Sigh! Your words, not mine. Simply because the Screamers have captured the media spotlight has nothing to do with whether or not what they're saying has any basis in reality. If one listens to their rhetoric it seems it does not. Are you seriously attempting to defend the idea that the upcoming legislation contains such outrageous stipulations as "Death Panels" or the government interfering with doctor-patient relationships? Are you a Medicare user? If you are it kind of blows the whole "government health-care" won't work scenario.

Oh, and you conveniently ignore the main thrust of this clip. I'd love to see you address that instead of simply mimicking the Right Wing slogans the Astroturfe...

Sigh! Your words, not mine. Simply because the Screamers have captured the media spotlight has nothing to do with whether or not what they're saying has any basis in reality. If one listens to their rhetoric it seems it does not. Are you seriously attempting to defend the idea that the upcoming legislation contains such outrageous stipulations as "Death Panels" or the government interfering with doctor-patient relationships? Are you a Medicare user? If you are it kind of blows the whole "government health-care" won't work scenario.

Oh, and you conveniently ignore the main thrust of this clip. I'd love to see you address that instead of simply mimicking the Right Wing slogans the Astroturfers employ. You seem to be angry. Why is that? You are opposed to treating your fellow citizens with compassion and empathy? You think providing healthcare is only for those who can afford it? What the hell is your beef?

With the huge amounts of money involved I don't think it's too off the wall to suggest it comes from the efforts of the insurance and for profit health industry. It's relatively easy to trace the backers of these "grass-roots" movements directly back to the lobbies that are the hand maidens to these very powerful money making enterprises. What surprises me is the amount of suspension of critical thinking that is involved here. Simply by the use of fear and suspicion they were able to make a sizable portion of the population abandon reason and rely instead on fear to negate the facts involved. The average citizen in the US is not very aware of facts but is easily swayed by the boogie-man in t...

With the huge amounts of money involved I don't think it's too off the wall to suggest it comes from the efforts of the insurance and for profit health industry. It's relatively easy to trace the backers of these "grass-roots" movements directly back to the lobbies that are the hand maidens to these very powerful money making enterprises. What surprises me is the amount of suspension of critical thinking that is involved here. Simply by the use of fear and suspicion they were able to make a sizable portion of the population abandon reason and rely instead on fear to negate the facts involved. The average citizen in the US is not very aware of facts but is easily swayed by the boogie-man in the closet. The more educated the citizen is about reality the better able they are to see through this naked attempt at manipulation.

Which brings up the person quoted in the clip. She makes the statement that is heard so often that the government is not responsible for providing much of anything for the people without really thinking about what they say. The government already provides a great deal that benefits the populace. She makes the claim that it's not in the Constitution and here is where she makes her biggest blunder. And it has nothing to do with fact but everything to do with the Right Wings dogma of shrinking government and the idea of laissez-faire corporatism.

I'd bet she would be the first to decry socialized medicine while depending on Medicare! It's hard to battle that type of ignorance.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Cong...

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." -- James Madison, author of the Constitution

Anyone who wishes to comment on the "general welfare" clause would do well to read the Federalist Papers,
as well as Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention. Both make
abundantly clear the meaning and intent of that clause. For example, in
Federalist #41 Madison explained the inclusion of the "general welfare" clause in the Preamble:

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be
inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the
preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than
first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an
enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of
partic...

Anyone who wishes to comment on the "general welfare" clause would do well to read the Federalist Papers,
as well as Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention. Both make
abundantly clear the meaning and intent of that clause. For example, in
Federalist #41 Madison explained the inclusion of the "general welfare" clause in the Preamble:

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be
inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the
preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than
first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an
enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of
particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and
can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity
... what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching
themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the
specifications which limit their import, they had exercised an
unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?

Thank you! Although I disagree. After all, the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution, was not the same nation that we have today. On the one hand, strict interpretation of the Constitution doesn't take into consideration the national and global state of both the society and the economy which is the reality of today. The Constitution is not the Bible. It is a living, breathing document that is by its nature subject to interpretation. The demographic fluidity and economic universality that exists today was unheard of in the 18th century.

You and I disagree on this topic. I feel just as passionately as you do about this. And while we certainly can disagree about our interpretation...

Thank you! Although I disagree. After all, the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution, was not the same nation that we have today. On the one hand, strict interpretation of the Constitution doesn't take into consideration the national and global state of both the society and the economy which is the reality of today. The Constitution is not the Bible. It is a living, breathing document that is by its nature subject to interpretation. The demographic fluidity and economic universality that exists today was unheard of in the 18th century.

You and I disagree on this topic. I feel just as passionately as you do about this. And while we certainly can disagree about our interpretations, the facts that we hear coming from a large segment of the population concerning healthcare simply don't have any evidence to back them up. Most, if not all, of the objections about healthcare reform, are simply false. Their purpose is to scare people instead of informing people. IMO, that is sad.

The Constitution is the basic law of the land. To ignore its actual words, and their actual intended meanings, is to invite a complete breakdown of our basic law order, and the dissolution of our democratic republic.

Luckily for you, the framers of the Constitution gave you just the solution, so you could "expand and adapt" it to "our times". It's called the AMENDMENT process.

To change the Constitution otherwise -- for example, by "interpreting" it in an opposite way from how it was written -- is to violate that very Constitution.

That is why I say liberals (and far too many so-called conservatives) hate the Constitution: they think it's just a "g-d piece of paper" (as GW Bush said) that...

The Constitution is the basic law of the land. To ignore its actual words, and their actual intended meanings, is to invite a complete breakdown of our basic law order, and the dissolution of our democratic republic.

Luckily for you, the framers of the Constitution gave you just the solution, so you could "expand and adapt" it to "our times". It's called the AMENDMENT process.

To change the Constitution otherwise -- for example, by "interpreting" it in an opposite way from how it was written -- is to violate that very Constitution.

That is why I say liberals (and far too many so-called conservatives) hate the Constitution: they think it's just a "g-d piece of paper" (as GW Bush said) that they can make say whatever they want it to say.

It's not, and they can't.

To ignore its actual words, and their actual intended meanings, is to
invite a complete breakdown of our basic law order, and the dissolution
of our democratic republic.

Hyperbole aside, to disagree is not to ignore.

It's called the AMENDMENT process.

Condesension is not the best way to open a dialog.

To change the Constitution otherwise -- for example, by "interpreting"
it in an opposite way from how it was written -- is to violate that
very Constitution.

Ironically, "fact" of how it was written is just as much an interpretation as the view I hold.

That is why I say liberals (and far too many so-called conservatives) hate the Constituti...

read more»

To ignore its actual words, and their actual intended meanings, is to
invite a complete breakdown of our basic law order, and the dissolution
of our democratic republic.

Hyperbole aside, to disagree is not to ignore.

It's called the AMENDMENT process.

Condesension is not the best way to open a dialog.

To change the Constitution otherwise -- for example, by "interpreting"
it in an opposite way from how it was written -- is to violate that
very Constitution.

Ironically, "fact" of how it was written is just as much an interpretation as the view I hold.

That is why I say liberals (and far too many so-called conservatives) hate the Constitution

Again with the hate! How ridiculous. Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is a hater? The more you revert to this type of ideological positioning the more people discount what you have to say.

One can know the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, simply by reading what they wrote about their intent when the Constitution was written. It's not hard to do; their writings are easily accessible, even more so now online. There is simply no need to "interpret the Constitution to your own ends" if you learn exactly what the authors meant when they wrote it.

For example, I have shown quite easily what Madison's intent was regarding the "general welfare," and it certainly was NOT anything like the Left is portraying it now, especially in the area of government takeover of healthcare. There simply is no rebuttal to that original intent (as we've seen, since no one here is reb...

One can know the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, simply by reading what they wrote about their intent when the Constitution was written. It's not hard to do; their writings are easily accessible, even more so now online. There is simply no need to "interpret the Constitution to your own ends" if you learn exactly what the authors meant when they wrote it.

For example, I have shown quite easily what Madison's intent was regarding the "general welfare," and it certainly was NOT anything like the Left is portraying it now, especially in the area of government takeover of healthcare. There simply is no rebuttal to that original intent (as we've seen, since no one here is rebutting it); I suggest you switch gears instead to the actual enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8.

I have taught Constitutional Law at the university level, so I think I'm all set there, thank you. At the same time, I have to agree with you that I should stop saying that liberals (and too many conservatives) "hate the Constitution." Instead, I should be more specific: you hate the actual meaning of the Constitution, as written.

Yeah, you don't sound very scholarly "professor" as any true scholar would know that "interpretation" is never a fixed thing and in fact few documents exists except for the Federalist Papers which it's "original intent" was to sell the ratification of the Constitution to the leaders of the 13 colonies.

Besides, what have I said that shows my "hate" for the Constitution? Nothing, except your interpretation of my words. Convenient, no?

Let me put it this way, if there was absolutely no flexibility in the Constitution it would a dead document, irrelevant to any time other than the first generation after the Revolutionary War.

For example, there are no mentions of telephones, cellphones, e...

Yeah, you don't sound very scholarly "professor" as any true scholar would know that "interpretation" is never a fixed thing and in fact few documents exists except for the Federalist Papers which it's "original intent" was to sell the ratification of the Constitution to the leaders of the 13 colonies.

Besides, what have I said that shows my "hate" for the Constitution? Nothing, except your interpretation of my words. Convenient, no?

Let me put it this way, if there was absolutely no flexibility in the Constitution it would a dead document, irrelevant to any time other than the first generation after the Revolutionary War.

For example, there are no mentions of telephones, cellphones, email, computers or any such things. That means that since they are not in the Constitution, they are not protected by them and your communications can be exploited by the goverment at a whim. It also means the U.S. would have no highway system, no rail no system, no public schools, no modern military or any of those things. In other words it would be stuck in the 1800s.

So, I suggest you go back to those workbooks of yours and give them another look see.

Simply because the Screamers have captured the media spotlight has nothing to do with whether or not what they're saying has any basis in reality. If one listens to their rhetoric it seems it does not.

Simply because the leftist Screamers have captured the media spotlight has nothing to do with whether or not what they're saying has any basis in reality. If one listens to their rhetoric it seems it does not.

Are you seriously attempting to defend the idea that the upcoming legislation contains such outrageous stipulations as "Death Panels" or the government interfering with doctor-patient relationships?

I'm seriously trying to defend the Constitution, nothing mo...

Simply because the Screamers have captured the media spotlight has nothing to do with whether or not what they're saying has any basis in reality. If one listens to their rhetoric it seems it does not.

Simply because the leftist Screamers have captured the media spotlight has nothing to do with whether or not what they're saying has any basis in reality. If one listens to their rhetoric it seems it does not.

Are you seriously attempting to defend the idea that the upcoming legislation contains such outrageous stipulations as "Death Panels" or the government interfering with doctor-patient relationships?

I'm seriously trying to defend the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less. There is no enumerated power in that document that would allow the national government to do what is being proposed. None. Nada. Zilch.

Are you a Medicare user? If you are it kind of blows the whole "government health-care" won't work scenario.

No, I'm not. And you can't seriously be trying to defend that failed program, can you?

Oh, and you conveniently ignore the main thrust of this clip. I'd love to see you address that instead of simply mimicking the Right Wing slogans the Astroturfers employ.

Oh, and you conveniently ignore the main thrust of my argument: that the proposed plan is unconstitutional. I'd love to see you address that instead of simply mimicking the Left Wing slogans the Astroturfers employ.

You are opposed to treating your fellow citizens with
compassion and empathy? You think providing healthcare is only for
those who can afford it?

I am very much in favor of treating
my fellow citizens -- with compassion
and empathy. However, I am opposed to having people with badges and
guns (they're called "government agents," and hey, they're here to help
you) stealing one group's money in order to take a big chunk of it for
themselves, and then give the rest to whichever "group" THEY deem to be
"worthy" of receiving that stolen money. You seem to think that private
companies providing healthcare is some sort of evil sinful crime. It's
not. In fact, it works great -- giving A...

You are opposed to treating your fellow citizens with
compassion and empathy? You think providing healthcare is only for
those who can afford it?

I am very much in favor of treating
my fellow citizens -- with compassion
and empathy. However, I am opposed to having people with badges and
guns (they're called "government agents," and hey, they're here to help
you) stealing one group's money in order to take a big chunk of it for
themselves, and then give the rest to whichever "group" THEY deem to be
"worthy" of receiving that stolen money. You seem to think that private
companies providing healthcare is some sort of evil sinful crime. It's
not. In fact, it works great -- giving America the best health care
system in the world, where NO ONE is ever denied proper care (unlike
Canada, Cuba, etc., where LOTS of people are denied the care they need).

BTW, it's not just "fellow citizens" that get all of that free healthcare in America right now. Go to any emergency room -- it's a rare thing to see a "fellow citizen" getting that free care.

Rat, as I said, you don't hate the Constitution. You simply exhibit a hatred for what the writers of the Constitution actually intended for it to do.

There are a LOT of documents written by the framers of the Constitution, including many many letters, where they make VERY clear what the intent of that document is, in every area. The problem is that most "true scholars" like yourself have never bothered to READ all of those documents, even though they're easily accessible. I have.

And again, I don't claim that there's no "flexibility" in the Constitution; there is a great means of "flexing" it, called the Amendment Process. It's worked wonderfully for over 200 years (unlike the ridiculous "...

Rat, as I said, you don't hate the Constitution. You simply exhibit a hatred for what the writers of the Constitution actually intended for it to do.

There are a LOT of documents written by the framers of the Constitution, including many many letters, where they make VERY clear what the intent of that document is, in every area. The problem is that most "true scholars" like yourself have never bothered to READ all of those documents, even though they're easily accessible. I have.

And again, I don't claim that there's no "flexibility" in the Constitution; there is a great means of "flexing" it, called the Amendment Process. It's worked wonderfully for over 200 years (unlike the ridiculous "judicial review" concept, which gave us Dred Scott and a Civil War). If you want to keep it "relevant," do it the correct way, or don't do it at all.

My communications certainly cannot be "exploited by the government at a whim" just because those tools aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution; that document was written to PREVENT such an occurrence, regardless of the advance of science. It's called "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press," and it's specified in the First Amendment. But hey, thanks to "interpretation" of courts, our "communications" are restricted every hour of every day by the government -- or haven't you noticed?

And again, your statist mentality belies your false conclusions: the Constitution specifies that the national government can create the highway system (Article I, Section 8, Line 7); rail systems can easily be established by private entities, even more so if government gets out of the way; public schools were NEVER the purview of the national government until Jimmy Freaking Carter; and the "modern military" would not only exist, it would be much more bounded and relevant if Article I, Section 8, Line 11 were followed today.

So, I'm thinking... YOU should try reading up a little more, Rat.

As the Supreme Court have said, the Constitution is the "floor" as far
as Rights are concerned, you can not go BELOW the Constitution, but you
can certainly go above it.

It's the Constitution that says that (or something like that -- read the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people." The difference with what YOU are saying is that you think rights are granted BY the government; the Constitution assumes that we already HAVE those rights (people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"), and simply emphasizes some of the more politically important ones...

As the Supreme Court have said, the Constitution is the "floor" as far
as Rights are concerned, you can not go BELOW the Constitution, but you
can certainly go above it.

It's the Constitution that says that (or something like that -- read the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people." The difference with what YOU are saying is that you think rights are granted BY the government; the Constitution assumes that we already HAVE those rights (people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"), and simply emphasizes some of the more politically important ones that government has no right to trample upon.

Also most legislation uses the Congress ability to regulate interstate commerce clause and not the general welfare clause.

That's true. And it's also one of the biggest Constitutional travesties we have faced over the last century or so. The interstate commerce clause has NOTHING to do with 99% of the crap that Congress passes. It's outrageous. Thank you for reminding us.

I never said that the goverment grants rights. Were do you get that idea? Also post roads are not highways as they exist today and you put far too much trust on the private sector and show a distinct lack a knowledge of how the U.S. rail system in the U.S. came to be.

Authorized by the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 and heavily backed by the federal government,
it was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line
and was one of the crowning achievements of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, completed four years after his death. The building of the railroad required enormous feats of engineering and labor in the crossing of plains and high mountains by the Union Pacifi...

I never said that the goverment grants rights. Were do you get that idea? Also post roads are not highways as they exist today and you put far too much trust on the private sector and show a distinct lack a knowledge of how the U.S. rail system in the U.S. came to be.

Authorized by the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 and heavily backed by the federal government,
it was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line
and was one of the crowning achievements of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, completed four years after his death. The building of the railroad required enormous feats of engineering and labor in the crossing of plains and high mountains by the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad,
the two federally chartered enterprises that built the line westward
and eastward respectively. The building of the railroad was motivated
in part to bind the UnionAmerican Civil War. It substantially accelerated the populating of the West by white homesteaders, led to rapid cultivation of new farm lands. The Central Pacific and the Southern Pacific Railroad
combined operations in 1870 and formally merged in 1885; the Union
Pacific originally bought the Southern Pacific in 1901 and was forced
to divest it in 1913, but finally took it over for good in 1996.

together during the strife of the
For every Dred Scott there is a Brown and without the SC court power of interpretation under Marbuy the balance between the three branches of goverment.

As for the current military forces, which are "standing armies" they would not exist in the current capacity since the costume of the day (circa 1800) was to raise armies/call up the militia only when needed.

So it seems that someone should be doing more reading as well.

post roads are not highways as they exist today and you put
far too much trust on the private sector and show a distinct lack a
knowledge of how the U.S. rail system in the U.S. came to be.

What makes you think that highways don't fall under "post roads"? A "post road" is ANY road that mail travels on. Surely you don't think that the USPS avoids our highways?

I trust people acting as private individuals with limited power over others, FAR more than I trust government thugs with unlimited power to do whatever they "interpret" the Constitution to "mean today". And my knowledge of the history of the U.S. rail system is quite good, and doesn't require Wikipedia to augment it, eith...

post roads are not highways as they exist today and you put
far too much trust on the private sector and show a distinct lack a
knowledge of how the U.S. rail system in the U.S. came to be.

What makes you think that highways don't fall under "post roads"? A "post road" is ANY road that mail travels on. Surely you don't think that the USPS avoids our highways?

I trust people acting as private individuals with limited power over others, FAR more than I trust government thugs with unlimited power to do whatever they "interpret" the Constitution to "mean today". And my knowledge of the history of the U.S. rail system is quite good, and doesn't require Wikipedia to augment it, either.

You should read Stephen Abrose's "Nothing Like It In The World: The Men Who Built The Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869".
Ambrose correctly says that the land grants made to the railroads
were not, as has been alleged, sufficient to pay for their
construction. They were, at best, a partial subsidy. Actually, the
land grants were not a subsidy at all, but an inducement. The
Congressional land grants consisted of alternating sections of land
about the line of the railroad. By inducing construction of the
railroad by granting these alternating sections, the federal government
was able to sell the sections it retained at double the former price.
Considering that the federal government greatly accelerated the pace of
its land sales, as well as obtained certain considerations from the
railroads, the federal government made a profit from its so-called
subsidy.

Ambrose also correctly says that the "subsidy bonds" of the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific were not "a gift" but "a loan." That is, the subsidy bonds had to be repaid (with interest). To be precise, there was a subsidy involved. The companies forming the first transcontinental railroad received, in addition to a land grant, a loan from the U.S. Treasury. Specifically, they were allowed to sell a certain amount of first mortgage bonds for every mile of road completed, depending on location, and an equal amount of second mortgage bonds guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury.

The real story of the first transcontinental railroad, and for that matter, the second and the third, and for that ...

Ambrose also correctly says that the "subsidy bonds" of the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific were not "a gift" but "a loan." That is, the subsidy bonds had to be repaid (with interest). To be precise, there was a subsidy involved. The companies forming the first transcontinental railroad received, in addition to a land grant, a loan from the U.S. Treasury. Specifically, they were allowed to sell a certain amount of first mortgage bonds for every mile of road completed, depending on location, and an equal amount of second mortgage bonds guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury.

The real story of the first transcontinental railroad, and for that matter, the second and the third, and for that matter, any private enterprise, is not simply the political and engineering obstacles overcome in its construction. It is that their financing is secured from investors who are free to consider other opportunities. (Admittedly, the subsidy bonds of the first transcontinental railroad made raising the necessary capital a bit easier to do.) Then, once opened for business, the companies involved cover their operating expenses and make a profit, if they are able to, by selling goods and services to customers that likewise are free to consider their alternatives.

What President or General ever covered the cost of his achievements in such a manner?

For every Dred Scott there is a Brown and without the SC court power of
interpretation under Marbuy the balance between the three branches of
goverment.

Don't you see the inanity of your own statement, right there in black and white? Seriously?

As for the current military forces, which are "standing armies" they
would not exist in the current capacity since the costume of the day
(circa 1800) was to raise armies/call up the militia only when needed.

I assume you mean "custom." And that is my point exactly: The framers of the Constitution understood all too well what "standing armies" with unlimited power would do to freedom and liberty, since they had just endur...

For every Dred Scott there is a Brown and without the SC court power of
interpretation under Marbuy the balance between the three branches of
goverment.

Don't you see the inanity of your own statement, right there in black and white? Seriously?

As for the current military forces, which are "standing armies" they
would not exist in the current capacity since the costume of the day
(circa 1800) was to raise armies/call up the militia only when needed.

I assume you mean "custom." And that is my point exactly: The framers of the Constitution understood all too well what "standing armies" with unlimited power would do to freedom and liberty, since they had just endured that very thing under Great Britain. That's why the limits on the ability to declare war were inserted into the Constitution, as well as the limits on quartering of soldiers in the Third Amendment and the 2-year limit on raising an army for a constitutionally-declared war. It's because we abandoned the Constitution's restrictions, thanks to your precious Judicial Review, that we are now bogged down in yet ANOTHER undeclared "war" -- one which Obama is now more than happy to continue. So much for the "candidate of change" -- he's Bush's third term.

atLiberal says:

(blah, blah)"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare...

It's that little phrase about the general welfare! My guess is that after being shown this she still wouldn't walk away. What idiots. Sound and fury and no substance at all."

atLiberal, it is YOU who should have been paying attention when the Constitution was taught! The Preamble merely explains the reasons WHY the Government is formed and why this particular Constitution was written. Articles 1-7 actually lay down the rules by which we hope to achieve the grand benef...

atLiberal says:

(blah, blah)"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare...

It's that little phrase about the general welfare! My guess is that after being shown this she still wouldn't walk away. What idiots. Sound and fury and no substance at all."

atLiberal, it is YOU who should have been paying attention when the Constitution was taught! The Preamble merely explains the reasons WHY the Government is formed and why this particular Constitution was written. Articles 1-7 actually lay down the rules by which we hope to achieve the grand benefits called for in the Preamble. Let me make it crystal clear in case you're still not getting it: the Preamble is not Law, it is merely flowery language. Article 1 is Law, and in Section 8, it enumerates the powers being delegated at the national level to the Federal government. Nowhere among those powers is anything related to medicine or health care. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1925, 1936, and again in 1978 that the Federal Government has no authority to regulate the practice of Medicine in the several states.

Some may claim that Article 1 Section 8 does not address the question of rights - and they would be correct. The Bill of Rights of course lists no right to health care or medical care; in fact, article 10 of the Bill of Rights reiterates that any powers NOT delegated to the Federal Government (or prohibited to the states), are reserved to the respective states or the people. Sounds pretty conclusive; if Article 1 Section 8 gives the Federal Govt no power over medicine or healthcare (and it does), then the 10th Amendment expressly reserves those powers to the states or the people. Federal pretensions to authority in this area are merely the usurpations of demagogues hoping to buy votes by unlawfully taking money from taxpayers for something they have no

(continued)
...no right to do.

Having lost most of my post due to the length limitation, I'll just say this: The Federal Government has no regulatory power over medicine and healthcare, according to the Supreme Court. You and a million freeloaders wanting it to doesn't change that fact. Obama and 500 congresspersons igonoring that fact doesn't make it go away. Everyone today claiming a "right" to health care or that health care is within the Federal government's sphere of authority is an ignoramus or a liar at best, an enemy of the Republic at worst.

So, are the Supreme Court justices who made these ulings "morons" too, or will you be taking a refresher course on the Constitution?...

(continued)
...no right to do.

Having lost most of my post due to the length limitation, I'll just say this: The Federal Government has no regulatory power over medicine and healthcare, according to the Supreme Court. You and a million freeloaders wanting it to doesn't change that fact. Obama and 500 congresspersons igonoring that fact doesn't make it go away. Everyone today claiming a "right" to health care or that health care is within the Federal government's sphere of authority is an ignoramus or a liar at best, an enemy of the Republic at worst.

So, are the Supreme Court justices who made these ulings "morons" too, or will you be taking a refresher course on the Constitution? Of course, I only expect you to call me names too and pigheadedly hold on to your demonstrably false position; but that is standard operating procedure for socialists, right: "A big lie, told often enough, becomes the truth".

If someone is going to site the SC with dates, please make sure you add the case law, you know with the specific cases. I bet that those cases sighted talk about licensing of doctors, which is within each individual State (as is the licensing of all professionals such as lawyers and architects) and not the regulation of insurance companies (interstate commerce) nor does it prevent the Government from providing funds to establish a national healthcare system.

There is in fact not such case law that I know off and considering that Medicaid and Medicare are still standing, whatever case law exists points in favor of the Federal goverment.

But it is hard to argue when people bandy words like ...

If someone is going to site the SC with dates, please make sure you add the case law, you know with the specific cases. I bet that those cases sighted talk about licensing of doctors, which is within each individual State (as is the licensing of all professionals such as lawyers and architects) and not the regulation of insurance companies (interstate commerce) nor does it prevent the Government from providing funds to establish a national healthcare system.

There is in fact not such case law that I know off and considering that Medicaid and Medicare are still standing, whatever case law exists points in favor of the Federal goverment.

But it is hard to argue when people bandy words like "freedloaders" about. And using such hyperbolic language as "enemy of the Republic" can't then complain when people fire back.

What we have is two visions of the nation: a mythical view stuck in circa 1800 (when convenient) and a realist view that lies firmly in the present.

I chose reality over myth any day of the week.