Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
StormKing Send message Joined: 6 Nov 00 Posts: 456 Credit: 2,887,579 RAC: 0 |
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; Thank you for your post, at least you quote evidence. My question: It is possible that what you are refering to is medicare/medicaid ? The definition of "general welfare" is vague at best. Furthermore, I am more interested in wether what Obama is doing is constitutional. No one is proposing universal healthcare here in the states (no bills have been proposed in congress). The constitution "might" support universal healthcare. But does it support Obamacare which is not fair or universal? It seems to just be another way to distribute wealth. If the constitution did support obamacare, why can't our represenrtatives answer a simple question? |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
the reason they made so many things vague is that they were not able to see the future. They also knew that we'd have to have a bit of breathing room with the document. Had they not wanted people to have something it would have been enumerated. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
StormKing Send message Joined: 6 Nov 00 Posts: 456 Credit: 2,887,579 RAC: 0 |
the reason they made so many things vague is that they were not able to see the future. They also knew that we'd have to have a bit of breathing room with the document. Had they not wanted people to have something it would have been enumerated. The powers of congress are strictly enumerated, all other powers are granted to the states and to the people. See amendment X. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
exactly and one of the powers stated is to promote the general welfare. Are we reading the same words here? being that it says promote the general welfare one can infer that this is has intentionally been made ambiguous. They couldn't forsee our future needs but gave themselves bre... why am I repeating myself. Fine believe what you want. For you its not there. apparently they used ink that only half the people can read In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
You are both reading half the document. Promote the general welfare is the reason they can act. What things they can act on to do that is the strict list. |
StormKing Send message Joined: 6 Nov 00 Posts: 456 Credit: 2,887,579 RAC: 0 |
The powers of congress are laid out in the constitution (article 1, section 8). All other powers are reserved to the states (Amendment X). Further explanation: At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution. The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution? That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not." --George Mason economics professor Walter E. Williams |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
Didn't read your post only who wrote it. George Mason U Isn't the stellar University you'd think a founding fathers name would imply. It is however a very very very Conservative University. Unfortunately, this university is more of a Neocon think tank than actual university. people go there to not learn but reaffirm what they assume they already know about the world. Sadly the information provided is severely tainted and highly unreliable In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
The powers of congress are laid out in the constitution (article 1, section 8). All other powers are reserved to the states (Amendment X). It could be argued that a national healthcare plan is a regulation of commerce between the States, Healthcare is a commercial enterprise afterall. Would that qualify such a proposal under the enumerated powers of Congress? Regulate to control or direct by a rule, principle, method To control a commercial enterprise that spans the several states does appear to be implicit in the language of Article 1 Section 8, or am I willfully misreading it? "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;", surely the most control of commerce is achieved by owning the enterprise? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
just remember that by owning it it means that we are taking control of it ourselves. Remember that we are the Gov't much to the folks in DC's dismay. So I'd rather have a universal health care as an option. Honesty I just did my annual insurance renewal at work yesterday and they've increase the cost and reduced services again. the only thing that got better was the generic prescription cost which dropped from $10 to $5. unfortunately this becomes moot when you consider many pharmacies are selling major name generics at $4. My non generics went from $30 to $35. They also listened to my complaints about "non formalary drugs" drugs that are being used as intended but not what they want me to use. they changed the legal name to "non-Preferred"... Jerks. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
StormKing Send message Joined: 6 Nov 00 Posts: 456 Credit: 2,887,579 RAC: 0 |
The powers of congress are laid out in the constitution (article 1, section 8). All other powers are reserved to the states (Amendment X). You have a point if the current plan in congress could be called regulation. I am not convinced creating a public option could be called regulation (or whatever they plan on providing the public). Perhaps what is needed is more effective regulation? There is no doubt costs are out of control. Almost forgot, you cannot sell health insurance across state lines (unfortunate). |
StormKing Send message Joined: 6 Nov 00 Posts: 456 Credit: 2,887,579 RAC: 0 |
just remember that by owning it it means that we are taking control of it ourselves. Remember that we are the Gov't much to the folks in DC's dismay. So I'd rather have a universal health care as an option. At least we agree on one thing: insurance companies are JERKS! |
StormKing Send message Joined: 6 Nov 00 Posts: 456 Credit: 2,887,579 RAC: 0 |
Pretty much sums it up: "[Democrats] are trying on every front to increase the role of government." --Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
Since corporations influence everything that is spat out of DC is it any wonder that the Gubberment wouldn't be involved in more things In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
geo... Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 151 Credit: 1,172,405 RAC: 0 |
After 30 years of destructive deregulation-- we NEED more goverment (re)involvment in MANY areas... |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
I agree that deregulation has harmed more than helped. What is clearly needed is substantial regulation that actually works. We don't need voluntary reporting of industry. It's become plainly clear that when a corporation is in trouble the exec's lie through their teeth until the moment they get caught or the company goes belly up. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
StormKing Send message Joined: 6 Nov 00 Posts: 456 Credit: 2,887,579 RAC: 0 |
After 30 years of destructive deregulation-- Yeah, like regulate who gets elected! lol |
Dena Wiltsie Send message Joined: 19 Apr 01 Posts: 1628 Credit: 24,230,968 RAC: 26 |
Since corporations influence everything that is spat out of DC is it any wonder that the Gubberment wouldn't be involved in more things An admission that Obama is a corporate slave just like the republicans were! |
geo... Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 151 Credit: 1,172,405 RAC: 0 |
After 30 years of destructive deregulation-- Repuglicans already tried that-- via the Supreme Court... |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
I agree that deregulation has harmed more than helped. What is clearly needed is substantial regulation that actually works. We don't need voluntary reporting of industry. It's become plainly clear that when a corporation is in trouble the exec's lie through their teeth until the moment they get caught or the company goes belly up. Like that is a surprise. Their personal pay check is directly tied to what they say about the company. Can you say embezzlement via fraud? Regulation doesn't solve criminal greed. |
Dena Wiltsie Send message Joined: 19 Apr 01 Posts: 1628 Credit: 24,230,968 RAC: 26 |
In order to protect us from banks, congress in it's wisdom has passed several laws to restrict what banks can earn on loaned money. So banks are looking at credit cards for a new improved source of income before the laws take effect. Save us from regulations. Read about it here |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.