Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pass legislation is a non-issue when discussing the limited enumerated powers of the federal government. The 10th amendment states exactly what limits of power the Feds are, and that they can't pass laws or take actions which violate this amendment. Then claiming that their ability to enable legislation as the justification for it is just adding injury to the insult that the Constitution can be interpreted.
Also, you must have missed this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North Lots of countries (including the old USSR) had detailed constituitions; most are ignored and just scraps of paper.
Ours is different because it is a living breathing document.
I know there is currently pushback against that fact, but that's because we have re-entered one of our plutocratic periods where the money is against the will of the people, and the people want change.
And what is the method for making the necessary changes, or commonly refered to as amendments? I know you know the answer. If government wants to push off these healthcare reforms and assume the roles that overstep the bounds of the 10th amendment, then they need to ratify an amendment to the constitution which is a much more difficult task than just passing a bill.
Its easier to just draft legislation though, violating the constitution, and claiming that its a "breathing" document rather than making the appropriate changes through the amendment process that is outlined in the document itself.
You do know why there are so many jokes about hanging lawyers do you not?
If not, let me clue you in. They twist words and meanings until they can fit them to their position. The do not serve the intent, the serve the position of the moment. They seek only to make anything using legal confusion, definitional questioning ("Depends on what the definition of [is] is), and any rule they can manipulate to serve their ends.
I am all for getting to the understanding of a meaning. I encourage people to do so, but there comes a point when one begins to "stretch" a definition, law, or rule to serve their own ends. Those people, deserve nothing less than a quick death.
The Constitution doesn't specifically say Air Force either. It only mentions Army and Navy. So, is the Air force now unconstitutional? I am not into word games, so I accept the Air Force as constitutional because it is a part of the US military. And if health care falls into General Welfare category, then I would accept its Constitutionality as well. The question is whether or not it falls into that category. No one here has made an attempt to define 'general welfare' yet, or to explain why health care should not fall into that category.
Correct. Or why it should either.
Under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, every citizen has the right to be treated equally under the law which, as far as I'm concerned, means they are equally empowered to seek employment in a chosen field that either does or does not include such benefits as healthcare.
As one who did opt for benefits such as a pension and other benefits, I really don't feel like paying for those who didn't. What are they going to pay for me?
Doesn't matter. I rather like thinking for myself and the true freedom that carries with it. I don't want to be, nor am I, beholden to anyone, and that includes the government. What government services I may receive I pay for or paid for in advance.
The Constitution doesn't specifically say Air Force either. It only mentions Army and Navy. So, is the Air force now unconstitutional? I am not into word games, so I accept the Air Force as constitutional because it is a part of the US military. And if health care falls into General Welfare category, then I would accept its Constitutionality as well. The question is whether or not it falls into that category. No one here has made an attempt to define 'general welfare' yet, or to explain why health care should not fall into that category.
They'll make that distinction when 1/3 of our work force is unemployed.
The Constitution doesn't specifically say Air Force either. It only mentions Army and Navy. So, is the Air force now unconstitutional? I am not into word games, so I accept the Air Force as constitutional because it is a part of the US military. And if health care falls into General Welfare category, then I would accept its Constitutionality as well. The question is whether or not it falls into that category. No one here has made an attempt to define 'general welfare' yet, or to explain why health care should not fall into that category.
Yes, its perfectly expected that the drafters of the Constitution be able to forsee the concept of flight before they even enjoyed the luxaries of a car.
/sarcasm
The constitution does however say:
"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; "
Actually, you should read the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.