Fire the government
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-10-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: Fire the government
@earmuffs,

Quote:I read these enumerated powers you speak of, it actually took a bit of a digging as my google searches kept giving the 1st amendment, you know, the one where it also say the government has the power to pass laws just so long as they don't infringe on human rights and religion. Anyhow, found these enumerated powers under section 8. The interesting one being where it allows for laws for "the general welfare of the United States". So go suck dick bitch.

Let's see who's sucking cock. Here's the wikipedia page.

The Constitution says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Can you read? Got that? ONLY the powers delegated to the federal in the government are allowed. All others MUST be handled by the states. If the “general welfare” clause meant that the federal government could do anything it wanted, then please explain to me why list a set of enumerated powers and say that the government must have ONLY those powers?

This debate is explained here.

You can see that while the constitution was being crafted, James Madison and others made it clear that the General Welfare clause meant that the federal government could do whatever was needed to fulfill those specific, enumerated powers. None of which include health care, btw. I've never heard anybody seriously dispute that this was the intended meaning.

It was not until AFTER the constitution was ratified that statists wanting a power grab, like Alexander Hamilton, tried to use a bizarre interpretation of 'general welfare' to essentially mean they can do anything they want. Constitutional scholars have pointed out that it defeats the entire of a purpose of having a constitutionally limited Republic. The whole point of the constitution is to limit what government can do. Once you interpret the general welfare clause to mean “The government can do anything it wants if the politicians, in their sole opinion, think it's good”, then there's no point in having a Constitution.

I challenge you to find any serious arguments against this, or any sources that show where the general welfare clause was ever interpreted the way you describe before the Constitution was ratified. If you cannot, then eat your words. YES, the government IS breaking the law of the land (the Constitution).

And, once you understand that, you'll see my comment about James Clapper DOES relate. The reason the government is so out of control is because people don't hold political officials accountable to uphold the rule of law. We agree on the statement: “Of course I think if people break the law than they should suffer the consequences, it doesn't matter if you're a billionaire, welfare beneficiary, politician, celebrity or a fucking founding father...” But is that happening? Obama has launched hundreds of drones and killed thousands of innocent people in countries we aren't at war with, and even killed US citizens with drone strikes, denying them any chance to judicial process. Has he been charged with murder? Clapper perjured himself. Again, no action. Obama has the NSA reading everybody's email and listening to our phone calls in direct violation of the 4th amendment to the constitution he swore to uphold. Anything happen to him?

I ask you this, is there ANYTHING Obama could do that you think would land him in jail? I mean he's murdered people. Nothing. He's wiretapped our phones. Nothing. He's had his staff perjure in a court procedure. Nothing. What would it take for him to actually be held accountable? Now, ask yourself, if someone is put in such a position of absolute power, effectively an elected dictator, who operates above the law with no accountability, can you really be surprised when this shit happens?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like frankksj's post
05-10-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: Fire the government
(05-10-2013 12:37 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote: You know the US Constitution reads "Congress shall pass no law..." and goes on to list the things that Congress is and is not allowed to do, and it then states that anything that falls out of a small list of enumerated powers cannot be passed as law and the Supreme Court has the duty to strike down such laws as constitutional, leaving the matter up to the states to decide.

1) It doesn't say it can't pass law. You're an idiot.

2) I read these enumerated powers you speak of, it actually took a bit of a digging as my google searches kept giving the 1st amendment, you know, the one where it also say the government has the power to pass laws just so long as they don't infringe on human rights and religion. Anywho, found these enumerated powers under section 8. The interesting one being where it allows for laws for "the general welfare of the United States".

So go suck dick bitch.



The 10th amendment, according to mainstream conservative judicial views in the US, holds exactly what you claim is ridiculous--that is that Congress is limited in laws it can pass.

10th amendment text:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That, taken together with the explicit list of powers granted to the Congress in section 8, article 1, is taken by conservative judges as justification for the idea that Congress has a limited list of enumerated powers:

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 an 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 Offences 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, dock-Yards, 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.

earmuffs--you are taking the view of the liberal judicial view in the US that the 10th amendment means nothing. As one of the original bill of rights, it was included specifically with the intent of limiting Congressional power. The Supreme Court, in upholding the Affordable Care Act, explicitly and specifically rejected the claim that it was constitutional simply by being "necessary and proper" or for the General Welfare of the country. It was upheld as Constitutional under Congress's ability to tax and regulate commerce.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Fire the government
@Chas, when you're proven wrong, making personal attacks, like calling me paranoid, just makes you look stupid, imo.

Your original claim was: "The Affordable Care Act does not require you to give up your current health care plan." As @GirlyMan confirmed, while the ACA does benefit some and is a neutral for others, "The law certainly does screw people like you with carefully considered health care management plans", as it denies me access to my current health care plan.

Do you admit that you were wrong for denying this? If not, then find something inaccurate in my detailed explanation. If you admit that your claim was wrong, you'd come out better just saying "My bad, thanks for the clarification", instead of just lashing out with personal attacks and showing that your opinions aren't based on facts because even when it's shown the facts you thought you knew were wrong, your opinion doesn't change.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: Fire the government
(05-10-2013 02:09 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @earmuffs,

Quote:I read these enumerated powers you speak of, it actually took a bit of a digging as my google searches kept giving the 1st amendment, you know, the one where it also say the government has the power to pass laws just so long as they don't infringe on human rights and religion. Anyhow, found these enumerated powers under section 8. The interesting one being where it allows for laws for "the general welfare of the United States". So go suck dick bitch.

Let's see who's sucking cock. Here's the wikipedia page.

The Constitution says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Can you read? Got that? ONLY the powers delegated to the federal in the government are allowed. All others MUST be handled by the states. If the “general welfare” clause meant that the federal government could do anything it wanted, then please explain to me why list a set of enumerated powers and say that the government must have ONLY those powers?

This debate is explained here.

You can see that while the constitution was being crafted, James Madison and others made it clear that the General Welfare clause meant that the federal government could do whatever was needed to fulfill those specific, enumerated powers. None of which include health care, btw. I've never heard anybody seriously dispute that this was the intended meaning.

It was not until AFTER the constitution was ratified that statists wanting a power grab, like Alexander Hamilton, tried to use a bizarre interpretation of 'general welfare' to essentially mean they can do anything they want. Constitutional scholars have pointed out that it defeats the entire of a purpose of having a constitutionally limited Republic. The whole point of the constitution is to limit what government can do. Once you interpret the general welfare clause to mean “The government can do anything it wants if the politicians, in their sole opinion, think it's good”, then there's no point in having a Constitution.

I challenge you to find any serious arguments against this, or any sources that show where the general welfare clause was ever interpreted the way you describe before the Constitution was ratified. If you cannot, then eat your words. YES, the government IS breaking the law of the land (the Constitution).

And, once you understand that, you'll see my comment about James Clapper DOES relate. The reason the government is so out of control is because people don't hold political officials accountable to uphold the rule of law. We agree on the statement: “Of course I think if people break the law than they should suffer the consequences, it doesn't matter if you're a billionaire, welfare beneficiary, politician, celebrity or a fucking founding father...” But is that happening? Obama has launched hundreds of drones and killed thousands of innocent people in countries we aren't at war with, and even killed US citizens with drone strikes, denying them any chance to judicial process. Has he been charged with murder? Clapper perjured himself. Again, no action. Obama has the NSA reading everybody's email and listening to our phone calls in direct violation of the 4th amendment to the constitution he swore to uphold. Anything happen to him?

I ask you this, is there ANYTHING Obama could do that you think would land him in jail? I mean he's murdered people. Nothing. He's wiretapped our phones. Nothing. He's had his staff perjure in a court procedure. Nothing. What would it take for him to actually be held accountable? Now, ask yourself, if someone is put in such a position of absolute power, effectively an elected dictator, who operates above the law with no accountability, can you really be surprised when this shit happens?


Heh...we had essentially the same reply referring to the 10th amendment.

The level of protections against government contained in the US Bill of rights is unusual. Most countries do not have this in their governments or constitutions. A lot of foreigners may also not understand that the main text of the Constitution would not have been adopted without the inclusion of the original first 10 amendments. So concerned were the founders about making the limits of government explicit (rather than implicit) that they refused to adopt the constitution without first amending it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Fire the government
@BryanS, if we accept the Supreme Courts view that the ACA is constitutional because it's technically a tax, consider the ramifications. Bush/Cheney could have ordered all Americans to buy some $100 widget from Halliburton, or else pay a tax of $1000. Or, that we all have to donate to his re-election or pay a massive tax penalty. Or that blacks and latinos need to get themselves castrated or pay a $1 million tax penalty.

Would they still argue that such "taxes" are constitutional? If we use the ACA as precedent, the answer has to be 'yes'. Their argument that the government can tell you to do whatever it wants or else pay a tax is, imo, a really perverse interpretation. Sure, it's not explicitly addressed in the constitution, but it violates basic common sense. Taxes are supposed to be applied uniformly, not targeting specific individuals who refuse to do what you ask.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: Fire the government
(05-10-2013 02:23 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @BryanS, if we accept the Supreme Courts view that the ACA is constitutional because it's technically a tax, consider the ramifications. Bush/Cheney could have ordered all Americans to buy some $100 widget from Halliburton, or else pay a tax of $1000. Or, that we all have to donate to his re-election or pay a massive tax penalty. Or that blacks and latinos need to get themselves castrated or pay a $1 million tax penalty.

Would they still argue that such "taxes" are constitutional? If we use the ACA as precedent, the answer has to be 'yes'. Their argument that the government can tell you to do whatever it wants or else pay a tax is, imo, a really perverse interpretation. Sure, it's not explicitly addressed in the constitution, but it violates basic common sense. Taxes are supposed to be applied uniformly, not targeting specific individuals who refuse to do what you ask.

Although I'm not a Supreme Court justice, I agree with your concern about the tax justification. The court did consider whether the tax amounted to coercion--in which case it would be unconstitutional. The tax is not so high that it practically forces the decision to buy health insurance--people could choose to just not purchase insurance and pay the tax. And the tax phases out for lower incomes, meaning even low income people really don't have t pay it.

The real problem for the Obama admin is that due to the ridiculous costs the (un)Affordable Care Act has added to health care, many of the people that were counted on signing on to buy the insurance will make the rational choice to drop coverage and pay the tax. Now that people can buy insurance after they get sick and still get coverage, why would any rational person pay for any insurance product anymore? Just one more on a long list of perverse incentives created by Obamacare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2013, 03:10 PM
RE: Fire the government
(05-10-2013 02:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As @GirlyMan confirmed, while the ACA does benefit some and is a neutral for others, "The law certainly does screw people like you with carefully considered health care management plans", as it denies me access to my current health care plan.

So fix the law. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, fix the law. The benefits to society by insuring the uninsureable and the otherwise uninsured outweigh your personal heath care management plan. ... You'll adjust your plans ... or not.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2013, 03:17 PM
RE: Fire the government
(05-10-2013 12:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 10:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's the way ALL legislative actions are worked out. You think they sit in their seats, and read the Babble ? There was absolutely NOTHING different about that law. They can vote in people who can change it, if they REALLY want it changed. Meanwhile, there are millions getting covered who otherwise would have no coverage. The leading cause of bankruptcy is unpaid medical bills. We'll see who' right. There is no way Americans who had no coverage will EVER go back to no coverage.

Medicare and Social Security didn't get passed like this, either did the Bush prescription drug benefit. This piece of shit bill left a lot skid marks on the bowl when it went down.

So far it appears very few people have signed up since the exchanges are have opened so it appears that even with Obama care....millions of people are still without coverage.

Actually they did get passed "like this". They were both vehemently fought, (actually far worse than this). The exchanges have been opened a week. Where did you get your stats about who "signed up". Please post them.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2013, 03:51 PM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 03:55 PM by Chas.)
RE: Fire the government
(05-10-2013 02:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Chas, when you're proven wrong, making personal attacks, like calling me paranoid, just makes you look stupid, imo.

Your original claim was: "The Affordable Care Act does not require you to give up your current health care plan." As @GirlyMan confirmed, while the ACA does benefit some and is a neutral for others, "The law certainly does screw people like you with carefully considered health care management plans", as it denies me access to my current health care plan.

Do you admit that you were wrong for denying this? If not, then find something inaccurate in my detailed explanation. If you admit that your claim was wrong, you'd come out better just saying "My bad, thanks for the clarification", instead of just lashing out with personal attacks and showing that your opinions aren't based on facts because even when it's shown the facts you thought you knew were wrong, your opinion doesn't change.

My bad, thanks for the clarification.


My actual point was that most people won't see any change as their plans already are compliant.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2013, 12:07 PM
RE: Fire the government
Quote:So fix the law. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, fix the law. The benefits to society by insuring the uninsureable and the otherwise uninsured outweigh your personal heath care management plan.

@GirlyMan, here's a serious question, that I can't get anybody to answer. Maybe you will.

Remember health care in the US a long time ago was a free market system where patients selected and paid their doctors, who competed to offer the best service at the best price. There were thousands of charity hospitals providing free care to the poor, funded by charitable donations from those better off.

Consider what the US government has done to change health care, but, since we're desensitized to these changes, let's imagine that we were going to make the same changes to automobile care.

First, the government passes laws to fundamentally change the system so that car insurance no longer covers the rare, expensive accidents, but handles every aspect of car repair and maintenance, and the government makes it so that you don't even pick your car insurance company anymore. Your boss does. So, when you want gas or a car wash, you go to the car insurance company which your boss picked, and they will give you a list of gas stations you can go to, and they will pay the gas station, building the cost into your car insurance premiums, with a markup, of course. (This is what the US did to health care during WWII when they fixed wages to curb inflation). Next, the government decides everybody needs access to car care, so they order repairshops to provide repair services to everyone regardless of whether or not you have insurance, or can pay the bill. But the government doesn't regulate the prices the repairshops can charge, so, when poor people without insurance go to get their car repaired, they get a bill that's 10x higher than what the wealthier customers with insurance pay for the same service. And the bills get sent to debt collectors that garnish wages and ruin your credit report, and the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US becomes these car repair bills. The government then allows car companies to patent general basic concepts, as well as things they observe in nature. So, only one company is allowed to use rubber in their tires, only one other company can use wood on their dash, etc. One company can patent round tail-lights, another square tail-lights, etc. And these car companies sue each other non-stop. Plus, the courts allow anybody to sue any car repair company anytime your car doesn't work, and juries award millions in damages. So Americans start going to Mexico and Canada to get their cars repaired, so the US orders them arrested at the border. Now, a lot of people simply opt out of the system and stop driving (just like I opted out of the US medical system and spend most of my time abroad where there's plenty of good, affordable care). So then the government promises to fix the problem, but it's actually the car insurance companies who end up writing the legislation, which then mandate that everybody needs to buy US car insurance, even if you don't have a car or don't live in the US.

Serious question, what do you think would happen to the state of car repair in the US? And so then if somebody says the solution is to have the government get MORE involved in car repair, what would you say? Given that this is exactly what we've done to health care, is it any surprise that health care got messed up the same way?

I will grant you that some countries' governments create systems that do provide good universal healthcare, such as most Western European countries and Canada. But they typically accomplish this by either (a) having governments that aren't so politically divided, are more transparent and accountable, and everybody works together, or (b) like in Canada, defer to the local governments.

The problem is how to fix it. The sad reality is that once the government ordered all hospitals to provide car regardless of the patient's ability to pay, this put an end to all the thousands of charity hospitals that used to provide free care for the poor and elderly. So, there's no way to go back because if the government just pulled out the poor and elderly would be destitute now that the charitable support structure has been dismantled. Therefore, I don't have any good ideas for how we can fix the problem since it's just so badly screwed up now. But I'm skeptical that having the government pass MORE laws is going to make things better.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: