current bill, IIRC, requires working and middle class Americans to be forced to pay Fortune 500 companies a rather significant part of their income. Not that being forced to buy something from Uncle Sam would be that different. So much for personal liberty, so much for the Democratic Party as the party of the little guy. But we know what's best for you...
But yeah, why should one expect that the Cons ution would be anything more than a speed bump to the latest and greatest bad idea of state expansion?
"require everyone to spend more to stimulate the economy"
I read an economist saying disease (health care) has become a major driver of the economy.
Ain't America Just Beautiful?
Most of the national health budget is from self-inflicted and corporate-inflicted, ie, elective diseases (aka, modifiable risk factors).
"requires working and middle class Americans to be forced to pay Fortune 500 companies a rather significant part of their income"
That's the status quo, has been as long as employee health plan costs have been forcibly taken off the employees' paycheck and handed to the health insurers.
A direct subsidy, tax deductible for the employer, to health insurers with employee salary.
It's a in racket, sucking wealth out of everybody's pockets.
Right, so double down instead of addressing the actual reason that's occurred? That's the true racket. But, of course, we cannot expect individuals to take care of themselves and their families. Their hands must be held. Better, they must be instructed by the wise.
That's why you are a totally ignorant head. You assume the most insane things.
You should go your mother so she can have another baby for the welfare.
Sorry, just because you have such experience, doesn't mean others want it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions