 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
- Section. 2.
- The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
|
||||
 Originally Posted by galveston
|
||||
|
||||
|
In terms of volume, the Constitution with all the amendments, is minuscule compared with what comes out of Washington today. It is written in shirt-sleeve English, which anyone with reasonableto comprehension should understand. I believe the reason it has been violated is deliberate. The same forces that have brought about Communist tyrannies in other parts of the world have been at work here, and if our Constitution were not as good as it is, we would already be living under a tolalitarian regime. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
And did you read the rest of my post about interpreting the 9th Amendment? I'll bet you did and are just ignoring it because you have no response. As usual. If you can't respond, just ignore it and change the conversation... I'll take this one as another win... Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
I'm at my office and can't access your link, NK. What does it say? As for my "win"... if the other guy REPEATEDLY doesn't answer the points you have made in a debate, ignores the salient points, and tries to change the topic, what do you call that? In speech class in both high school and college, where I learned debate, they called that a "win". Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Sounds to me like the rich people in the U.S. are a little upset that the middle and lower classes will be getting the same benefits as they receive now. What a shame? Get OVER IT! A lot of people really are sick and do not just have the sniffles or a cough and need medical attention but they can't afford it and do not have medical insurance. Just last week as a matter of fact, my aunt had a possible stroke! She did not want to go to the hospital because she doesn't have the money. She has two kids and school will be starting back before you turn around and she has school clothes and supplies to buy. So she is one example of why we all should have right to medical insurance. People like this make me sick, all for Obama when he first got in office and now that he wants to help the poorer people in America they are saying Hell no with Obama. Only the people who live in mansions and have cars that just sit outside for looks are the ones who should be getting medical. We pay for our medical why should the poor people get the rights to receive medical? Because it's fair for once, for once Obama isn't for all the rich celebrity people, he wants to help everyone. Why does it bother you anyway? It's not like you tried to be president and won, now is it? Thank God for that!! |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
This is NOT rocket science. In terms of rights, the Ninth Amendment says there are "others retained by the people", that AREN'T enumerated. You keep looking around for where the ARE enumerated (listed) but you ain't going to find 'em, because the amendment itself says THEY AREN'T there. I believe the amendment. Then you say, "I can't find 'em, so they must not be there." Duhhh! If what you say is true, that because you don't find ANY other right's listed (even though the amendment says you won't), that there just AREN'T any, because you can't find 'em. Furthermore, you apparently think the Ninth Amendment means NOTHING. And, I think it means exactly what it says. What happened to the strict constructionist rightwing "do what the Constitution says - not what you THINK it says"?? Do you think the framers got bored and just wanted to fill in some space. What do you think the Ninth Amendment means. Oh, I know what you think it means. You said so. I guess you agree with that idiot, Scalia when he spewed the following drek: "the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be" Let me see if I can dissect that crap. Even though the Ninth Amendment SAYS there "other rights", it really doesn't mean it. He's a fool. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by sweet1028
NOR IS THAT EVEN WHAT OBAMA HAS PLANNED!! I would have less of a problem if this were what was happening. The problem is not that Obama is proposing that we pay for those who are uninsured to get the same care as we do. What he's planning is to make sure that everyone else has crappy insurance too. He's not proposing that everyone have their private health insurance covered. He proposing that everyone should have the same health insurance that Native Americans get and the same that Vets get in the VA system. In other words, it's not enough that he wants me to pay for YOUR insurance... he want me to also give up MY insurance and take crappy health care instead.
A lot of people really are sick and do not just have the sniffles or a cough and need medical attention but they can't afford it and do not have medical insurance.
Second of all, there are plenty of sources for FREE medical care, including ERs and free clinics throughout the USA, for them to get medical care. Every pharmaceutical company operating in the USA has programs to help poor people get drugs they need. There are plenty of free sources for medical care. There is also MEDICARE which covers anyone who is infirm and unable to work, and MEDICAID, which covers anyone with income levels up to 150% of the poverty line. There is no reason that anyone in the USA shouldn't be able to get medical care. ANyone who claims not to be able to get medical care when they need it is either LYING or hasn't looked into the matter and doesn't know what they are entitled to. In either case, it ain't my problem, and I shouldn't be paying for it.
Just last week as a matter of fact, my aunt had a possible stroke! She did not want to go to the hospital because she doesn't have the money. She has two kids and school will be starting back before you turn around and she has school clothes and supplies to buy. So she is one example of why we all should have right to medical insurance.
There is no hospital in the USA that wouldn't take her in, care for her, give her the meds she needs, and then write off the bill if she couldn't pay for it. Especially for an emergency like a stroke. So if your aunt decided not to go to the hospital, it wasn't because the system is broken. It's because she stupid. She had options and didn't take them. That's stupidity. And you are just as stupid for encouraging her stupid behavior. And I see no reason for me to be penalized for someone else's stupidity.
People like this make me sick, all for Obama when he first got in office and now that he wants to help the poorer people in America they are saying Hell no with Obama. Only the people who live in mansions and have cars that just sit outside for looks are the ones who should be getting medical. We pay for our medical why should the poor people get the rights to receive medical? Because it's fair for once, for once Obama isn't for all the rich celebrity people, he wants to help everyone. Why does it bother you anyway? It's not like you tried to be president and won, now is it? Thank God for that!!
From the Constitution of the United States: I see nothing in this that says that the job of the President is to help poor people. BTW, if Obama is so in favor of the "poor people", why isn't he helping his brother in Kenya? His brother earns about $12 per month, lives in a box, and is TRULY in poverty. Obama could give him a couple of thousand dollars out of his own pocket without breaking a sweat to make his brother's life better. But he doesn't. That's because helping the poor isn't his real goal. His real goal is to screw over the rich and to remake the country in his father's socialist mold. And what's your beef with rich people anyway? What do you have against people who earned their money instead of having it given to them by the government? What do you have against people who's PARENTS or GRANDPARENTS earned their money and gave it to their kids? Here's a little tip for you: RICH PEOPLE do more to help the poor than the government ever did. They employ millions of poor people. They give massive amounts of charity. They create charitable funds that keep hospitals, schools and charities operating. What has the government ever done for poor people. What has Obama ever done for poor people? Zilch, zip, nada. I think you need to get over your sanctimonious anti-rich garbage and learn a little bit about how the real world works. Nobody gets anything for nothing, and nobody gives anything for nothing. If Obama creates a situation in which what I earn is taken away from me and I cannot get ahead because I'm being taxed into poverty, then I will have no incentive to continue working. Neither will any of the other "rich" people in this country. And THEN where will Obama get the money to fund his Marxist nationalized health care scheme? If I'm not making money to be taxed, who's going to pay for YOUR health care (or your aunt's)? Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
Those non-listed rights are RETAINED by the people, and in the understanding of the framers of the Constitution, that meant the STATES, not the federal government. So if there is to be any "right" to medical care or insurance coverage, it must be passed by the STATE legislatures and administered from there. ONLY what is spelled out in the Constitution is the prerogrative of the federal government. We have strayed far, no? |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
I think that all Americans should have the RIGHT to free maid service and free laundry service. After all, them rich folks have it, why shouldn't I? And the 9th Amendment says that just because it isn't written in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Therefore it must exist. So... when is the government going to start paying for my maid and my laundry?
If what you say is true, that because you don't find ANY other right's listed (even though the amendment says you won't), that there just AREN'T any, because you can't find 'em. Furthermore, you apparently think the Ninth Amendment means NOTHING.
And, I think it means exactly what it says.
What happened to the strict constructionist rightwing "do what the Constitution says - not what you THINK it says"?? Do you think the framers got bored and just wanted to fill in some space. What do you think the Ninth Amendment means. Oh, I know what you think it means. You said so.
I guess you agree with that idiot, Scalia when he spewed the following drek: "the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be"
Let me see if I can dissect that crap. Even though the Ninth Amendment SAYS there "other rights", it really doesn't mean it. He's a fool.
Excon What he is saying is this: Just because the 9th Amendment says that there are other rights than those listed in the Constitution, it takes something other than the 9th Amendment do determine what those rights are. You can't just claim a right exists when you feel like it and point to the 9th Amendment as your proof. So again... show me another source for a "right" to health insurance or health care. You can try to spin this however you want, excon. But precedent in the interpretation of the 9th Amendment is clear. The 9th doesn't create rights. It simply says that other rights exist. It takes some other source (besides the Constitution) to determine what they are. Historical precedent, legal writings, new legislation, etc. Rights don't come into existence in a vacuum, much as you would wish they did. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
And I'm NOT so rich. Problem is that Obama defines me as "rich", and is going to tax me for it so that folks like you can have their imaginary rights granted. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
One more point regarding ORIGINALISM and the 9th Amendment: When Madison first presented the 9th Amendment to the Framers, he said the following: ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. From Findlaw at FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment In other words, MADISON'S OWN WORDS make it clear what the original intent of the 9th Amendment was. It was there to state that other rights besides those listed exist and are protected from the federal government, but IT DOES NOT DEFINE THOSE RIGHTS. There must be some other source for those rights to exist than the 9th Amendment. THAT is the originalist view. Scalia was right in his originalist view, and you are CLEARLY wrong on this one. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
No, it doesn't say that at all. That's the cool thing about the framers. They wrote in simple easy to understand English. They made their intention perfectly clear - that would be to anyone who SPEAKS English... It says, and I quote, "The enumeration IN the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". That's 21 words. They're clear as a bell. It doesn't say ANYTHING about NOT all rights are in the Constitution. It doesn't say anything CLOSE to that at all. It's ALL made up in your right wing head. You add words that aren't there to make it mean what you want it to mean. I don't know what happens to the strict constructionist over there in rightwingland... It says, that the rights we've listed HERE, IN the Constitution doesn't mean that aren't others, that AREN'T listed here IN the Constitution. You just don't LIKE what it says, or you aren't capable of reading ENGLISH. See, here's the REAL problem. I've discussed it with you before. It's about LISTS. You can't seem to get along without lists. You have lists of people who don't qualify for rights... You LOVE lists. You bring up people on your lists all the time. Gay people comes to mind... However, I digress. But, the framers KNEW that rightwingers like you would make hay of the LIST of rights the framers felt COMPELLED to specify, because of the rights NOT on the list... That's WHY they wrote the Ninth Amendment. So that it is perfectly clear that our rights are NOT limited to the ones LISTED. There are OTHERS. Apparently the framers were smarter than we even give them credit for. They KNEW that circumstances would arise wherein those UNLISTED rights would become apparent. That is exactly what is happening... excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello again, El: Let's take it to the next level. Of course, the framers could NEVER conceive of the air being fowled so badly that clean air becomes a commodity. But, they provided for us.. Certainly, one of those UNLISTED rights, is the right to clean air. You, of course, wouldn't think we have a right to that because you can't find it in the Constitution. You'd of course, be wrong, because it's right there, in the Ninth Amendment. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Sorry, Ex. but you are wrong on this one. All of this is coming from Washington. Don't you get it yet? The SOURCE of all these new found "rights" CANNOT Constitutionally be found in Washington. They must come from the states, because ANYTHING not listed is prohibited to the federal government. I too understand simple English. |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello again, gal: We're close. As discussed before, the Ninth Amendment says the RIGHTS not listed belong to the people. The TENTH Amendment, though, says that POWERS not given to the federal government shall remain with the states.. One deals with right's. The other deals with power. They ain't the same thing. In fact, they are polar opposites. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
You can't seem to explain how MADISON, who wrote the 9th Amendment, AND explained it's purpose as a matter of formal record at the Constitutional Convention, seems to disagree with your position. He himself said that the 9th was never intended to CONFER rights. He said that it was there to create a method of construction. But you still need that other source in order to "construct" a right. I'm not taking it any further until you can explain this. Because until that is explained, there is no "next step". The argument ends here.
Of course, the framers could NEVER conceive of the air being fowled so badly that clean air becomes a commodity.
But, they provided for us.. Certainly, one of those UNLISTED rights, is the right to clean air. You, of course, wouldn't think we have a right to that because you can't find it in the Constitution. You'd of course, be wrong, because it's right there, in the Ninth Amendment. Excon The framers DID create a method by which to fix any oversights, or to repair anything they could not conceive of. It's called THE AMENDMENTS. You don't just get to create rights or abrogate rights on a whim. There is a method by which it is done. Till then, you either have to find it in legal precedent, which doesn't exist, or in historical precendent, which also doesn't exist. One more point, excon. If the 9th Amendment means that the rights might not be listed ANYWHERE, including outside the Constitution, why did it specifically limit itself to lists within the Constitution? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Just because certain rights aren't listed IN THE CONSTITUTION doesn't mean that they don't exist. But they still have to be listed SOMEWHERE. Enough is enough, excon. You are wrong. EVERY LEGAL expert agrees with me. LEGAL PRECEDENT agrees with me. MADISON, who wrote the Amendment agrees with me. The 9th doesn't confer rights. It only protects ones that already exist in law and precedent, but are not specifically listed in the Constitution. Just admit it and move on. Elliot |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Can't open items in OE
[ 1 Answers ]
I am unable to open items in Outlook Express although I can get my browser and open things there. I cannot open a single item in OE, news item, weather, anything. Can you help. Thanks. Yes, the links in OE are the ones I cannot open. I get my IE browser easily and can open links there but...
Installing a Kohler Luxury Shower System
[ 7 Answers ]
I am replacing my old shower that had one head with a new luxury shower from Kohler that will have three body washes(24 holes each), a hand held, and a regular shower head. I have 1/2 inch copper coming into the shower from the slab. Seeing that I have 1/2 ", should I buy a 3/4" or 1/2" master...
Which of the items below does Not appear on the worksheet?
[ 1 Answers ]
Which of the items below does Not appear on the worksheet? a. adjusting entries b. the unajusted trial balance c. closing entries d. the dividends account I think it is B
You must buy 100 items with $100
[ 1 Answers ]
You must buy 100 items with $100 with $1 you can buy 20 pans with $5 you can buy 1 spoon and with $1 you can buy 1 lid you must buy all three items
View more questions Search
|
