A little History lesson..does this sound familiar in today's society?

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

Don't be a condescending azz

Then don't act like an dolt.

You know exactly what I meant by that or did the historical reference escape you? I assumed you understand the difference in the relationship between the English Parliament and the British public and the relationship that is supposed to be between the US Congress and the American public. Maybe I shouldn't have.

Actually know I don't.

The issue in 1773 wasn't the relationship between the British Parliament and the British "public", but rather the fact that British citizens in the Americas didn't enjoy the same rights and privileges as their fellow citizens in Great Britain, i.e., the ability to elect members to Parliament. As a result, the argument that there is some correlation between British citizens in America to the British Parliament and the relationship between American citizens and the Congress is completely ahistorical and ridiculous.

[Fullback32]

There is a difference between the British Parliament and the US Congress. While both are bicameral and both vote on bills (though procedures in the British Parliament are different), there is a fundamental difference. In England, as the British jurist Sir William Blackstone stated, "It (Parliament) has sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal … it can, in short, do everything that is not naturally impossible." This is in stark difference to the US Congress who is supposed to be limited in what they can and cannot do per the US Constitution. With the exception of those item specifically granted them per the Constitution, everything else is supposed to be under the purview of the States.

Another difference is that Public Bills voted on by the MPs affect every district in the UK regardless of district. It is a national body rather than a federal body. This is because the districts in the UK are not sovereign entities, unlike the States are supposed to be. That is a fundamental difference.

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

Okay fair enough, though I disagree with the idea that the Constitutionality of what Congress does is not our call. It is our country...not the Bench's. But, let me ask you this and answer honestly. Let's say, Roe v. Wade actually gets overturned and the Supreme Court upholds it (not that I'm advocating it as I am Libertarian - I don't think I should have to pay for it though). Should that happen, will you support their decision?

Of course I would support their decision, no matter if I liked it or not. The Constitution far, far outweighs my personal feelings on any matter. It's the rule of law which is sacred, not the opinion of stillkit.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

There is a difference between the British Parliament and the US Congress. While both are bicameral and both vote on bills (though procedures in the British Parliament are different), there is a fundamental difference. In England, as the British jurist Sir William Blackstone stated, "It (Parliament) has sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal …

All of which are correct, and props to you for your post, but as well argued as it may be, it simply isn't germane to t he major thrust of the objections raised, i.e., the historical similarities between the actions of 1773 and today.

This is in stark difference to the US Congress who is supposed to be limited in what they can and cannot do per the US Constitution.

But the U.S. Congress is and has been limited by the Constitution. I would think that the actions of a conservative Court's overturning in Boumediene et al. v. Bush, a law passed by a conservative Congress at the behest of a conservative President would amply illustrate.

With the exception of those item specifically granted them per the Constitution, everything else is supposed to be under the purview of the States.

Or to the people.

[RazorRob305]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

There is a difference between the British Parliament and the US Congress. While both are bicameral and both vote on bills (though procedures in the British Parliament are different), there is a fundamental difference. In England, as the British jurist Sir William Blackstone stated, "It (Parliament) has sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal … it can, in short, do everything that is not naturally impossible." This is in stark difference to the US Congress who is supposed to be limited in what they can and cannot do per the US Constitution. With the exception of those item specifically granted them per the Constitution, everything else is supposed to be under the purview of the States.

Another difference is that Public Bills voted on by the MPs affect every district in the UK regardless of district. It is a national body rather than a federal body. This is because the districts in the UK are not sovereign entities, unlike the States are supposed to be. That is a fundamental difference.

Thanks for your history lesson here....I don't know everything just like a lot of people that come on here claim to know it all or act like they do, so thanks for wording out some key points about history...It's nice to be able to come on here and learn something without all the name calling or dismissals of opinions just because you disagree with a certain party ect...Thanks

[BigHouse9]

Originally Posted by stillkit

Do you think back-scratching, arm-twisting and deal making is something brand new to Congress, just created by the Evil Democrats for the sake of passing health care reform?

Heavens no! That's how our system works and always has. It's just part of the legislative process, and it's not illegal or even unethical.

So that makes it right? And it is still taxation without representation. The worst part of this all is that this administration is much more glib and tyrannical with the way they do all of this. It is an art form to them.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Or just simply out voted.

I am continually amazed at all those thrilled with this bill. It is like an "end of the world" celebration.

1. Do you not understand that the nation cannot afford an additional $3trillion in expenses for entitlements over ten years?

2. Do you not understand that unemployment will go up due to increased expense to buisness?

3. Do you not understand that the states will have to cut back essential services due to increased expenses?

4. Do you not understand that essentially everyone says that EVERYONE'S health insurance rates will go UP?

5. Do you not understand that Medicare, which is already going to be insolvent by 2017, cannot take $500 billion in cuts?

6. Do you not understand that providers will not see these new Medicaid patients anyway, jamming the ERs?

7. Do you not understand that due to the increased medicare cuts, providers will be dumping medicare patients, reducing thier access?

8. Do you not understand that the main drivers of healthcare costs-

a. fee for service system
b. litigation

are not addressed in this bill at all?






I am left to wonder why in the world ANYONE would welcome this bill, as it will be a financial disaster for us all, particularly our children, who had no representation in this matter. When the nation is bankrupted and austerity measures are necessary, all these entitlements will evaporate. Why accelertate the process and induce further misery on the nation?

[Fullback32]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

All of which are correct, and props to you for your post, but as well argued as it may be, it simply isn't germane to t he major thrust of the objections raised, i.e., the historical similarities between the actions of 1773 and today.



But the U.S. Congress is and has been limited by the Constitution. I would think that the actions of a conservative Court's overturning in Boumediene et al. v. Bush, a law passed by a conservative Congress at the behest of a conservative President would amply illustrate.



Or to the people.

But I will argue that it is relevant. Many point to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) as a justification for the US Congress to pass any law it wants and apply it to the States. This interpretation, in essence, gives the US Congress the same carte blanche that the British Parliament has. This is an incorrect interpretation of the Supremacy Clause and not what was intended by it.

The Supremacy Clause ONLY applies to those powers enumerated to the the Federal government via the Constitution at the pleasure of the States (if you will). In Edgar v. Mite Corporation (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute." Now, it is the interpretation of the word valid that is on point. When the Federal government steps into Article 10 territory, we are no longer dealing with "valid" federal statutes. This health care bill is a good example of this. The Federal government does not have the authority to mandate to the States that they WILL pay for this...or else. Traditionally, policies regarding health care, insurance, etc has been the purview of the States...and here it should remain.

That being said, I know that the Federal government has overstepped this principle numerous times, especially over the past 70 years. During this period, the States have not used their rights as sovereign entities to tell the Federal government to go pound sand. It is a sad thing that it has taken this particular issue and this long for the States and the people of the States to wake up and attempt to retake their sovereignty.