i wish all young americans knew the constitution like this one

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y98HxYbsdBM&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - US Soldier Demands Apology From Senator Claire McCaskill at Town Hall[/ame]
 
This says it better than I can.

"Let me begin this piece by saying I have tremendous respect for the sacrifice of our soldiers. My grandfather died in WWII fighting the Nazis and my father served in the armed services in Vietnam. I will gladly honor them at appropriate occasions and pay higher taxes to support soldiers with increased pay and better equipment. I will thank them for my freedoms. They have sacrificed their freedom and sometimes their lives so we could remain free. I promise I get it.

What troubles me is the recent over-the-top philosophy by many that basically translates to "if a solider says it then it must be the gospel truth." I respect the soldier and the immense sacrifice he or she makes but that does not mean every soldier is qualified to give Constitutional interpretation or foreign policy judgments. Why is all this relevant?

In the video clip below a man who is about to honorably serve his country in war demands an apology from Senator Claire McCaskill. His basic argument is that the federal government should only limit its powers to those outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. He therefore says McCaskill should apologize for trying to pass health care reform because nowhere does Article 1, Section 8 talk about "health control" as he calls it.

First, the soldier shows a completely closed-off mind in that he goes on the verbal attack against Sen. McCaskill then proceeds to say he does not want a explanation but rather just an apology. So from his perspective their is actually no room for argument or reasoning. Under his thinking he is a soldier and therefore he is right and Sen. McCaskill must concede and apologize. Again I will respect the soldier's opinion and I will listen to his argument but I do not think everyone, including Senator McCaskill, should simply be forced to concede his points because of what he is doing for his country.

Secondly, the soldier's argument is actually not as much as of a given as he claims. He is correct in that Article 1, Section 8 never specifically mentions health care. The audience, many of them seniors, stand an applaud for his argument that if it is not in Section 8 then government has no business doing it. However, if the soldier's argument really holds true then the federal government also has no business building interstates or bridges, regulating airports, regulating sexual scenes on prime time television, regulating child porn, regulating and enforcing drug laws, providing farm subsidies, regulating abortion, or for sending a man to the moon. In addition, if all the seniors in the audience really agree with the soldier's argument they should be prepared to give up social security and Medicare because nowhere does Article 1, Section 8 refer to providing health care or welfare to the elderly. So after analyzing this more carefully, do we really want to say government can do nothing if it is not specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?

I hope and pray the young man who rants on Sen. McCaskill returns home safely after serving his country. I thank him for his love of country and the freedoms he voluntarily surrendered by serving in the military, but I will not concede to his interpretation of the Constitution because of that great sacrifice."

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-St-L...soldiers-rant-against-Senator-Clair-McCaskill
 
christiefan915 said:
This says it better than I can.

"Let me begin this piece by saying I have tremendous respect for the sacrifice of our soldiers. My grandfather died in WWII fighting the Nazis and my father served in the armed services in Vietnam. I will gladly honor them at appropriate occasions and pay higher taxes to support soldiers with increased pay and better equipment. I will thank them for my freedoms. They have sacrificed their freedom and sometimes their lives so we could remain free. I promise I get it.

What troubles me is the recent over-the-top philosophy by many that basically translates to "if a solider says it then it must be the gospel truth." I respect the soldier and the immense sacrifice he or she makes but that does not mean every soldier is qualified to give Constitutional interpretation or foreign policy judgments. Why is all this relevant?

In the video clip below a man who is about to honorably serve his country in war demands an apology from Senator Claire McCaskill. His basic argument is that the federal government should only limit its powers to those outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. He therefore says McCaskill should apologize for trying to pass health care reform because nowhere does Article 1, Section 8 talk about "health control" as he calls it.

First, the soldier shows a completely closed-off mind in that he goes on the verbal attack against Sen. McCaskill then proceeds to say he does not want a explanation but rather just an apology. So from his perspective their is actually no room for argument or reasoning. Under his thinking he is a soldier and therefore he is right and Sen. McCaskill must concede and apologize. Again I will respect the soldier's opinion and I will listen to his argument but I do not think everyone, including Senator McCaskill, should simply be forced to concede his points because of what he is doing for his country.

Secondly, the soldier's argument is actually not as much as of a given as he claims. He is correct in that Article 1, Section 8 never specifically mentions health care. The audience, many of them seniors, stand an applaud for his argument that if it is not in Section 8 then government has no business doing it. However, if the soldier's argument really holds true then the federal government also has no business building interstates or bridges, regulating airports, regulating sexual scenes on prime time television, regulating child porn, regulating and enforcing drug laws, providing farm subsidies, regulating abortion, or for sending a man to the moon. In addition, if all the seniors in the audience really agree with the soldier's argument they should be prepared to give up social security and Medicare because nowhere does Article 1, Section 8 refer to providing health care or welfare to the elderly. So after analyzing this more carefully, do we really want to say government can do nothing if it is not specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?

I hope and pray the young man who rants on Sen. McCaskill returns home safely after serving his country. I thank him for his love of country and the freedoms he voluntarily surrendered by serving in the military, but I will not concede to his interpretation of the Constitution because of that great sacrifice."
Click to expand...

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-St-L...soldiers-rant-against-Senator-Clair-McCaskill
Click to expand...

it was going so well, until the bolded part. this examiner writer basically says that 'so what if it's not in the constitution, we should be doing it anyway'.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it was going so well, until the bolded part. this examiner writer basically says that 'so what if it's not in the constitution, we should be doing it anyway'.
Click to expand...

Apropos of nothing, does this mean we shouldn't have been/continued funding the Iraq war after 2005?

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
 
christiefan915 said:
This says it better than I can.

"Let me begin this piece by saying I have tremendous respect for the sacrifice of our soldiers. My grandfather died in WWII fighting the Nazis and my father served in the armed services in Vietnam. I will gladly honor them at appropriate occasions and pay higher taxes to support soldiers with increased pay and better equipment. I will thank them for my freedoms. They have sacrificed their freedom and sometimes their lives so we could remain free. I promise I get it.

What troubles me is the recent over-the-top philosophy by many that basically translates to "if a solider says it then it must be the gospel truth." I respect the soldier and the immense sacrifice he or she makes but that does not mean every soldier is qualified to give Constitutional interpretation or foreign policy judgments. Why is all this relevant?

In the video clip below a man who is about to honorably serve his country in war demands an apology from Senator Claire McCaskill. His basic argument is that the federal government should only limit its powers to those outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. He therefore says McCaskill should apologize for trying to pass health care reform because nowhere does Article 1, Section 8 talk about "health control" as he calls it.

First, the soldier shows a completely closed-off mind in that he goes on the verbal attack against Sen. McCaskill then proceeds to say he does not want a explanation but rather just an apology. So from his perspective their is actually no room for argument or reasoning. Under his thinking he is a soldier and therefore he is right and Sen. McCaskill must concede and apologize. Again I will respect the soldier's opinion and I will listen to his argument but I do not think everyone, including Senator McCaskill, should simply be forced to concede his points because of what he is doing for his country.

Secondly, the soldier's argument is actually not as much as of a given as he claims. He is correct in that Article 1, Section 8 never specifically mentions health care. The audience, many of them seniors, stand an applaud for his argument that if it is not in Section 8 then government has no business doing it. However, if the soldier's argument really holds true then the federal government also has no business building interstates or bridges, regulating airports, regulating sexual scenes on prime time television, regulating child porn, regulating and enforcing drug laws, providing farm subsidies, regulating abortion, or for sending a man to the moon. In addition, if all the seniors in the audience really agree with the soldier's argument they should be prepared to give up social security and Medicare because nowhere does Article 1, Section 8 refer to providing health care or welfare to the elderly. So after analyzing this more carefully, do we really want to say government can do nothing if it is not specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?

I hope and pray the young man who rants on Sen. McCaskill returns home safely after serving his country. I thank him for his love of country and the freedoms he voluntarily surrendered by serving in the military, but I will not concede to his interpretation of the Constitution because of that great sacrifice."

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-St-L...soldiers-rant-against-Senator-Clair-McCaskill
Click to expand...
The main problem with the above diatribe is the soldier's "interpretation" is anything BUT an "interpretation" of the Constitution. What the soldier says is what the Constitution says, and what the writers of the Constitution said when they wrote it. It is Mr. Witt, Senator McCaskill, and their entire ilk who are doing the interpreting (ie: ignoring what is says and replacing it with what they want it to say.)

He is also correct in calling the health care bill health control. It controls who has insurance, which insurance, who pays for it, etc. etc. etc. It sets up more than one new bureaucracy whose job it will be to control the mandates put in place. People who are voluntarily without insurance will either pay for insurance against their will, be fined for going without, or accept their employers insurance (which is almost never paid for 100%), with the added price tag of having that benefit taxed. People currently with insurance will have to watch their every step to keep it. One little mistake, one "i" not dotted c orrectly or one "t" not cross at the proper height and they'll be involuntarily placed under the government's plan - meaning they will also be under the huge federal bureaucracy that has made such an incredible mess of medicare and medicaid. Youth who have not yet had a chance to gain their own insurance will have no choice. They'll have no plan to grandfather, so it's Uncle Sam, period. They won't even have the choice of Uncle Sam or nothing.

If this is not control, what the hell is?

And, while I agree, even though I am an old mud dog of 40 years service, that doing service does not automatically mean a soldier is correct on matters of Constitutional law. However, disagreeing with the liberal Constitution destroyers does not make us automatically wrong, either.
 
christiefan915 said:
Apropos of nothing, does this mean we shouldn't have been/continued funding the Iraq war after 2005?

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Click to expand...
Don't parade your ignorance too proudly. That simply means Congress cannot write a law that automatically finances the armed services, like they can other fiscal obligations. Funding for the armed forces must be appropriated and approved each and every legislative session. Which, to date, it has been. (With a few noteable exceptions.... "I voted for it, before I voted against it.")
 
Good Luck said:
Don't parade your ignorance too proudly. That simply means Congress cannot write a law that automatically finances the armed services, like they can other fiscal obligations. Funding for the armed forces must be appropriated and approved each and every legislative session. Which, to date, it has been. (With a few noteable exceptions.... "I voted for it, before I voted against it.")
Click to expand...

Not knowing something and asking for information is parading ignorance?

I would think it's the opposite.
 
Good Luck said:
The main problem with the above diatribe is the soldier's "interpretation" is anything BUT an "interpretation" of the Constitution. What the soldier says is what the Constitution says, and what the writers of the Constitution said when they wrote it. It is Mr. Witt, Senator McCaskill, and their entire ilk who are doing the interpreting (ie: ignoring what is says and replacing it with what they want it to say.)

Demanding that McCaskill apologize for doing what she was elected to do is just grandstanding.

He is also correct in calling the health care bill health control. It controls who has insurance, which insurance, who pays for it, etc. etc. etc.

Employer-subsidized insurance does the same. Even private insurers decide to take you or not based on the answers you give on their application.


It sets up more than one new bureaucracy whose job it will be to control the mandates put in place. People who are voluntarily without insurance will either pay for insurance against their will, be fined for going without...

...like auto or homeowner insurance, if you possess a car or a mortgage. Also, most people are not using the Medicare they pay for and they don't have a choice of opting out.

...or accept their employers insurance (which is almost never paid for 100%), with the added price tag of having that benefit taxed. People currently with insurance will have to watch their every step to keep it.

As they do now. What kind of coverage do you have anyway, that you don't have the same caveats the rest of us mere mortals do?

One little mistake, one "i" not dotted c orrectly or one "t" not cross at the proper height and they'll be involuntarily placed under the government's plan - meaning they will also be under the huge federal bureaucracy that has made such an incredible mess of medicare and medicaid.

Medicare spends only around 2 percent of its costs on overhead, a fraction of what private plans do, and gets higher satisfaction ratings. Do you know anybody who didn't apply for Medicare when they reached the right age?


Youth who have not yet had a chance to gain their own insurance will have no choice. They'll have no plan to grandfather, so it's Uncle Sam, period. They won't even have the choice of Uncle Sam or nothing.

Youth always had the chance of getting employer-subsidized insurance if their jobs provided it. One of the reasons they don't buy it privately is because it's so expensive in proportion to their incomes.

If this is not control, what the hell is?

Control is what I and millions of others live with under our company or private insurance plans.

And, while I agree, even though I am an old mud dog of 40 years service, that doing service does not automatically mean a soldier is correct on matters of Constitutional law. However, disagreeing with the liberal Constitution destroyers does not make us automatically wrong, either.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make you automatically wrong or them automatically right. It does call for discussion and compromise rather than hyperbole and fear-mongering, though.
 
christiefan915 said:
Control is what I and millions of others live with under our company or private insurance plans.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Currently you have full control over what you accept or do not accept. Tou have the option of not accepting your company insurance plan if you do not want it. You have the option of shopping for a plan that satisfies you. Of course, an insurance company does not have to accept you as a client, but that, too is a little thing we call FREEDOM. You are not forced to accept a particular plan, they are not forced to accept a particular client.

But the bill under congress will change that. People will be REQUIRED to accept their company plan if one is offered. And, of course, companies will be forced to offer a plan. Double hit. And that's people who have a current plan with their company. Those who don't, after this bill is enacted, will have to accept what Uncle Sam offers through their plan.

If this plan is enacted, businesses will no longer have the ability to shop for better plans. Currently, a business will often enter into a 5 year contract, and renegotiate the contract after the 5 years are up. It gives them leverage (especially larger companies) to get a better deal because they have the ability to go elsewhere. Insurance companies will give better pricinng breaks so they can keep their clients. But no longer under the health care bill. They'll be stuck with what they have, as changed will no longer be allowed. And if you think the insurance companies won't take advantage of a captive clientele, you are deluded. Lack of freedom will erode the system to the point of collapse. But then, anyone with two connected neurons can see the ultimate gola of this health care plan is to eliminate the private health care market and make everyone totally dependent on the government.

Totalitarians do not understand freedom. All they want is the authority to force everyone and everything into their own visions of how things "should" be. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to TELL people they MUST accept their company plan (the value of which just happens to be taxed now instead of exempt), or be fined. It is OK to tell companies they can no longer shop for a better plan, can no longer choose what levels of coverage to offer which type of employees as benefits. Freedom, it seems, is for losers.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Demanding that McCaskill apologize for doing what she was elected to do is just grandstanding.
Click to expand...
When she was elected to office, she took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ignoring the mandate of the 10th Amendment by ignoring the limitations of Article 1, section 8 is a violation of that oath. It is NOT what she was "elected for" according to rules of the Senate, and the Constitution which demands all of congress be sealed in oath to the Constitution.

If people elected her to violate the Constitution, then they are effectively suborning treason.
 
Good Luck said:
When she was elected to office, she took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ignoring the mandate of the 10th Amendment by ignoring the limitations of Article 1, section 8 is a violation of that oath. It is NOT what she was "elected for" according to rules of the Senate, and the Constitution which demands all of congress be sealed in oath to the Constitution.

If people elected her to violate the Constitution, then they are effectively suborning treason.
Click to expand...

You people are being fucking idiots for refusing to recongnize Hamilton's interpretation for no other purpose than that it suits your purposes of destroying America. Hamilton's interpretation has FAR MORE VALIDITY THAN MADISONS.
 
Watermark said:
You people are being fucking idiots for refusing to recongnize Hamilton's interpretation for no other purpose than that it suits your purposes of destroying America. Hamilton's interpretation has FAR MORE VALIDITY THAN MADISONS.
Click to expand...
Hamilton's argument was for the ability to fund general welfare concerns. No one is saying the feds cannot use taxes to support things like education. But when they form an actual cabinet position to track and manipulate education, then they are going beyond their constitutional limits. When they pass legislation like NCLB mandating performance reviews and ridiculous goals like 100% literacy of a student population that includes children with severe cerebral palsy, they are going way outside their constitutional authority. Government can constitutionally fund health care. But they do not have constitutional authority to control the health insurance industry, as the bill under consideration will be doing.

Congress is CONTROLLING things they were never meant to control. There is a significant difference between funding and regulating, though you big government tit suckers won't see the difference because it would toss your anti-constitutional ideas right out the window.
 
Good Luck said:
Wrong. Currently you have full control over what you accept or do not accept. Tou have the option of not accepting your company insurance plan if you do not want it. You have the option of shopping for a plan that satisfies you. Of course, an insurance company does not have to accept you as a client, but that, too is a little thing we call FREEDOM. You are not forced to accept a particular plan, they are not forced to accept a particular client.

That's correct. If I want my monthly insurance payment to go from three figures to four, I don't have to accept the company plan. If I had the luxury of being able to get any kind of insurance without thinking about the costs, I would do so.

But the bill under congress will change that. People will be REQUIRED to accept their company plan if one is offered.

I'd like to see figures on how many people don't accept their company plan. I know people who stick with jobs they hate because of the benefits. I know people who take jobs with certain companies just to get benefits.

And, of course, companies will be forced to offer a plan. Double hit. And that's people who have a current plan with their company. Those who don't, after this bill is enacted, will have to accept what Uncle Sam offers through their plan.

Are you suggesting that the plan offered by US would be inferior? For the most part senior citizens are satisfied with Medicare, active military and veterans are satisfied with their plan, Congress is satisfied with its plan. Unless you have something specific and negative to offer about the planned coverage, I don't see your point.

If this plan is enacted, businesses will no longer have the ability to shop for better plans. Currently, a business will often enter into a 5 year contract, and renegotiate the contract after the 5 years are up. It gives them leverage (especially larger companies) to get a better deal because they have the ability to go elsewhere. Insurance companies will give better pricinng breaks so they can keep their clients. But no longer under the health care bill. They'll be stuck with what they have, as changed will no longer be allowed. And if you think the insurance companies won't take advantage of a captive clientele, you are deluded.

Newsflash, insurance companies already take advantage of a captive clientele. You either accept what they offer or drop them.

Lack of freedom will erode the system to the point of collapse. But then, anyone with two connected neurons can see the ultimate gola of this health care plan is to eliminate the private health care market and make everyone totally dependent on the government.

Previously you wrote "I am an old mud dog of 40 years service...". This suggests that you qualify for and possibly receive veterans' benefits, but if you don't, millions of others do. Are you suggesting this benefit should be dropped because active military and veterans (and their families) are totally dependent on the government for their health coverage?

Totalitarians do not understand freedom. All they want is the authority to force everyone and everything into their own visions of how things "should" be.

Hyerbole. We had the same thing under bush with his vision of remaking the Middle East yet conservatives supported him for years.

Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to TELL people they MUST accept their company plan (the value of which just happens to be taxed now instead of exempt), or be fined. It is OK to tell companies they can no longer shop for a better plan, can no longer choose what levels of coverage to offer which type of employees as benefits. Freedom, it seems, is for losers.
Click to expand...

I haven't read all of the plan yet, and I don't automatically accept as true what the detractors say, so I'll have to investigate this further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top