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

Dixie said:
I don't need to go find links to statistical data, it's available for you to search just like it was available for me to search. I'm not your data bitch! And I don't need to prove that living longer is exclusively attributable to better health care access, that has been debunked as well, by your buddies here!

If you are too stupid to comprehend that Hawaii has fewer roads to drive on, therefore, fewer people die on them... then so be it! Go find the statistics and prove me wrong, if that's important to you! I'm willing to bet they have one of the lowest traffic fatality rates per capita of any state. Fewer people dying in car wrecks, contributes to the average life expectancy, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Click to expand...

Oh nononono...if YOU are going to put forth a specific factual claim, then YOU get to do the legwork and provide the evidence to back up YOUR claim...nice try dodging, though.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And in Dixie's world, taking you car in for regular oil changes, tuneups and other preventative maintenance doesn't increase the lifetime of the vehicle either...
Click to expand...


Guess Dix just doesn't want to discuss this particular bit of info since it showcases just how wrong he is about the effectiveness of preventative medicine.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
something that your mind seems unable to comprehend was that the framers created a LIMITED government. One that had finite powers and could only do so much, because they had just finished their relationship with a government that believed it could do anything it wanted to, for the peoples own benefit of course. So yes, the constitution does forbid the government from doing lots of things. Unfortunately, we've got people nowadays that would use the constitution for toilet paper, yourself included, simply because you believe it restricts the government too much, not realizing that the framers provided those severe restrictions for a very good reason.
Click to expand...

I'm aware the framers wanted a limited government. I'm also aware the framers intention was to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty both which are greatly aided by healthly citizens.

(Excerpt) We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End) (Dic.com)
Promote: to help or encourage to exist or flourish

Furthermeore, (Excerpt) 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. (End) (Dic.com)

What do you think was the purpose of the Constitution? I propose it was to offer the citizens a good life, a better life than what they had. Can anyone justify the government not offering a pill that can extend the life of many citizens by 20 or more years at today's cost of 50 cents a day? Can anyone possibly argue the health of citizens is not critical to the general welfare, regardless of how one interprets "general", or that ones health is not vital to obtaining and enjoying the blessings of liberty?

So I'll put the question to you, "Do you oppose government medical because you don't think it's good or because you believe the Constitution forbids it? If you have difficulty comprehending what I'm asking let me know and I'll try to clarify it further.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Guess Dix just doesn't want to discuss this particular bit of info since it showcases just how wrong he is about the effectiveness of preventative medicine.
Click to expand...


The opponents try to come up with any and all excuses regardless of how foolish. The citizens in dozens of countries, encompassing lifestyles as varied as people themselves, all benefit from government medical. Alcohol comsumption, high degree of fatty foods, excessive highway speeds....and the people still live as long or longer.

As I mentioned earlier soon they'll be saying their longevity is due to them speaking a foreign language. :lol:
 
apple0154 said:
I'm aware the framers wanted a limited government. I'm also aware the framers intention was to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty both which are greatly aided by healthly citizens.

(Excerpt) We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End) (Dic.com)
Promote: to help or encourage to exist or flourish

Furthermeore, (Excerpt) 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. (End) (Dic.com)
Click to expand...
still clinging to the tortured interpretation? how long will you be beholden to this incorrect translation?

apple0154 said:
What do you think was the purpose of the Constitution? I propose it was to offer the citizens a good life, a better life than what they had. Can anyone justify the government not offering a pill that can extend the life of many citizens by 20 or more years at today's cost of 50 cents a day? Can anyone possibly argue the health of citizens is not critical to the general welfare, regardless of how one interprets "general", or that ones health is not vital to obtaining and enjoying the blessings of liberty?
Click to expand...
the purpose of the constitution was to create a limited central government that could handle basic things that a nation needed while protecting the individual rights of the people. offering the pill is one thing, mandating it's consumption is another entirely.

apple0154 said:
So I'll put the question to you, "Do you oppose government medical because you don't think it's good or because you believe the Constitution forbids it? If you have difficulty comprehending what I'm asking let me know and I'll try to clarify it further.
Click to expand...
I oppose government medical because the government ruins anything it touches, permanently. no matter how good it's intentions are at first, it corrupts and destroys the benefits by it's absorption of power over the rights of the people. the framers knew this from personal experience and wrote the constitution to prohibit governments involvement in the basic life decisions of the people.
 
apple0154 said:
How about "everyone contributed to a mutual benefit"?
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
that would be a welcome relief.....when do you propose the change take effect?.....
Click to expand...

He's talking about Karl Marx philosophy... From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

This is evidenced by the fact that he does not intend for "everybody" to contribute as he says, because the poor and most middle class aren't included.
 
Dixie said:
He's talking about Karl Marx philosophy... From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This is evidenced by the fact that he does not intend for "everybody" to contribute as he says, because the poor and most middle class aren't included.
Click to expand...

LOL, doublewide, explain when the Soviet Union was formed, since you're such an expert on Communism....
 
SmarterThanYou said:
still clinging to the tortured interpretation? how long will you be beholden to this incorrect translation?
Click to expand...

To what do you think general welfare refers? The ground that makes up the country? The trees within? The rivers? Or the people?

the purpose of the constitution was to create a limited central government that could handle basic things that a nation needed while protecting the individual rights of the people. offering the pill is one thing, mandating it's consumption is another entirely.
Click to expand...

Who is mandating one has to obtain medical treatment? The purpose of the constitution was to implement rules and regulations that would form a country and offer the citizens the best life possible. Why else form a country?

I oppose government medical because the government ruins anything it touches, permanently. no matter how good it's intentions are at first, it corrupts and destroys the benefits by it's absorption of power over the rights of the people. the framers knew this from personal experience and wrote the constitution to prohibit governments involvement in the basic life decisions of the people.
Click to expand...

With regards to government medical there is not one country where the citizens want it dismantled. Dozens of countries and not one government has corrupted or destroyed the benefits to a degree the people want to revert to the old "pay or suffer" system and every country started out with a "pay or suffer" system. Stated another way every government medical plan is superior to the previous "pay or suffer" system the citizens previously had.
 
Dixie said:
He's talking about Karl Marx philosophy... From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

This is evidenced by the fact that he does not intend for "everybody" to contribute as he says, because the poor and most middle class aren't included.
Click to expand...

Wrong guess. I have no problem with people giving less than their ability as long as those in need have their basic needs met.
 
apple0154 said:
To what do you think general welfare refers? The ground that makes up the country? The trees within? The rivers? Or the people?
Click to expand...

According to the man who wrote the "general welfare clause" it means what is articulated specifically in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and can't possibly or logically mean anything else. This is the element you seem to be missing, or ignoring. Madison points out, there would be no purpose of the Constitution, if "general welfare" meant Congress has unfettered power to determine the definition. If the clause meant what you want to interpret it to mean, we could literally throw away the rest of the Constitution, as it would have little or no meaning at all. Congress can pass whatever law they please, as long as they determine it is for our "general welfare" to do so. That would be the only clause needed for any and all cases. But of course, the 'general welfare' clause isn't some mystical open-ended phrase, which can mean anything your liberal heart desires, it is qualified by an extensive list of specific enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8.
 
Dixie said:
According to the man who wrote the "general welfare clause" it means what is articulated specifically in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and can't possibly or logically mean anything else. This is the element you seem to be missing, or ignoring. Madison points out, there would be no purpose of the Constitution, if "general welfare" meant Congress has unfettered power to determine the definition. If the clause meant what you want to interpret it to mean, we could literally throw away the rest of the Constitution, as it would have little or no meaning at all. Congress can pass whatever law they please, as long as they determine it is for our "general welfare" to do so. That would be the only clause needed for any and all cases. But of course, the 'general welfare' clause isn't some mystical open-ended phrase, which can mean anything your liberal heart desires, it is qualified by an extensive list of specific enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8.
Click to expand...

(Excerpt) Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined "general welfare," leaving the political question to Congress. In United States v. Butler (1936), the Court for the first time construed the clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from processors of agricultural products such as meat; the funds raised by the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax, ruling that the general welfare language in the Taxing and Spending Clause related only to "matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare". Congress continues to make expansive use of the Taxing and Spending Clause; for instance, the social security program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

So, a law that covers all citizens can be considered "national" and if such a law deals with the health of the citizens it's reasonable to conclude it has to do with their welfare. Health care = national welfare. (Enjoy the double entendre.) :D

Consider the pollution laws. Although mostly managed by States it is overseen by the EPA. Why pollution laws? Because pollution adversely affects citizen's welfare (health).

You wrote, "According to the man who wrote the "general welfare clause" it means what is articulated specifically in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and can't possibly or logically mean anything else." I counter that the framers couldn't possibly or logically have meant the Federal Government was prohibited from attempting to stop the needless deaths of tens of thousands of citizens each year even though such a scenario may have been beyond their current understanding.

Again, we go back to the Preamble. "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."

So, what did they hope the constitution would achieve? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Can that be accomplished when one group of citizens sit idly by while another group needlessly suffer and die when help is readily available? The founding fathers had no idea how mass food production coupled with medicine/medical care would almost double the general life span. To propose the founding fathers' intention to form a more perfect country with domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and desiring that citizens secure the blessings of liberty encompassed watching tens of thousands of citizens needlessly die is beyond absurd.
 
Dixie said:
How do you figure, if 48% don't pay taxes?
Click to expand...

Does the 48% represent the same citizens, year after year? Or is it a general percentage? Just as people change jobs, some unemployed for a while, they make a contribution over their lifetime. Some years more, some years less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top