Obama's Foreign Policy.

likethebike wrote:

There's nothing in the constitution to prohibit health coverage.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

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.

Yes - the Constitution does prohibit health coverage and numerous other things that the Federal Government is currently involved in.

Health coverage and everything else not enumerated in the Constitution should be left to the States or private sector.


RKS

The USA is the ONLY idustrialized country in the western world that does not have health care for all is citizens - it is wrong and the time is now to correct this

It's settled then! Then we won't have to flock to Canada for procedures we have to wait months for here. Oh, wait...it's the other way around.

Oh you are so right, we all wait for years in Canada for procedures - please do some research before painting with such a broad uninformed brush.

Here is a list of countries with some form of universal health care;

Afghanistan *Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
Argentina
Austria
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Cuba
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iraq *Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Oman
Portugal
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Spain
Sweden
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Ukraine
United Kingdom

likethebike wrote:

There's nothing in the constitution to prohibit health coverage.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

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.

Yes - the Constitution does prohibit health coverage and numerous other things that the Federal Government is currently involved in.

Health coverage and everything else not enumerated in the Constitution should be left to the States or private sector.


RKS

The USA is the ONLY idustrialized country in the western world that does not have health care for all is citizens - it is wrong and the time is now to correct this

It's settled then! Then we won't have to flock to Canada for procedures we have to wait months for here. Oh, wait...it's the other way around.

Oh you are so right, we all wait for years in Canada for procedures - please do some research before painting with such a broad uninformed brush.

I have done research, for the past year and a half. As I've stated previously, I'm very interested in the viewpoints from those outside our borders, so perhaps instead of insulting me and assuming I'm quoting Glen Beck or something, you can tell me about your experiences with the Canadian health care system.

As I stated earlier, my understanding is that conditions vary from province to province because of a variety of factors, and that there are pros and cons in both the U.S. and Canadian systems, but I have found more than a few studies and reports to substantiate my statement. Aside from that, I've discovered a mountain of antecdotal evidence online, such as: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/ ... re.system/

Jack and Coke, likethebike is correct. If you have never, or you have never met anyone that has had to wait for a procedure or an appointment, you must be a millionaire. My wife is a doctor, I am 34, and I have heard many firsthand stories, and have personally waited.
You are going to argue this?

Here is a list of countries with some form of universal health care;

Afghanistan *Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
Argentina
Austria
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Cuba
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iraq *Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Oman
Portugal
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Spain
Sweden
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Ukraine
United Kingdom

Here is a list of some of Ben and Jerry's flavors:

Bananas on the Rum
Banana Split
Brownie Batter
Butter Pecan
Cake Batter
Cherry Garcia
Chocolate
Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough
Chocolate Fudge Brownie
Chocolate Macadamia
Chocolate Peanut Butter Swirl
Chocolate Therapy
Chubby Hubby
Chunky Monkey
Cinnamon Buns
Coconut Seven Layer Bar
Coffee
Coffee Coffee BuzzBuzzBuzz
Coffee HEATH Bar Crunch
Crème Brûlée
Dave Matthews Band Magic Brownies Encore Edition
Dublin Mudslide
Everything But The...
Fossil Fuel
Goodbye Yellow Brickle Road
Half Baked
Imagine Whirled Peace
Karamel Sutra
Mint Chocolate Chunk
Mint Chocolate Cookie
Mission to Marzipan
Neapolitan Dynamite
New York Super Fudge Chunk
Oatmeal Cookie Chunk
ONE Cheesecake Brownie
Orange & Cream
Peanut Butter Cup
Phish Food
Pistachio Pistachio
S'mores
Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream
Strawberry
Strawberry Cheesecake
Sweet Cream & Cookies
Triple Caramel Chunk
Turtle Soup
Vanilla
Vanilla Caramel Fudge
Vanilla HEATH Bar Crunch
Willie Nelson’s Country Peach Cobbler

Jack and Coke, likethebike is correct. If you have never, or you have never met anyone that has had to wait for a procedure or an appointment, you must be a millionaire. My wife is a doctor, I am 34, and I have heard many firsthand stories, and have personally waited.
You are going to argue this?

No. I'm not going to argue this.

Here is a list of countries with some form of universal health care;

Afghanistan *Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
Argentina
Austria
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Cuba
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iraq *Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Oman
Portugal
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Spain
Sweden
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Ukraine
United Kingdom

Here is a list of some of Ben and Jerry's flavors:

Bananas on the Rum
Banana Split
Brownie Batter
Butter Pecan
Cake Batter
Cherry Garcia
Chocolate
Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough
Chocolate Fudge Brownie
Chocolate Macadamia
Chocolate Peanut Butter Swirl
Chocolate Therapy
Chubby Hubby
Chunky Monkey
Cinnamon Buns
Coconut Seven Layer Bar
Coffee
Coffee Coffee BuzzBuzzBuzz
Coffee HEATH Bar Crunch
Crème Brûlée
Dave Matthews Band Magic Brownies Encore Edition
Dublin Mudslide
Everything But The...
Fossil Fuel
Goodbye Yellow Brickle Road
Half Baked
Imagine Whirled Peace
Karamel Sutra
Mint Chocolate Chunk
Mint Chocolate Cookie
Mission to Marzipan
Neapolitan Dynamite
New York Super Fudge Chunk
Oatmeal Cookie Chunk
ONE Cheesecake Brownie
Orange & Cream
Peanut Butter Cup
Phish Food
Pistachio Pistachio
S'mores
Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream
Strawberry
Strawberry Cheesecake
Sweet Cream & Cookies
Triple Caramel Chunk
Turtle Soup
Vanilla
Vanilla Caramel Fudge
Vanilla HEATH Bar Crunch
Willie Nelson’s Country Peach Cobbler

I was going to reply to your comments on my other post (where you made sense), until I saw this one - and you make no sense at all - the point being from mine above is there must be some reason so many countries have universal coverage, while the US does not...ice cream flavors...come on

likethebike wrote:

There's nothing in the constitution to prohibit health coverage.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

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.

Yes - the Constitution does prohibit health coverage and numerous other things that the Federal Government is currently involved in.

Health coverage and everything else not enumerated in the Constitution should be left to the States or private sector.


RKS

The USA is the ONLY idustrialized country in the western world that does not have health care for all is citizens - it is wrong and the time is now to correct this

It's settled then! Then we won't have to flock to Canada for procedures we have to wait months for here. Oh, wait...it's the other way around.

Oh you are so right, we all wait for years in Canada for procedures - please do some research before painting with such a broad uninformed brush.

I have done research, for the past year and a half. As I've stated previously, I'm very interested in the viewpoints from those outside our borders, so perhaps instead of insulting me and assuming I'm quoting Glen Beck or something, you can tell me about your experiences with the Canadian health care system.

As I stated earlier, my understanding is that conditions vary from province to province because of a variety of factors, and that there are pros and cons in both the U.S. and Canadian systems, but I have found more than a few studies and reports to substantiate my statement. Aside from that, I've discovered a mountain of antecdotal evidence online, such as: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/ ... re.system/

The story of Shona Holmes is one the right in the US have been repeating over and over - look here for another opinion on this - http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/dying-on-a-wait-list/

Also, from my hometown paper - The Ottawa Citizen:

"Holmes has become the darling of conservatives and the stop-public-health-care movement in the United States. She's testified before Congress, been on Fox TV as well as CNN, and her story is retold on hundreds of right wing blogs. She's now doing a nasty TV ad for Patients United Now, a Republican-led group opposed to Obama's reforms. You can see the ad at http://www.patientsunitednow.com. The group is spending almost $2 million on it to target politicians in Washington.

For a person living with cancer, the idea that someone's care could be unreasonably delayed is truly scary. It also doesn't reflect the experience I've had or the experiences that have been shared with me by so many other patients. Even CNN interviewed Doug Wright, a more typical patient in Toronto who is receiving very speedy treatment for his cancer.

Still, I found Holmes tale both compelling and troubling. So I decided to check a little further. On the Mayo Clinic's website, Shona Holmes is a success story. But it's somewhat different story than all the headlines might have implied. Holmes' "brain tumour" was actually a Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland. To quote an American source, the John Wayne Cancer Center, "Rathke's Cleft Cysts are not true tumors or neoplasms; instead they are benign cysts."

There's no doubt Holmes had a problem that needed treatment, and she was given appointments with the appropriate specialists in Ontario. She chose not to wait the few months to see them. But it's a far cry from the life-or-death picture portrayed by Holmes on the TV ads or by McConnell in his attacks."
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************
I personally have had an MRI, and yes, I did wait a little less than a month for mine.

I visit my doctor, and pay no bill, I get x-rays, and pay no bill, when our children were born, we received no bill, and on and on...

Jack you're being disingenuous in your portrait of my interpretation of the ninth amendment. I'm saying that the government reserves the power to provide healthcare, I'm saying that one of the people's rights could be the right to affordable healthcare. About the tenth amendment, I'm saying it's irrelevant to this discussion because in no way would the states be usurped by federal health insurance. Were there a single payer system proposed in the United States and the president told all the states that they could make a permanent cut of 10-20 percent of their budgets (that's just employees not services provided to the public), the state's would be jumping over themselves for it.

King has enumerated my other points about the post office. However, in terms of waiting there are not only waits in the US but there are also people simply not getting care. I have an uncle who shot his leg off in the early 1990s because he could not get funding for an operation to take the pain away. Elective surgery or some such. That's what's really happening out there. Even less dramatically there are huge lines at my doctor's office.

My apologies for my bad off the top of my head math in one post. It's about one fifth of one tenth of a percent. Not one fifth of one percent. Sorry.

The USA is the ONLY idustrialized country in the western world that does not have health care for all is citizens - it is wrong and the time is now to correct this

Paul, maybe you, as a Canadian, can explain something to me. Several months ago while the health care debate in the U.S. was raging, I researched the Canadian single payer system online. I came across something interesting: One of the fastest growing private business industries in Canada is private health insurance. So why is this Paul? If your single payer system is as good as many claim why is the private insurance industry on the rise in Canada?

We have private healthcare in the UK, too !

The participants don't get better care, but they do jump the NHS waiting lists !

likethebike wrote:

There's nothing in the constitution to prohibit health coverage.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

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.

Yes - the Constitution does prohibit health coverage and numerous other things that the Federal Government is currently involved in.

Health coverage and everything else not enumerated in the Constitution should be left to the States or private sector.


RKS

The USA is the ONLY idustrialized country in the western world that does not have health care for all is citizens - it is wrong and the time is now to correct this

It's settled then! Then we won't have to flock to Canada for procedures we have to wait months for here. Oh, wait...it's the other way around.

Oh you are so right, we all wait for years in Canada for procedures - please do some research before painting with such a broad uninformed brush.

I have done research, for the past year and a half. As I've stated previously, I'm very interested in the viewpoints from those outside our borders, so perhaps instead of insulting me and assuming I'm quoting Glen Beck or something, you can tell me about your experiences with the Canadian health care system.

As I stated earlier, my understanding is that conditions vary from province to province because of a variety of factors, and that there are pros and cons in both the U.S. and Canadian systems, but I have found more than a few studies and reports to substantiate my statement. Aside from that, I've discovered a mountain of antecdotal evidence online, such as: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/ ... re.system/

The story of Shona Holmes is one the right in the US have been repeating over and over - look here for another opinion on this - http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/dying-on-a-wait-list/

Also, from my hometown paper - The Ottawa Citizen:

"Holmes has become the darling of conservatives and the stop-public-health-care movement in the United States. She's testified before Congress, been on Fox TV as well as CNN, and her story is retold on hundreds of right wing blogs. She's now doing a nasty TV ad for Patients United Now, a Republican-led group opposed to Obama's reforms. You can see the ad at http://www.patientsunitednow.com. The group is spending almost $2 million on it to target politicians in Washington.

For a person living with cancer, the idea that someone's care could be unreasonably delayed is truly scary. It also doesn't reflect the experience I've had or the experiences that have been shared with me by so many other patients. Even CNN interviewed Doug Wright, a more typical patient in Toronto who is receiving very speedy treatment for his cancer.

Still, I found Holmes tale both compelling and troubling. So I decided to check a little further. On the Mayo Clinic's website, Shona Holmes is a success story. But it's somewhat different story than all the headlines might have implied. Holmes' "brain tumour" was actually a Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland. To quote an American source, the John Wayne Cancer Center, "Rathke's Cleft Cysts are not true tumors or neoplasms; instead they are benign cysts."

There's no doubt Holmes had a problem that needed treatment, and she was given appointments with the appropriate specialists in Ontario. She chose not to wait the few months to see them. But it's a far cry from the life-or-death picture portrayed by Holmes on the TV ads or by McConnell in his attacks."
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************
I personally have had an MRI, and yes, I did wait a little less than a month for mine.

I visit my doctor, and pay no bill, I get x-rays, and pay no bill, when our children were born, we received no bill, and on and on...

A little less than a month isn't bad. Thank you.

Jack you're being disingenuous in your portrait of my interpretation of the ninth amendment. I'm saying that the government reserves the power to provide healthcare, I'm saying that one of the people's rights could be the right to affordable healthcare. About the tenth amendment, I'm saying it's irrelevant to this discussion because in no way would the states be usurped by federal health insurance. Were there a single payer system proposed in the United States and the president told all the states that they could make a permanent cut of 10-20 percent of their budgets (that's just employees not services provided to the public), the state's would be jumping over themselves for it.

King has enumerated my other points about the post office. However, in terms of waiting there are not only waits in the US but there are also people simply not getting care. I have an uncle who shot his leg off in the early 1990s because he could not get funding for an operation to take the pain away. Elective surgery or some such. That's what's really happening out there. Even less dramatically there are huge lines at my doctor's office.

My apologies for my bad off the top of my head math in one post. It's about one fifth of one tenth of a percent. Not one fifth of one percent. Sorry.

I haven't claimed you're being disengenuous. Please don't claim that I am. I hear what you're saying...that something about that wording is reserving power for the federal government. I simply don't see that in the amendment, in the spirit of the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers, or anywhere else, and it goes against everything I've ever learned. I suppose it's an "agree to disagree" situation, because you're seeing words that I just cannot find in either amendment. But I respect your interest, concern, and convictions, and I have no reason to believe you're being disengenuous. I wouldn't think either of us would waste this much time trying to fool the other.

Indeed, I had forgotten that the postal service was a quasi-governmental agency for some years now. I'm not the one that brought it up as an example. My other points about it still stand, though, and I don't know where the impression that it was doing very well until recently comes from. It's had problems for my entire adult life, at a minimum. There's plenty of documentation online about that, but I've posted enough references already. No evidence makes a difference. It's still essentially owned by the federal government and owes the Treasury billions. And it has asked for a government bailout. But I get it...this constitutes "well-managed."

Best wishes and TCB.

Last edited by Jack and Coke on Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Here is a list of countries with some form of universal health care;

Afghanistan *Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
Argentina
Austria
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Cuba
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iraq *Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Oman
Portugal
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Spain
Sweden
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Ukraine
United Kingdom

Here is a list of some of Ben and Jerry's flavors:

Bananas on the Rum
Banana Split
Brownie Batter
Butter Pecan
Cake Batter
Cherry Garcia
Chocolate
Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough
Chocolate Fudge Brownie
Chocolate Macadamia
Chocolate Peanut Butter Swirl
Chocolate Therapy
Chubby Hubby
Chunky Monkey
Cinnamon Buns
Coconut Seven Layer Bar
Coffee
Coffee Coffee BuzzBuzzBuzz
Coffee HEATH Bar Crunch
Crème Brûlée
Dave Matthews Band Magic Brownies Encore Edition
Dublin Mudslide
Everything But The...
Fossil Fuel
Goodbye Yellow Brickle Road
Half Baked
Imagine Whirled Peace
Karamel Sutra
Mint Chocolate Chunk
Mint Chocolate Cookie
Mission to Marzipan
Neapolitan Dynamite
New York Super Fudge Chunk
Oatmeal Cookie Chunk
ONE Cheesecake Brownie
Orange & Cream
Peanut Butter Cup
Phish Food
Pistachio Pistachio
S'mores
Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream
Strawberry
Strawberry Cheesecake
Sweet Cream & Cookies
Triple Caramel Chunk
Turtle Soup
Vanilla
Vanilla Caramel Fudge
Vanilla HEATH Bar Crunch
Willie Nelson’s Country Peach Cobbler

I was going to reply to your comments on my other post (where you made sense), until I saw this one - and you make no sense at all - the point being from mine above is there must be some reason so many countries have universal coverage, while the US does not...ice cream flavors...come on

I couldn't discern the reason for your list, so I provided a list I considered equally relevant. I think maybe THEMEPHISFAN had a point, that those from other countries can't understand why we do things the way we do. The mere fact that a large number of countries have a certain system isn't an indication to me that we should adopt the same. But it's a good possibility we'll be veering that direction eventually anyway.

Respectfully,

Bourbon and Cola

Respectfully,

Bourbon and Cola

Or rye (Canadian Club) and coke

My point about being disingenuous was simply because you seemed to make the argument that I was listing rights for the people as powers for the government which I was not. The ninth amendment seems pretty clear on its face, the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights are not the only rights the American people have. Maybe healthcare is one of those rights. Very tough to enjoy the Declaration's "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you don't have the "life" part.

While I'm waiting for Doc to provide proof of my hypocricy -


likethebike wrote:

The ninth amendment seems pretty clear on its face, the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights are not the only rights the American people have. Maybe healthcare is one of those rights. Very tough to enjoy the Declaration's "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you don't have the "life" part.

I think you're on the right track with the Ninth Amendment.

Yes the American people do have more rights not specifically mentioned or named in the first 8 Amendments - but they do not come from the Government.

The rights (and freedom) do not come from the Government - they come from the Creator as the Declaration so clearly states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed


The power comes from the people to the Government - not the other way around.

The Government secures these rights - it does not provide them.


The Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The only thing the Government is to provide, according to the Constitution, is Defence of the Nation and it's people - which then secures these Rights - of Life, liberty, and the pursiut of happiness.


likethebike wrote:

I'll counter your tenth amendment with 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 First 10 Amendments to the Constitution - The Bill of Rights are not a chess game where you can counter one with the other.

The wording of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment's is not a coincidence. They go hand in hand - so to speak.

Maybe healthcare is one of those rights.

Maybe so - but the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee or provide for it. The U.S. Government does not have the power to do so - this according to the Tenth Amenment.

Very tough to enjoy the Declaration's "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you don't have the "life" part

You don't have to have Government provided healthcare to have life. Again, "Life" comes from the Creator, not the Government, as Thomas Jefferson so clearly wrote in the Declaration.


"Life" happened without a Government provision 234 years ago when the Founding Father's wrote this marvelous document, , and it will happen tomorrow.

It's going to happen whether there is a Government program or not.






RKS

Last edited by RKSNASHVILLE on Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Why would the tenth amendment prevent it? There's no logical reason. By this reasoning the EPA, ADC, SS, Medicare, the SCC, the FCC and dozens of other governmental entities would be unconstitutional. The SEC, EPA and other entities take far more power than a healthcare system would. How would you define healthcare as a power? How is providing healthcare a "power"? It's a service, maybe a right. What right of a state would be usurped? As I said before, merely providing healthcare for their own employees is a huge burden for the states. They would love to have it removed.

To say that the power comes from the people not the government is why we're having this issue. That's why they elected Democrats. Poll after poll shows support for healthcare reform. The people are being crushed by overbearing healthcare costs. On their own, the people do not have the power to address this issue. What are they supposed to do make sure they never get sick? Such nonsense that the right peddles.

There's a reason that not even Republicans are peddling this constitutional issue.

Why would the tenth amendment prevent it? There's no logical reason. By this reasoning the EPA, ADC, SS, Medicare, the SCC, the FCC and dozens of other governmental entities would be unconstitutional.

Eureka! You are finally starting to understand!

How would you define healthcare as a power? How is providing healthcare a "power"?

Of course health care is not a power. A federal government health care system would be a service. Your argument works under one condition: that that service not cost anything. Unfortunately, instituting a national healthcare system requires the confiscation of the citizens' money to fund it. THAT requires the POWER to take the money, a power not granted for that purpose in the Constitution. The Constitution also doesn't authorize the federal government to steal $5,000,000,000 from taxpayers to weatherproof homes throughout the country, but it's doing it! viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51269.

It's a service, maybe a right. What right of a state would be usurped?

Off the top of my head, no right of a state would be usurped by federal health care. It would, however, usurp the right of the citizens whose earnings were confiscated. The federal government does not have the constitutional right to confiscate the earnings of taxpayers for this purpose, period. The STATE has the right to do it if it wants and its citizens so choose. The FED does not.

There's a reason that not even Republicans are peddling this constitutional issue.

The Libertarian Party is the only one that "peddles" those pesky little constitutional issues (so quaint!). You should check it out sometime: http://www.lp.org. You won't like it though because its entire platform is based on adhering to the Constitution. Neither the Republicans or Democrats talk about the Constitution very often, because they've been ignoring it for decades. That is why you will eventually get what you're championing. You win. Our intended form of government loses.

In a crucial way, I agree with you. Today, the federal government can do pretty much anything it wants. It can take my money to fund some great idea in a state across the country that doesn't benefit me in the slightest. It can spend until the Treasury is empty. Then it can just print more currency. Then it can borrow trillions more, putting the burden on future generations. You are correct. The Constitution is irrelevant. It has become a joke. What I've been trying to communicate is that it wasn't supposed to be this way.

Last edited by Jack and Coke on Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:38 am, edited 6 times in total.

Why would the tenth amendment prevent it? There's no logical reason. By this reasoning the EPA, ADC, SS, Medicare, the SCC, the FCC and dozens of other governmental entities would be unconstitutional.

Yes - that is correct. The U.S. Governement has only the power to do what is given in the Constitution - everything else is left to the States - thus the Tenth Amendment.

To say that the power comes from the people not the government is why we're having this issue.

Now we get to the truth.

So you disagree with the Constitution - that the power is from the people. That was the whole reason for the Revolution! The Americans - the Colonists we're tired of a central - powerful - over taxing government. They believed the power should be in the hands of the people - not the government.



The Democrats/liberals believe in big government and government solutions and have been trying to usurp the Constitutions for years now. The Constitution seems to "get in the way" of their true agenda.

Whereas Conservatives believe in small government - power of the people solutions as we we're founded some 200 years ago.

The founding documents - The Declaration, the U.S. Constitution, The Federalist Papers, etc. clearly state this and give the power to the people and NOT to the Government.

That's why they elected Democrats. Poll after poll shows support for healthcare reform.

Not exactly. The American people wanted some healthcare reform - not an overhaul of the whole system.

If the Democrats continue to push for an overhaul of the system and continue to spend with deficits in the trillions - they will be voted out in November 2010.

We've already had taste of this in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusettes.

RKS

Jack and Coke wrote:

What I've been trying to communicate is that it wasn't supposed to be this way.

After 7+ pages of debate this 1 sentence sums it up.

Thanks Jack!

Lets go back to following the most brilliant document ever written:

The U.S. Constitution!

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html


It's bedtime - goodnight folks!


RKS

likethebike, The Federalist Papers are crucial materials for those wanting to ensure they understand the intentions of the founders (not that I'm making any assumptions.... ) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

Article one, section eight: "Congress shall have the power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties and Excises to pay for the common Defence and the general welfare (my italics) of the United States." There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically limits what congress spends the money on or what they deem to be the general welfare. That passage about taxation is followed by a list of congressional duties. There is no wording about any limitations about how they may spend the taxes. That is why the Supreme Court has for all these years upheld those institutions.

I noticed RKS stressed defence but not the general welfare. This is because it completely undercuts the argument. You very much misunderstand the Revolution. They protested taxation without representation. This is taxation With representation and you seem to have a problem with that. The power does come from the people. That is what driving the issue. The people want this issue addressed. You have a say in government, you have a vote. However, in this country where majority rules, the majority would like congress and the president to "promote the general welfare" by providing them with healthcare. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Congress has the power of taxation as the passage from the Constitution clearly demonstrates. Jack, you yourself said the state's powers would not be usurped. So what Constitutional issue could there possibly be?

In all those allegedly wonderful years where we got along just fine without government healthcare, we weren't facing a crisis that had the potential to cripple the country and its economy. In 1960, two percent of GDP was spent on healthcare related costs. In 2009, that figure was 17 percent. That means 17 percent of every dollar made in this country goes to healthcare costs. By the end of the decade, it is expected to be 20 percent.

For all the whining about higher taxes, your taxes, if you are a middle class taxpayer, would not be appreciably higher. And even if they were, you'd probably have more money in your pocket than you have now. Now, you're spending 17 percent (if you're lucky). Even the wealthy could benefit financially. I can't think of a bigger potential money saver in this country than a single payer federal system (which sadly ain't gonna happen). Local property taxes would plummet. State expenses would plummet and hopefully taxes would plummet. Employer costs would plummet. It's very important to look at the big picture.

Article one, section eight: "Congress shall have the power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties and Excises to pay for the common Defence and the general welfare (my italics) of the United States." There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically limits what congress spends the money on or what they deem to be the general welfare. That passage about taxation is followed by a list of congressional duties. There is no wording about any limitations about how they may spend the taxes. That is why the Supreme Court has for all these years upheld those institutions.

I noticed RKS stressed defence but not the general welfare. This is because it completely undercuts the argument. You very much misunderstand the Revolution. They protested taxation without representation. This is taxation With representation and you seem to have a problem with that. The power does come from the people. That is what driving the issue. The people want this issue addressed. You have a say in government, you have a vote. However, in this country where majority rules, the majority would like congress and the president to "promote the general welfare" by providing them with healthcare. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Congress has the power of taxation as the passage from the Constitution clearly demonstrates. Jack, you yourself said the state's powers would not be usurped. So what Constitutional issue could there possibly be?

In all those allegedly wonderful years where we got along just fine without government healthcare, we weren't facing a crisis that had the potential to cripple the country and its economy. In 1960, two percent of GDP was spent on healthcare related costs. In 2009, that figure was 17 percent. That means 17 percent of every dollar made in this country goes to healthcare costs. By the end of the decade, it is expected to be 20 percent.

For all the whining about higher taxes, your taxes, if you are a middle class taxpayer, would not be appreciably higher. And even if they were, you'd probably have more money in your pocket than you have now. Now, you're spending 17 percent (if you're lucky). Even the wealthy could benefit financially. I can't think of a bigger potential money saver in this country than a single payer federal system (which sadly ain't gonna happen). Local property taxes would plummet. State expenses would plummet and hopefully taxes would plummet. Employer costs would plummet. It's very important to look at the big picture.

You don't care about this, but James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, wrote the following about the General Welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson concurred with Madison on this issue of constraint:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791.

And that is where we are today. We are way beyond a single step. We are so many leaps and bounds away from rendering the Consititution meaningless that the idea of the federal government being limited to the powers delegated to it by the Consitution is unfathomable to you. What a shame that you weren't around in the 1700's to explain to Madison and Jefferson that you understood their own intentions better than they did.

I already agreed with you. The Fed, today, has what Thomas and Madison warned against: a boundless field of power. As I stated, you've already won. The Constitution has lost. But to claim that the unconstitutional argument is some sort of "straw man" argument ignores a mountain of evidence provided by the founders that disproves your case.

Yes, you win. How frightening it would be to try to survive without the likes of:

Administration on Aging (AoA)
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD)
Administration for Native Americans (ANA)
Child Care Bureau (CCB)
Children's Bureau (CB)
Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB)
Head Start Bureau (HSB)
Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI)
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
Office of Community Services Block Grant (OCS)
Office of Family Assistance (OFA) / Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) [3]
President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Indian Health Service (IHS)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
Office of Minority Health (OMH)
Program Support Center (PSC)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONCHIT)
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Agency for International Development (USAID)
African Development Foundation
American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)
AmeriCorps
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)
U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC)
US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR)
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA)
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Export-Import Bank of the United States (ExIm)
Farm Credit Administration (FCA)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission (FMSHRC)
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (FCSC)
General Services Administration (GSA)
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
Inter-American Foundation (IAF)
Learn and Serve America (LSA)
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
National Ice Center (NIC)
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) (NRPC)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
Senior Corps
Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC)
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Blue ribbon commission on nuclear waste
Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Center for Functional Nanomaterials
Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies
Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences
Center for Nanoscale Materials
Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO)
Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
Department of Education StructureOffice of Innovation and Improvement (OII)
Office of Management
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
Budget Service
Risk Management Service
Chief Operating Officer of the Department of Education|Chief Operating Officer
Office of the Under Secretary (OUS)
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)
Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE)
Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA)
President's Advisory Board on Tribal Colleges and Universities (WHITCU)
President's Advisory Board on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (WHIHBCU)
Office of the Deputy Secretary (ODS)
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
Office of Migrant Education
President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans
Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA)
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)
Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy
Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Office of Health Reform
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of Management and Administration
Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of Social Innovation
Office of Urban Affairs Policy
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS)
Office of Innovation and Improvement
Advisory Councils and Committees
National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB)[1]
National Institute for Literacy (NIFL)[2]
Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE)
American Printing House for the Blind
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Science and Technology Policy
President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board
President's Intelligence Advisory Board
Council on Women and Girls

However, in this country where majority rules

Absolutely incorrect. The United States is supposed to be a form of government "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law." To quote Senator James A. Reed Of Missouri (U.S. Senate, June 4, 1926):

The Constitution itself is a direct limitation upon majority rule. "You shall not take property without due process of law," says the Constitution...The right to trial by jury can not be taken away by majority rule. The right for the habitation of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures can not be taken away by majority rule. Before you can trample upon certain rights of the American people you must have more than a majority, and I believe it to be true that there are certain rights which even by amending the Constitution of the United States, we can not take away from the citizens of the United States.

...The majority has been wrong oftener than it has been right in all the course of time. The majority crucified Jesus Christ. The majority burned the Christians at the stake. The majority drove the Jews into exile and the ghetto. The majority established slavery. Majority rule without any limitation or curb upon the particular set of fools who happen to be placed for the moment in charge of the machinery of a government! The majority grinned and jeered when Columbus said the world was round. The majority threw him into a dungeon for having discovered a new world. The majority said that Galileo must recant or that Galileo must go to prison. The majority cut off the ears of John Pym because he dared advocate the liberty of the press.

To quote Peter Schwartz of the American Chronical:

Thus, you are free to criticize your neighbors, your society, your government--no matter how many people wish to pass a law censoring you. You are free to own your property--no matter how large a mob wants to take it from you. The rights of the individual are inalienable. But if "popular will" were the standard, the individual would have no rights--only temporary privileges, granted or withdrawn according to the mass mood of the moment. The tyranny of the majority, as the Founders understood, is just as evil as the tyranny of an absolute monarchy.

Yes, we have the ability to vote, but that is not the yardstick by which freedom is measured. After all, even dictatorships hold official elections. It is only the existence of liberty that justifies, and gives meaning to, the ballot box. In a genuinely free country, voting pertains only to the means of safeguarding individual rights. There can be no moral "right" to vote to destroy rights.

To quote James Madison:

“Pure democracy is the most vile form of government...such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

To quote Frank Salvato of the New Media Journal:

"The word Democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution...and for good reason. The United States is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic and it is essential that the American people understand this reality. If we continue to allow the untruth that the United States of America is a Democracy to flourish we invite the demise of our government and our nation; we invite the cessation of the American Experiment and doom future generations to a fate unknown.

Over the course of our day-to-day activities we enjoy freedoms and liberties that have been established by our founding documents -- The Charters of Freedom. These documents consist of: The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights. These documents established a Constitutional Republic; a nation, ruled by a government based on the rule of law, laws enacted by governmental representatives elected by the people.

But as we exist today, many among us -- including many of the more popular pundits, political activists, special interest groups and even many elected officials -- erroneously refer to our system of government as a Democracy. In fact, our Founders and Framers understood a Democracy to be a dangerous vehicle that, given time, would devolve into mob rule or government by majority; a government where the minority had little or no voice; a government unrestrained in its reach into our lives. It is for this specific reason that the Founders and Framers established our nation as a Constitutional Republic; a nation based on the rule of law and not the rule of men."

The true left-to-right political spectrum finds total governmental control on the far left and no government at all on the right. Where on the left side of the more accurately defined political spectrum we would find Communism, Socialism, Nazism and Fascism, to name but a few forms of totalitarian forms of government, on the right side we would find no government at all; anarchy. In the center of this spectrum we find the representative form of government; the Republican form of government; the government our Founders and Framers established for We the People, the Constitutional Republic.

Those who possess nefarious and/or ideological agendas for our nation often refer to our system of government as a Democracy, knowing full well that Democracy is a transitional state between a Republican form of government and an Oligarchic form of government; a vehicle for transition to first, majority rule, which, in light of the corruptible and narcissistic frailty of human virtue, eventually leads to the establishment of an Oligarchy – or, rule by an elitist class – and the trampling of the rights of those in the minority. The implementation of this transition is facilitated by a distracted and uninformed citizenry and a people who exist constitutionally illiterate.

It is no sin to be constitutionally illiterate. You can rectify your condition, if you care to do so. I have gone to great links to provide you with resources.

I want those die-cast cars in the Graceland shops and I want them NOW damn-it!!!

Uh oh.... wait a minute.... that's on a different thread...... never mind. My bad.

No, this is the correct thread. likethebike will support your Consitutional right to die-cast cars. It's your pursuit of happiness, right?