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.

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

---

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:

---

How so?

---

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:

---

settled cases

---

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 .

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.

Quote:

---

pardon my confusion I have a headache.

---

yeah a progressive agenda will do that to you

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 .

---

Quote:

---

I have argued here for a new constitutional convention before

---

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..

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.

Quote:

---

The Patriot Act was designed by fascists to DESTROY the Constitution.

---

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 ?
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

Yet that's exactly what Democrats do every day.

---

Still, the libs aren't calling for a change in the rules. YOU are.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
Still, the libs aren't calling for a change in the rules. YOU are.

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

---

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?