8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution

Southern Chicken said:
Well, if Dixie ran the legislative branch, He could/will propose such an endeavor. This Congress didn't. The two aims of the law regarding pre-existing conditions are legitimate and withing the scope of Constitutional authority. It is not the role of the courts to use the argument, "Well, there's another way to do it, so you have to do it that way," in order to rule the mandate unconstitutional. That is legislating from the bench. The only questions are Are the aims put forth for preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions within the scope of Constitutional authority? and Is the mandate necessary in order to support that law?
Click to expand...

this is an issue for congress, obviously. the courts can and do inform congress, at times, where the law can be made constitutional, and the mandate is not necessary.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Strawman--
Note*By that I mean in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a straw man, it is a case in point! The SCOTUS most certainly has misinterpreted founding intent, time and time again. To argue that the Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means, is not the same as arguing what the founding fathers actually intended, they are two entirely different arguments. Now, we can have either argument, but we can't have both at the same time, that's intellectually dishonest. We can argue what the founding fathers intended, and use the Federalist Papers as a basis for that, or we can argue what the SCOTUS has ruled, and cite case law for that. You are trying to morph both arguments into one, and that doesn't work.
 
Alias said:
The occupy movement was training. They're preparing the useful idiots in case they need them if the law gets struck down. All the parasites are looking forward to free health care. If it gets struck down they will be very angry.
Click to expand...

Exactly how do you know this? Did you protest? I am not trying to be funny... I think this country will survive the ruling without bloodshed.
 
Dixie said:
No, it's not a straw man, it is a case in point! The SCOTUS most certainly has misinterpreted founding intent, time and time again. To argue that the Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means, is not the same as arguing what the founding fathers actually intended, they are two entirely different arguments. Now, we can have either argument, but we can't have both at the same time, that's intellectually dishonest. We can argue what the founding fathers intended, and use the Federalist Papers as a basis for that, or we can argue what the SCOTUS has ruled, and cite case law for that. You are trying to morph both arguments into one, and that doesn't work.
Click to expand...

We can rehash the old Jefferson and Hamilton debate, right Dixie? http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nec&proper.html

or

http://www.shmoop.com/legislative-branch/strict-constructionism-broad-constructionism.html
 
Southern Chicken said:
Exactly how do you know this? Did you protest? I am not trying to be funny... I think this country will survive the ruling without bloodshed.
Click to expand...

It's just my opinion. No, I'm a Tea Party guy. We've already had violence with the occupy movement and that is over absolutely nothing. I think SOME of the people who support the health care law will be devastated and driven to violence if it's struck down.
 
Dixie said:
You know... there IS a reason why Alexander Hamilton didn't write the Constitution, or ever become president of the United States.

He was what I like to call Our Founding Pinhead!
Click to expand...

IMO, There was no real difference in opinion between Hamilton and Jefferson with regard to whether or not the Necessary and Proper Clause allowed the Federal Government to enact laws that went beyond the power expressly given to the government in the Constitution. The difference was that Jefferson felt that "necessary" was a restrictive term, meaning that the law had to be essential in order to execute an expressed power..

Interest paragraph in the 2nd link I provided-


"The strict constructionists have won plenty of victories over the years. Jefferson won the election of 1800 by promising to limit the size and scope of government. The Supreme Court enforced a very narrow reading of the commerce clause from the 1870s through 1937, blocking many federal attempts to regulate economic activity. However, the general trend in American history has been toward the broad constructionist view. In times of war, economic upheaval, and other crises, most people have tended to favor granting the government wide powers of action; over the decades, those gradual expansions of power have led to a government much larger—and an interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause much broader—than anything Jefferson or Hamilton could have ever imagined. Almost all of us now accept that the federal government has a huge array of implied powers—powers to impose environmental rules, labor regulations, educational policies, and a hundred other kinds of interventions into American life, even though those powers are explicitly mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Perhaps our definition of "necessary and proper" will change again in the future, but for now, there seems to be a broad consensus in favor of broad constructionism among most Americans."
 
IMO, There was no real difference in opinion between Hamilton and Jefferson with regard to whether or not the Necessary and Proper Clause allowed the Federal Government to enact laws that went beyond the power expressly given to the government in the Constitution. The difference was that Jefferson felt that "necessary" was a restrictive term, meaning that the law had to be essential in order to execute an expressed power..
Click to expand...

Jefferson, like Madison, believed the federal government was limited to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. And rightly so, because as Madison points out, the enumerated powers would be useless otherwise. What would be the purpose of enumerating specific powers, then writing a 'loophole' which allowed congress to ignore those limited powers? Hamilton's arguments were beneficial, in that they provided a counter-debate for Madison and Jefferson to explain the limited powers of government under the new Constitution, and this was important in obtaining ratification by the people. Liberals often like to spout Hamiltonian arguments, as if these were adopted in the Constitution, when most of them were not, and had they been, the Constitution would have likely never been ratified.
 
it should also be pointed out that originally there was no intention to have a bill of rights. even hamilton argued against them stating that there would be no need since the government is strictly limited to those enumerated powers. so apparently even hamilton believed that the central government had limits.
 
Alias said:
That 45,000 deaths each year is only in the imagination of the source of that number. I've heard that before and it can't be proven. You can't prove it and the source can't prove it. It's nothing but another scare tactic by the left.
Click to expand...

Read the Harvard report.

We have been a nation for well over 200 years. So how many people has this nation allowed to die because we didn't have health care? Crazy.
Click to expand...

There wasn’t much in the way of health care 200 years ago. However, past Presidents have been trying for generations to get health care coverage for everyone.

No one gets turned away who needs it. You guys sit around and think up this shit to make people believe we have to have this shit to ease the imaginary need. Read my sig.
Click to expand...

How does one know they have high cholesterol? Do we wait until they have kidney damage? Or maybe they could spend over $500.00 to find out. Of course, if they could afford that then they could afford a check-up.

HDL Cholesterol Test Strips - Vial of 3 PTS1788 . $12.99 *** These test strips MUST be used with the CardioChek device. They will NOT test cholesterol on their own ***
CardioChek… Price: $529.95 Ships from and sold by Healthcheck Systems Inc. (Amazon)

Why do some folks think the founding fathers held Amish beliefs? The constitution is capable of considering advancements and technology.

“The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.”

The blessings of liberty allowed for the discovery of new medicines and medical procedures. If the country is capable of providing those things to the citizens, and it is quite capable, then according to the founding fathers’ intentions it is to do so.
 
Dixie said:
I never have understood the mandate to cover pre-existing conditions. If you are obtaining insurance to cover a condition that already exists, you aren't really purchasing 'insurance' are you? Insurance is supposed to 'insure' you are protected in case something happens, not pay for something that has already occurred. You can't wait until you have a car wreck, then call the insurance agent and buy insurance to cover your damages. You can't call and get fire insurance as your house burns to the ground... why should you be able to get health 'insurance' to cover some health condition that already exists? And if that IS the case, doesn't the insurance provider have to compensate for the unlimited liability by charging higher premiums?

What we have is, a bunch of emotive liberal Utopian dreamers, who expect "the government" to just provide everything our hearts desire, based on sheer emotion and ignorance of economics. You expect capitalists to not make profit, yet still risk their money to invest in business and create jobs. You expect wealthy people to forfeit most of their income, while continuing to go out there and earn incomes. You expect doctors and hospitals to work for free, because they love helping sick people. You expect the military to protect us from our enemies without any funding... And here, you expect insurance companies, who offer a product, to change the parameters of risk vs. cost, because you think it's possible to have everyone covered by insurance for every possible condition and every possible circumstance. Somehow, you have deduced that such an idea will bring down the cost of health care, even though, nothing has been done to even begin to address the cost of health care, and the measures you are implementing will drive up the cost of insurance to the point no one can afford it. Then, we'll have to depend on government to dispense health care.
Click to expand...

The problem is insurance companies like to blame future problems on pre-existing conditions. If one has high blood pressure, taking medication and develop kidney problems the insurance company can say the high blood pressure caused the kidney damage or diabetes caused eye problems so one would be denied coverage for possible future problems.

I agree private insurance companies shouldn't be forced to insure people. A select group of people, the investors, should not have to bear that burden. It should be he responsibility of everyone, the government. :D
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that's ridiculous. It's the equivalent of saying that if you can carry a gun and choose not to, it's logical to conclude that you prefer being raped.
Click to expand...

The illness is an on-going thing. If one is able to see a doctor to treat the illness and chooses not to it's reasonable to conclude they prefer being ill. One is not making the choice to not carry a gun while they're being raped.
 
Dixie said:
Uhm... Regulating or mandating health care INSURANCE has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of health CARE! It's two entirely and completely different things. Nothing in ObamaCare addresses anything about the cost of health care, it simply shifts the burden of the cost. Since it shifts the burden away from the consumer, and to the government, the insurance companies, and employers, the result are, higher taxes, higher insurance premiums and fewer jobs.
Click to expand...

What's with the "fewer jobs"? Money should be made off the ill so others have a job?
 
apple0154 said:
The problem is insurance companies like to blame future problems on pre-existing conditions. If one has high blood pressure, taking medication and develop kidney problems the insurance company can say the high blood pressure caused the kidney damage or diabetes caused eye problems so one would be denied coverage for possible future problems.

I agree private insurance companies shouldn't be forced to insure people. A select group of people, the investors, should not have to bear that burden. It should be he responsibility of everyone, the government. :D
Click to expand...

Look, I agree there are a LOT of areas where insurance companies are permitted (or were) to use the 'pre-existing' excuse as a means to avoid paying claims or even offering coverage, I am not here advocating FOR the insurance companies, or the laws pertaining to their regulation, there certainly needed to be some reforms made there, and Republicans had numerous proposals and suggestions to do just that, but you would have no part of it. Most reasonable people understand, and understood, that we needed some measure of health care reform, with regard to insurance carriers, patients rights, TORT reforms, and especially, with regard to Medicaid and Medicare, because they are both bankrupt. Something needs to be done about illegal aliens using the medical resources of many cities across the Southwest, driving up the cost of health care to legitimate citizens... there are a TON of things that need to be done with regard to health care, unfortunately nationalizing it, wasn't one of them!
 
Dixie said:
Look, I agree there are a LOT of areas where insurance companies are permitted (or were) to use the 'pre-existing' excuse as a means to avoid paying claims or even offering coverage, I am not here advocating FOR the insurance companies, or the laws pertaining to their regulation, there certainly needed to be some reforms made there, and Republicans had numerous proposals and suggestions to do just that, but you would have no part of it. Most reasonable people understand, and understood, that we needed some measure of health care reform, with regard to insurance carriers, patients rights, TORT reforms, and especially, with regard to Medicaid and Medicare, because they are both bankrupt. Something needs to be done about illegal aliens using the medical resources of many cities across the Southwest, driving up the cost of health care to legitimate citizens... there are a TON of things that need to be done with regard to health care, unfortunately nationalizing it, wasn't one of them!
Click to expand...

There are many benefits to a nationalized health care system. One thing is standardized forms. Ones medical history is entered into a computer and that information is readily available for any doctor. For example, your family doctor sends you to a specialist. He can immediately pull up your complete chart.

Then there's billing. The internet is swamped with at-home medical billing "jobs". Who is paying for that? The ill person, that's who.

There are a lot of savings to be had with national health care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top