How so?
|
How so?
Tom, you can't have a organized society without a social contract. A social contract necessitates both positive and negative rights. Obviously, your Bill of Rights outlines the things a government can't do. For example, a government cannot stop freedom of speech.
However, this necessitates a problem because within a organized society absolute freedom of speech is impossible. So on occasions, when warranted, a government can infringe on that right. It has do so in the past and will probably do so in the future.This is still within the keeping of the Constitution as a whole. Just ask SCOTUS
well as you know ,I don't consider SCOTUS the final arbiter. I don't disagree with you that the social contract is the source of the so called 'positive rights'. I still contend that they are not applicable in the content of the 9th amendment . There has not been a single program passed by Congress that can't be reversed or modified by congressional act .They do it all the time. I also contend that it takes a whole lot of pretzel twisting of the language of the enumerated powers to create them in the 1st place.
If medical care is a "right" ,then how is it that the government got to decide that Terri Schiavo could be denied medical treatment ?
Tom we all know that governments do what they do until they are challenged. There is no implicit requirement that they act constitutionally. They enact legislation and then if that legislation contravenes constitutional rights it is challenged. until it is, it is law. Your constitution does not stop this from happening, it just provides a balance against excess. Your constitution should have contained an amendment that no law can be enacted that contravenes or seeks to alter the provisions of the constitution, without the constitution itsself being first amended, AH tortology is great isn't it.
I think you might consider starting the process from scratch and developing a new constitution, you could get rid of all the problems and make many things clear
SCOTUS is the final arbiter, beliefs don't count. Like it or NOT. That doesn't mean congress cannot act, or the laws cannot be challenged. As we see with abortions, or voting rights, or even religious rights, settled cases, yet states are coming up with all kinds of ways to slow, lock, or change the intent of the law.
Hollering foul or not having the votes to make changes you want is no reason to throw out the constitution. Its always going to be defined, interpreted, and challenged. You kind of have you facts mixed up in the Shiavo case, the husband pulled the plug, not congress after she was deemed brain dead. He had the final say over the family.
The people are the ones who are making health care a right. They have that right.
I have argued here for a new constitutional convention before( Article 5on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states).Quote:
I think you might consider starting the process from scratch and developing a new constitution, you could get rid of all the problems and make many things clear
Because employers are going to have to make the choice of providing the more expensive benefits or dumping their employees in the exchanges .The insurance companies have to set their premium prices by mid-summer and that will be an indicator of which way employers will go.Quote:
How so?
The left loves using that term when they don't want the law changed . Yet they have no problem challenging 'settled cases ' in court ,by legislation ,executive fiat ,or bureaucratic action/inaction when it suits their agenda .Quote:
settled cases
so the house of cards will come tumbling down, and inevietably it will be replaced by what, people being responsible for their own health insurance, truely portable health insurance, and it took a two thosand page bill and years of debate to achieve this? remarkable system this democracy. Oh I forgot; it isn't a democracy, it is a constitutional monarchy, opps, that is the other fellows, a constitutional republic, pardon my confusion I have a headache.
yeah a progressive agenda will do that to youQuote:
pardon my confusion I have a headache.
and yet we achieved it with a progressive agenda and none of the angst, well a little angst, but that was because it was poorly explained, some still see using the public system as a death sentence, but that is only for elective surgery
I feel sorry for you, it is bad when you have uncertainty about essential services
Obamacare was designed to fail .Every lib admits it in moments of candor .
Hello again:Quote:
Obamacare was designed to fail .Every lib admits it in moments of candor .
I dunno.. I LOVE it here. I LOVE my country. I LOVE our Constitution.. I'd fear for my country if YOUR side got to write a new one... There's something you guys have AGAINST freedom. Oh, you believe in freedom for THEE, but not for ME..Quote:
I have argued here for a new constitutional convention before
You made a good start too. The Patriot Act was designed by fascists to DESTROY the Constitution. Even right wingers admit it in moments of candor.
excon
a convention to amend the constitution is part of the constitution (Article 5) . Your side would be part of the conversation too. If you think the people want all these progressive inspired 'positive rights ' aka freebees then you could stamp their permanence in the constitution . Your side says it loves the constitution and then say it's a 'living 'document that can be molded like silly putty to make it look any way you want it to.
How many times has it been re-authorized by Congress and the President since 2006 (when the Dems had full majority in both Houses ,and after 2008-10 when the Dems controlled both Congress and the Presidency ?Quote:
The Patriot Act was designed by fascists to DESTROY the Constitution.
On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama used an Autopen to sign the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 which included ,roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves". Where was all that mock outrage the Dems demonstrated during the Bush years ?
Hello again, tom:
Our founders KNEW about people like you. They KNEW that if given the choice, the MAJORITY would sh!t on the minority. And, that's EXACTLY what you'd do. Nahhh... I wouldn't want to live here IF you could have your way with us..
excon
Yet that's exactly what Democrats do every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
Still, the libs aren't calling for a change in the rules. YOU are.Quote:
Yet that's exactly what Democrats do every day.
Lemme ask you this. You too, tom, since you brought it up. Of the 10 Bills of Rights that we HAVE, how many will survive your Constitutional convention? Seriously. There's only 10. Why don't you show us YOURS. I'll START.
In my view, THIS would be your First Amendment: The United States being a Christian nation, congress shall make NO law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I think you'd leave OFF our freedom of speech, a free press and the right of the people to assemble and petition their government... What???? Those are freedoms you'd give the people????? Who're you trying to kid????
Over to you wingers??? What??? You wanna REWRITE it, but you DON'T know what you wanna say????? Come on. You can tell us how FREE your nation will be. I wanna know..
excon
We may have to wait for that constitutional convention Tom until the votes are there and they aren't now for sure. Not for any single issue or policy. There are to many other options to get changes people want within the frame work of the constitution as is, and always has been. The battles now are about how we interpret, and define, and implement, and apply the laws we make and that's rapidly changing because we are changing, and not just in technology and national interests but in size and make up.
Big changes in many areas and of course some don't like the speed or scope of those changes and even more don't like the slow pace of change. Or the unequal application of the law or the money. That's what brings about a change, when the many are not happy with the policy of the few. Been that way through out history.
Even the NSA will go through changes but it ain't going nowhere soon, but people will be a lot more aware of their privacy when they deal in this rapidly expanding electronic age. The constitution provides for government intrusions by requiring a warrant, but law enforcement has had ways around that for as long as they have had that rule, and not just the feds, but locals as well.
So good luck with that convention idea, and worrying about the feds being as savvy with your info as Facebook, or Bank of America. If things are moving too fast for ya, Tom, fasten your seat belts.
That is so devoid of reality there's nothing really to say. It certainly isn't your side defending those rights, this regime thinks religious freedom is only what they say it is and speech codes are certainly not a product of the right. Who are you trying to kid?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The ACA needs to fail and fail fast (as designed) while Obama is still in office to complete the resultant push for single payer.
It will be tough to pull off even then but millions of Americans screaming to congress about their screwed-up healthcare may be the main impetus.
And hopefully before the insurance bailout starts (or maybe insurance co. bailout will be the immediate cause that brings about single payer).
It will be fine with me, deficit schmeficit. A trillion more or less didn't matter and 5,000 young lives lost in Iraq and already Fallujah is in the hands of al-Qaeda.
Cheney said deficits don't matter 12 or so years ago- maybe he was right.
Krauthammer says the bailout was all provided for in the ACA (did he misinterpret the law?):
Charles Krauthammer: Stop the bailout, now - The Washington Post
"First, Section 1341, the “reinsurance” fund collected from insurers and self-insuring employers at a nifty $63 a head. (Who do you think the cost is passed on to?) This yields about $20 billion over three years to cover losses.
Then there is Section 1342, the “risk corridor” provision that mandates a major taxpayer payout covering up to 80 percent of insurance-company losses."
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
That is so devoid of reality there's nothing really to say.
Oh, I didn't think we'd agree. But, I was HOPING that instead of flapping your gums, you'd actually WRITE what you propose to DO. Certainly, you'd CHANGE something. . What would that be??? Are you afraid to actually say it, because you KNOW you'll be torn to shreds if you do???? I think that's what it is.
Over to you.
excon
You can't dismiss the question by blaming the regime. A majority of Americans voted for this regime TWICE!
You'd have to ask Tom since it was he that proposed it, I was merely calling you on your BS. Only one side is actively trying to curb religious freedom. Only one side is actively trying to curb freedom of speech. Only one side is actively trying to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and it isn't us on any count.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
First, the people did not vote their rights away. The president swore to protect and defend the Constitution, not undermine it. Second, I am under no obligation to explain positions I don't hold.Quote:
You can't dismiss the question by blaming the regime. A majority of Americans voted for this regime TWICE!
the real problem is that your side wants programs that are extra-constitutional (and don't give me the bs that SCOTUS ,twisting the words of constitution, has put their permanent stamp of approval on them).
My amendments would have little to do with specific laws and would only repeal one or 2 amendments ( and you can rest assured the Bill of Rights would be safe ) .
Mine would establish term limits for the rest of the national government . I'd repeal the 17th amendment and restore the Senate to what the founders intended . I'd propose a balance budget amendment like most of the states already have. I'd make an amendment to restore the balance of power in government ;specifically a provision to repeal a SCOTUS decision.
As for your nonsense about our side altering the 1st Amendment ;I'll remind you that it's our side that has been defending the 1st against your intolerance.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
the real problem is that your side wants programs that are extra-constitutional
The real problem is your side doesn't believe in protecting an INDIVIDUALS civil rights. Stop and Frisk is the most recent example.
excon
You cannot ignore the moderate and left wing minority coalitions, that are people of color, woman, old and poor, that have aligned nationally against the right wing views, policy and laws that they hate can you?
So say it like it is, you no longer enjoy the same power and influence of abject domination you once did. The interest of the many have changed the electorate, and you guys for all the gloom and doom, and victim talk, and shenanigans have failed to win the hearts, and minds of a growing populace. The notion you can force YOUR rights on others is being rejected.
Practice whatever you want in YOUR yard, but stay out of mine. Get use to the idea of being told NO, Thanks!! Good Luck in the next election! You will need it.
lol your side talks a good game ,but when the rubber hits the road ;even commie Bill de Blasio hired William Bratton ,the architect of Stop and Frisk as NYPD Commish .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
Big sodas'll be making a return too, huh? Betcha Bratton ENDS stop and frisk.Quote:
;even commie Bill de Blasio hired William Bratton ,the architect of Stop and Frisk as NYPD Commish .
excon
Let me get this straight, you think that appointing senators improves democracy, you also think removing the ability of a government to borrow to fulfill its programs improves democracy. I expect these ideas were ok back in the days when the government consisted of the privileged and there wasn't a standing army or paved roads and no one had any idea of what population pressures might bring. I seem to remember that following such ideas got you invaded and Washington burned. What a pity you didn't take the hint and not rebuild itQuote:
Mine would establish term limits for the rest of the national government . I'd repeal the 17th amendment and restore the Senate to what the founders intended . I'd propose a balance budget amendment like most of the states already have.
it furthers the cause of federalism . You can keep your ideas of democracy. We are a federal republicQuote:
Let me get this straight, you think that appointing senators improves democracy
Besides ,there is nothing that mandates that Senators are appointed .States can decide how they select Senators .
Quote:
You can keep your ideas of democracy.
at least I have an idea what democracy might emcompass, you are obviously clueless
the founders understood that democracy is a prescription for failure . Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even contains the word democracy.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. (Franklin)
Democracy is a disaster for the elites and privileged maybe but democracy works for the common man and that's how we will run this republic. The founders are long gone, and no longer rule, or set policy... but thanks old dudes, for the framework and foundation for building a more perfect union where all men are created equal, and women too!!
If this is an opinion held in your nation why would you be attepting to spread your ideas of democracy to the world. Have you ever considered that your nation is one of the wolves. I know democracy didn't exist anywhere at the time of your revolution, but it has been convenient for you to be considered a leading democracy and to promote a democratic form of government. Recent events would suggest your implementation lacks democracyQuote:
the founders understood that democracy is a prescription for failure . Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even contains the word democracy.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. (Franklin)
"...the Founders understood that democracy is a prescription for failure. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even contain the word democracy".
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what to have for lunch. (Franklin)
I thought Plato said it first in,"The Republic". Which reminds me that one can just as easily demonstrate similar failures that were caused by Republican virtue. You know, the elites getting to decide what everyone else has for lunch.
P.S. Just in case there is any confusion. By "Republican Virtue" I don't mean a political party. Another way of saying this would be Republic virtue, or perhaps, civic virtue
I don't think Tom realises that republicanism leads to imperialism. Inevietably power becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer elites. In Rome they were called senators and yet your founders duplicated this corrupt system and called it virtuous and even adopted roman architectural forms. Democracy can be prone to this also as the most prominient citizens are elected to govern
hence the need to decentralize power and to have a constitutional government subject to amending . All that was considered at the founding .
What the left is very good at is accusing others for doing exactly what they are doing . I submit that it is the party that claims they are for the little people that demonstrate the elitism that you say I champion.
As an example ,Obamacare will be the largest entitlement program in history and it rewarded the AMA along with big insurance and big pharma for their political support. They gave about 2- 3 times more support to the emperor than to McCain in 2008 and have been richly rewarded for their support. . Jeffrey Immelt of GE was one of the biggest supporters of the emperor . Not surprisingly GE is one of the largest benefactor of the law. Obamacare eliminates all of GE's competition in medical imaging.
As I pointed out earlier ,the Dems play a good rhetorical game and don't follow through. It's easy for the wealthy libs to support the Dems because they never really have to live with the consequences of the lib policies . Quite the opposite ...it entrenches them and eliminates any upstart challengers to their positions . The rich figured out long ago that the Democrats would regulate the small businessman out of business.
Americans aren't stupid Tom, your weak central government idea is but a cover for rich guy control. They already robbed us blind with this cheap labor BS, and took their tax breaks oversea to exploit other cultures, but we are on to you and the would be oligarchs.
All you guys had to do was trickle down enough to keep the masses satisfied but NOOOOOOOOOOOO, you just had to keep it all, and call us dumb, and lazy. You'll see how well that works for ya!!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:40 PM. |