Health Care Debate - Berryville, AR

This country needs to get healthy, and quit being lazy and stupid.

Obamacare is a step forward in providing health care for those who truly need it.

Not_a_hillbilly wrote:

Obamacare is a step forward in providing health care for those who truly need it.

Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to use public funds to provide health care for the population?

I would argue is starts out by saying this!!

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.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/free...
Then Section 8 defines the pouer.
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to use public funds to provide health care for the population?

So lets spell it out for U.
promote the general Welfare,

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.

and general Welfare of the United States;

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Health Care Bill is regulation of commerce

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/free...

Get it?

Lay off the t and try again if you don't.

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to use public funds to provide health care for the population?

If you think you don't want Obama care, ask yourself this question? If you get a pre-existing illness while on the job, yet get laid off, and can't find another job with insurance within 63 days your finished. No insurance company wants someone with a pre-existing illness. Obama's plan fixes that. The Repubilcans will depend a free market. NOT.

Promoting the general welfare is not providing social entitlement programs.

I love how you liberals warp the meaning of the Constitution in order to further your causes.

The truth is that the federal government has zero constitutional authority for much of what it does, including providing welfare. Read the 10th Amendment.

guest wrote:

Promoting the general welfare is not providing social entitlement programs.
I love how you liberals warp the meaning of the Constitution in order to further your causes.
The truth is that the federal government has zero constitutional authority for much of what it does, including providing welfare. Read the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution is full of interpretations, not just your interpretations. If it was that simple, all you would need is common sense.So stop quoting the Constitution as if you're the author.

TV MAN wrote:

The Constitution is full of interpretations, not just your interpretations. If it was that simple, all you would need is common sense.So stop quoting the Constitution as if you're the author.

The Constitution is very clearly written. The only ones playing the "interpretation" card are those who wish to alter its clear meaning.

As I said, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to spend public money on social welfare programs. That's a fact.

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
The Constitution is very clearly written. The only ones playing the "interpretation" card are those who wish to alter its clear meaning.
As I said, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to spend public money on social welfare programs. That's a fact.

Lawyers would disagree. I think they comprehend better then you. The authors of our constitution never explaned how to interpret their intent. Therfore it's much like the Bible. Go Figure.

Only activist lawyers who dislike the constraints of the Constitution argue that it means something other than what it plainly states.

There is no need to explain the clear meaning of the Constitution. Anyone with the ability to read at a 6th grade level can readily understand it.

If you liberals really cared about the causes you support, you'd spend your own money to support them rather than backing government usurping authority it does not lawfully have to forcibly extract money from everyone else for the funding.

You can always spot a liberal - they're the ones always wanting to spend somebody else's money to support their pet projects.

guest wrote:

Only activist lawyers who dislike the constraints of the Constitution argue that it means something other than what it plainly states.
There is no need to explain the clear meaning of the Constitution. Anyone with the ability to read at a 6th grade level can readily understand it.
If you liberals really cared about the causes you support, you'd spend your own money to support them rather than backing government usurping authority it does not lawfully have to forcibly extract money from everyone else for the funding.
You can always spot a liberal - they're the ones always wanting to spend somebody else's money to support their pet projects.

You've got a lot to learn. Nothing in the law is inevitable or nessary, though. Other nations manage to have a democratic political system and abundant civil liberties without our form of constitutionalism. Great Britain, for example, has neither a written constitution nor judicial review of legislation. When we think about whether we need constitutional law, the real question is what our brand of constitutional law does for us. Government, to do all these things, must be strong. It needs the power to tax us to pay for the schools, to regulate drug companies, to fine crooked merchants, to put muggers in jail, and to maintain an army and navy. Constitutional law grapples with this conflict between empowering and limiting government. Constitutional law involves the interpretation and application of the United Staes Constitution.Despite the constitution's simplicity or perhaps because of it, what the Constitution means and how it should apply are the most hotly debated topics of law.

Something the Guest may not know:

The Constitution text is short and vague, yet the Court has to use it to decide a huge array of cases. Article I, section 8, clause 3, for example, empowers Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." How does Court know if this means Congress can extend the Civil Rights Act to Ollie's Barbeque, a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabma, located more than a mile away from the nearest interstate highway? Can you answer that Guest? Since the constittion is so simple.

TV MAN wrote:

You've got a lot to learn. Nothing in the law is inevitable or nessary, though. Other nations manage to have a democratic political system and abundant civil liberties without our form of constitutionalism.

I've studied constitutional law for 35 years, long enough to know that we have a republican form of government, not a democracy such as you errantly state.

Great Britain, for example, has neither a written constitution nor judicial review of legislation.

So move to Great Britain if you think their system is superior. The fact remains that we are a constitutional Republic with a federal government limited in size, power and scope. The restraint on federal government power is the very purpose of the Constitution.

Government, to do all these things, must be strong. It needs the power to tax us to pay for the schools, to regulate drug companies, to fine crooked merchants, to put muggers in jail, and to maintain an army and navy.

There is zero constitutional authority to spend any federal public money on public education. It just doesn't exist. As far as regulating drug companies, that power is given insofar as it relates to regulating commerce, but we've gone far, far beyond that, even dictating the selling price drug companies may charge. That's not free market enterprise, it's implementation of one of the foundational principles of Communism.

Laws against criminal activity are largely state issues, which would include crooked merchants and muggers.

And yes, the most important of all federal government responsibilities is to provide a common defense for every state (and to ensure each one a republican form of government).

Constitutional law involves the interpretation and application of the United Staes Constitution.

There is no interpretation necessary. As I stated earlier, the Constitution is written in clear and concise language simple enough to understand for anyone with the ability to read at a 6th grade level.

What is necessary is for the citizens of this country to demand our elected representatives in government obey the Constitution (as they have all sworn to do) and cease violating it by usurping powers not specifically delineated.

Read the 10th Amendment.

TV MAN wrote:

Something the Guest may not know:
The Constitution text is short and vague, yet the Court has to use it to decide a huge array of cases. Article I, section 8, clause 3, for example, empowers Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." How does Court know if this means Congress can extend the Civil Rights Act to Ollie's Barbeque, a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabma, located more than a mile away from the nearest interstate highway? Can you answer that Guest? Since the constittion is so simple.

The language isn't vague at all. It provides a framework to hem in the power and responsibities the people have given to the federal government.

Regarding the Civil Rights Act, the Constitutional authority for imposing that upon the states does not come from Article 1 Section 8, but rather the 14th Amendment.

Government has ever attempted to extend its power and influence where it doesn't belong. It's up to the people, in this case the owners of Ollie's Barbeque, to oppose government whenever and wherever it attempts to usurp power it does not lawfully have.

As long as people act like sheep instead of free citizens, they'll continue to have their rights taken away from them until they wake up one day and no longer have freedom, being enslaved by a tyrannical government.

We must stand on the fact that the supreme law of the land is not whatever legislation comes from Congress; neither is it whatever proclamations come from the Supreme Court; neither is it whatever regulations come from the Executive branch.

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. Any legislation, regulation or court decision that is contrary to it is void.

Nonfarm payrolls jumped 243,000, the Labor Department said on Friday, as factory jobs grew by the most in a year. The jobless rate fell to 8.3 percent - the lowest since February 2009 - from 8.5 percent in December.
The payroll gains were widespread - from retail to temporary help, and from construction to manufacturing - an indication the recovery was becoming more durable.

A survey of households showed the unemployment rate declined even as new job seekers flooded into the labor force. Economists had expected the jobless rate, which has now fallen 0.8 percentage point since August, to hold steady.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-...

And 23 million Americans continue to be out of work.

guest wrote:

And 23 million Americans continue to be out of work.

Yes, but we are no longer loosing jobs. We are adding jobs at an increasing rate as unemployment drops.
President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bus...

And lets put the math out there. Bush lost 2.9 million jobs lost the last 18 months of his office, 750,000 the last month he was in office.

So we know something changed, changed for the better.

Another terrorist dead, the Pan AM deaths avenged. Thank you President Obama for making the world a safer place. Another murderous tyrant from the Middle East taken out, this time without the loss of a single American life. Again thank you President Obama. As Commander In Chief you have taken on two wars and managed to expand the fight taking out our enemies. In just 3 years you have taken the fight to our enemy wherever they attempt to run and hide, killing them in short order. It is a sad state in our country however, as Republicans cheer a Governor who has executed more innocent people in his state than any other, cheer the death of a 30 year old man because he has no insurance, and boo an American soldier who defends their way of life, safety freedoms and all.

ru kidding wrote:

Yes, but we are no longer loosing jobs. We are adding jobs at an increasing rate as unemployment drops.

We are seeing more people giving up trying to find a job, so they are not counted in figuring the unemployment numbers. If we factored them in as well as those working part time jobs but desiring full time jobs, the unemployment percentage would be twice as high.

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

The economy suffered his first two years in office due to the negative effects 9/11 had on our economy. But with the tax cuts put in place by the Republican Congress, the economy grew at a substantial rate until Democrats took over in Jan. 2007.

Anyone who can read the Constitution knows that the President has zero governmental power over the economy, and that it's Congress who wields enormous power. So if you want to discuss responsibility for the economy, you have to ask which party controlled Congress.

Bush lost 2.9 million jobs lost the last 18 months of his office, 750,000 the last month he was in office.

Actually the economy lost those jobs, not Bush. And again, if we look at the state of the economy for several years prior to 2007, then from that point forward, we can see things went to shit after Democrats gained control of Congress.

You'd do well to actually think for yourself instead of vomiting out the left wing bullshit you so eagerly swallowed.