Jump to content

Obamacare vs. the U.S. Constitution


NDFan4Life
 Share

Recommended Posts

I dont think anyone here is in need of condemnation, we can make our point and call them to answer the questions.

 

If they choose not to answer by attacking the sources or the poster or by changing the subject, that is their problem.

 

By lowering yourself to the level of their tactics you undermine our argument and give them an easy way to dodge the substantial questions which we pose. on top of that this can and should be a friendly discussion... lets try and keep it that way.

 

Condemning behavior is different from condemning people.

Here is what I wrote:

It's immoral and should be called out as such - that's the right thing to do, to disparage and condemn immoral behavior.

 

We are all called as Christians to condemn evil and immoral behavior as long as we don't do it self-righteously or hypocritically. Nothing wrong with that at all.

 

By no means are we lowering ourselves to their level when we speak the truth any more than when Jesus called out the bad behavior of the Pharisee's and called them and their ancestors hypocrites and vipers:

 

23 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, hypocrites that you are! You pay tithes on mint, fennel, and caraway seed, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and good faith. These last you ought to have put into practice, without neglecting the first. 24 You blind guides, to strain out a gnat and to swallow a camel! 25 Woe to you, teachers of law and Pharisees, hypocrites that you are! You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are filled with the results of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the dish, so that the outside may become clean as well.

Edited by RockneDrive
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Cali, what is you point with that spending list?

 

That too much goes to defense? Ok. this is BO's budget... take it up with him.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand, healthcare.

 

To me it does have something to do with it... We spend so much in defense and no one cares, but wanting to spend more on health care is bad, evil... It is Barack budget and it makes me sick he increased the stranglehold of the military industrial complex... I used it as a example of what we can spend to kill others around the world, why can't we spend more to help keep people alive..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are making an error in claiming that people are dying from a lack of insurance. or noting that you find the poor's lack of insurance offensive.

 

Correct me if i am wrong, but it is really the lack of affordable healthcare you find troubling, right?

 

Insurance is a way for people with limited financial means, to share the risks amongst a group of individuals. Through the CHOICE to participate in such a plan one MAY limit ones exposure to certain events. But in order for this to work everyone in the plan must contribute.

 

This is completely separate from those who lack the means to contribute to an insurance plan. Charity must be separated from this argument. IF you wish propose charity hospitals for those who cannot contribute equitably to an insurance plan fine, let's talk about that. I honestly think you are allowing the rhetoric to confuse the true issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it does have something to do with it... We spend so much in defense and no one cares, but wanting to spend more on health care is bad, evil... It is Barack budget and it makes me sick he increased the stranglehold of the military industrial complex... I used it as a example of what we can spend to kill others around the world, why can't we spend more to help keep people alive..

 

Ok, i agree, that is too much spending on defense.

 

Just because there is one mistake why would you then use it to justify another waste of money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this liberal/conservative hokus is just that. I am not a liberal. I have voted for one democrat in my 32 years of voting. That should tell you something.

Someone said that Reagan was like Obama in that he was a socialist. I think they missed the point. The political philosophy shared by Reagan and Obama has to do with being Centrists. They each realized that the political parties as currently constituted only appeal to the extremist points of view. And the parties choose to did this because it was expedient. There's money in it. If you can appeal to emotions, you can open checkbooks. And mostly that's what is being argued here. Emotions. Obama and Reagan both realized that the center was just sitting there waiting to be appealed to. And they openly courted them.

But my point goes more to the causes of the recession. The recession came about due to several stresses within the economic structure. One was the housing bubble, which went hand in hand with the banking crisis, causing it along with deregulation. Another was escalating fuel and oil prices. And the other leg of this trifecta was rising health care costs. The out of control inflation within the housing and real estates markets, the oil and the health care industries brought this economy to its knees. Most economist will tell you within any economic system a little inflation is good, it's to be expected and even encouraged. But rampant inflation is the death knell. The problem with our economy was that the inflation in these fields was far exceeding the normal rate of inflation. Since it was limited to these three fields, it wasn't as controllable by regulating of interest rates as most inflation is. And the thing is,these three fields are necessary to life. You can't live in this society without shelter. You can't live and have a job without transportation. And you can't live without being healthy. This created so much heat within the system that something had to break. And it did.

So it has to be fixed if our economy is going to get healthy again. The housing market has went through an adjustment. the fuel and oil speculation has at least slowed down. But nothing has been done about the health care leg of this. And until it is fixed or at least modulated, the economy won't get strong again. We need some fix. I don't know that a universal health care system will fix the problem entirely, as it only works on one end of the problem, but it is a start. The bigger problem is controlling the costs. And another problem, and this should appeal to the conservatives in the crowd, is the breakup of the influence peddling and power that the healthcare and insurance companies wield within our system. Undue influence is anathema to a successful capitalistic society.

Edited by rocketsurgery
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People's good health is not a waste of money to me...

 

to you...

 

appealing to a gross mis-allocation of funds as a comparison does your position no favors. rather it places it in proximity to something which characterizes the governments mis-management of resources.

 

and again, you have not addressed the idea that insurance and healthcare are not the same thing. you choose to seize on this and ignore the issue questioning the foundation of your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my morals come from the bible so I believe I have a duty to help the weakest and most vulnerable among us... For me it is a simple question what would Jesus do? Really what would he do if a person was dieing on the streets because he had no health insurance, would Jesus say get up and pull yourself up by your boot straps.. Or would Jesus say let me help you up and help heal you.. To me Jesus would do the latter, I believe charties have failed to provide enough assitance to these people.. So that is why I believe government should step in and help...To me it is a moral obligation for my government to do that... Your view is different from that so it is what it is. It does not help to be called evil by some people here because this is what you want to seen done by our government..

 

 

 

WWJD is such a trite statement. Nontheless, Jesus did not call governments to take care of the poor and feed the hungry, he called individuals. It is not the government's legitimate role to give charity. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's. Jesus called you and me to do His work, he did not call Ceasar or his army or his minions to do that. The biblical role of government is as God's arm for civil justice and punishment, not to be a provider. Government is a protector and defender of rights, not a provider of benefits.

 

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

vs2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

vs3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; vs4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

 

Edited by RockneDrive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We are the government. We have no Caesar here. What the government does, we do. It's the price of having a representative government. We are responsible for our government's action.

 

Having said that, I guess from your comment we should give all of our money to the government (Caesar) as it has a picture of various presidents (et al) on it.

 

All of this talk of not legislating morals is pretty funny coming from the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government the Founding Fathers envisioned was one with limited powers and not pervasive powers as we have today. They were skeptical of government power, not trusting of it. They outlined the proper role as one of being a protector of inalienable rights, not to be a mommy and daddy to everyone doling out benefits by extracting money from other people's earnings.

 

They basically said that the federal government should have the following roles:

 

1. Protect individuals from foreign enemies. This is why it is appropriate to spend large sums of money on the military.

2. Protect individuals from those inside the country who wish to do harm to another individual or steal his/her private property. This is why we have a police force and other law enforcement.

3. To arbitrate disuputes among free individuals when they cannot agree on whose rights are superior. This is why we have a court system.

 

These are the primary functions of our federal government as outlined in their writings. Add in infrastructure, highways, and interstate commerce and you have what the Founding Fathers desired and wrote about in our Constitution.

 

Read the Federalist Papers to get more insight into what they had in mind. In those letters, they sought to explain the Constitution to others. Here are some thoughts from some of the Founding Fathers:

 

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry

 

“…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” – Ben Franklin

 

 

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own. James Madison

 

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

 

It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention, December 2, 1829

 

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

 

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

Edited by RockneDrive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

several of those same "fathers' also saw no problem with the ownership of slaves. In fact, most of them owned some.

I guess we should have never infringed on the right to own slaves.

 

Also they said all men were created equal. Nothing about women, who weren't allowed to vote.

I guess we should revert to that,too.

 

The one enduring greatness of this country is its ability to adapt to changing times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

several of those same "fathers' also saw no problem with the ownership of slaves. In fact, most of them owned some.

I guess we should have never infringed on the right to own slaves.

 

Also they said all men were created equal. Nothing about women, who weren't allowed to vote.

I guess we should revert to that,too.

 

The one enduring greatness of this country is its ability to adapt to changing times.

Here is where you and I start to quickly deviate. The Constitution should not be re-interpreted to fit the goals of the current Congress. The Constitution should be treated as is, unless someone wants to create an amendment to change it. A process exists by which the document can be changed; it is long and drawn out for a reason. Simply dismissing portions of it because "they are outdated" is no where close to a strong enough reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

 

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 Offenses 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.

 

*****

 

All the laws passed are subject to possible judicial review. If Congress passes a bill that the Supreme Court finds is in violation of the Constitution, the means exist for it to be thrown out. If we are to use Rockne's extreme narrow interpretation, then whole masses of current legislation will need to be thrown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

several of those same "fathers' also saw no problem with the ownership of slaves. In fact, most of them owned some.

 

 

This a fallacious argument called poisoning the well:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

  1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
  2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.

Yes some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves but that doesn't mean that they weren't brilliant statesmen and geniuses who founded this country which has been the envy of the world. They made it possible for us to be free and crafted a document to assure there wouldn't be the kind of tyranny they had to face. To attempt to dismiss their accomplishments because they owned slaves is a feeble attempt to ignore all of the good they did and that they made it possible for so many millions of people to live free from tyranny.

 

Now the current administration is doing all that it can to bastardize the Constitution and take away our freedoms. That's why we need to kick this socialist bum and his buddies out next election.

Edited by RockneDrive
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rock

 

you are a funny guy. Setting up a fallacious argument by claiming a fallacious argument is downright brilliant. Got to hand it to you on that one.

 

In no way was a attempting to dismiss the brilliance of the founding fathers, as should be obvious. And to move the attack to me personally smacks of desperation.

 

I am not going to go any further into this as I can see that it is a dead end argument with you. And if you want to count that as a victory, so be it.

 

The thread is yours. Good luck with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So mandated auto insurance is unconstitutional! I need to call my congressman immediately!

 

Try reading the Constitution. Mandating auto insurance IS unconstitutional. If it's not specifally enumerated, the federal government can't do it - remember that pesky little amendment referring to that? And that all else is left to the people and to the states? If a particular state wants to mandate it, it can; if another does not, it doesn't have to, but if the fed mandates it, all of the states SHALL!

 

Duh!

Edited by RockneDrive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article in the first post:

 

“If Congress constitutionally can command that one buy health insurance, it can command that everyone over age 21 buy a GM car to bail out GM or, for that matter, buy a gun or, in lieu thereof, pay a fine,” says Manhattan attorney Leo Kayser III. “Under the rubric of regulating commerce, we would have no effective protection from any edict that Congress might impose on citizens to enhance commerce in whatever way Congress decides.”

 

Beyond this lies another problem. The individual mandate would be enforced by penalizing Americans $495 or 0.5 percent of Adjusted Gross Income, whichever is higher, if they do not acquire health insurance by 2014. Two years later, that fine would rise to 2 percent of AGI, equal to $640 today. Anticipated fines total some $15 billion.

 

And this:

 

Congress’s legitimate power to regulate interstate commerce has been stretched like saltwater taffy. “It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity,” Sen. Orrin Hatchhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (R., Utah), former Ohio secretary of state J. Kenneth Blackwell, and the American Civil Rights Union’s Kenneth Klukowski observed in the January 2 Wall Street Journal. “That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind.”

 

 

And finally:

 

“Without precedent, Congress is attempting to punish the non-purchase of a private product,” says Robert Levy, senior fellow for constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, which he chairs. “That would be an intolerable affront to the Constitutionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif and personal autonomy.”

 

Edited by RockneDrive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author's last comments drives to the heart of why 0bamacare is unconsitutional:

 

Nonetheless, the individual mandate’s IRS enforcement scheme operates, in essence, as a tax. The hitch is that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Congresshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Section 9 adds that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

 

A penalty collected via the IRS would be a direct tax on individuals, independent of anything reflected in the Census or tied to enumeration of citizens among the states. As such, the individual mandate’s enforcement mechanism would fail Constitutional scrutiny. And a mandate without enforcement is just a suggestion.

 

.....One of the most compelling arguments against Obamacare is that it is self-defeatingly unconstitutional. That is yet another reason why this menacing monster must be silenced.

 

 

 

To which I say AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...