The Constitution

1. 59

   weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years ago

   Can someone cite for me the Constitutional authority for Congress to force you to buy a product from a private company?   Or any company, or any thing?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There is no such existing authority that is why Social Security is not insurance as was taught for decades but an actual tax as argued before the Supreme Court in the 1930s.  If it had been insurance it would have been ruled unconstitutional

      replyreport
      1. 59

         weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Where in the Constitution is there any authority to TAX for that purpose?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The Constitution severely limits the Federal Government.  That is why it has fallen into such disfavor and disuse.  If we were to re-discipline  the Federal Government to its original charter it is doubtful any of us would recognize it.  To some, like me, it would be beautiful to behold.  To others, President Hussein among them, it would be a horror.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      there is not any,  from what I just looked up. It says' you have the right to engage in commerce of your choice, but nothing says you can be forced into it.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The answer to your question will come when the current lawsuits against the health reform law are decided by the Supreme Court. I'm not a lawyer, but my recollection is that the insurance requirement is based on the commerce clause and, as Doug pointed out the general welfare clause.
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

      replyreport
      1. 59

         weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry, the Supreme court does NOT define the constitution.   The Constitution does.   SCOTUS has no power to alter the meaning, intent, or plain wording of the Constitution.    It only has the power to be right... or wrong.   
         
         The Constitution DOES NOT delegate the power to define itself to the Courts.   Its meaning is written in words,  with such clarity and specificity that it cannot be misunderstood, only twisted by those who are determined to destroy it.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, with respect, the U.S. Constitution was written with a very broad pen and for a reason.  It was meant to be interpreted up to a point which is why it is often referred to as a living document.  You're right, though, the Justices may not alter plain wording, however they cannot know meaning or intent.  This is the reason for the three branches of government.  Unfortunately, all three branches are rotting.
            The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states (that which affects interstate commerce), and with Indian tribes."  Because this clause authorizes the federal government to regulate commerce, it has a greater impact on business than any other provision in the Constitution.  But it was supposedly intended to foster the development of a national market and free trade among the states.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Nope, you are wrong.   
               
               It is NOT broadly written.   It is NARROWLY written, extremely so.   
               
               Would you like to get into the details, or do you just prefer the vague generalities you depend on here?

               replyreport
         2. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You've obviously never read it.
            
            Please explain (without deleting the words "A well regulated militia") the meaning of the second amendment.
            
            The absurd premise of your non-stop BS postings is that decades of rulings by legal scholars are all incorrect,and you alone are correct.
            
            Please follow this link before you embarrass yourself further...
            
            http://www.marin.edu/~don/study/7read.html

            replyreport
            1. 59

               weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Ron, I'll say this once, and politely.   There are decades of opinions by "legal scholars" which are complete and utter intellectual manure.   
               
               I am not "alone".    I stand with Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and the other 36 signers of the Constitution about what it means.   And that, my friend, BEATS ANY AND ALL ARGUMENTS!    I understand what it means by reading what they wrote (the constitution), which requires NO legal education to understand, and where there's any question, the issue is resolved by finding out what THEY said about it.    I stand with them, and me and plus them is ALWAYS right.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know if this will help but I read this quote and I thought it might work for your argument with Ron concerning the 2nd amendment:
                  Suppose the Second amendment said A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read? - Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  "which requires NO legal education to understand, and where there's any question, the issue is resolved by finding out what THEY said about it.    I stand with them, and me and plus them is ALWAYS right."
                  
                  The implication being the 'founding fathers' understood and agreed with each other and with birdbrain about what was in the Constitution.  History suggests otherwise.
                  
                  In the first administration, Jefferson and Hamilton worked for Washington and they argued about a national bank, which Hamilton saw as 'implied' in the Constitution. Jefferson - at that time the strict constitutionalist - disagreed. The US Supreme court sided with Hamilton's argument and established the precedent of 'implied powers' as well as cementing the role of the USSC as the final word on the Constitution. Later, Jefferson was president and he was worried about the Constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war - he wanted to engage in a limited war against pirates off Tripoli. Suddenly, he's for a loose interpretation of the requirement to ask Congress for permission. Jefferson set the precedent for 'police action' by US soldiers without a declaration of war.  Adams simply shreaded the Bill of Rights with the Sedition Acts.
                  
                  The point being - if you actually KNOW Early American History - which requires more than dressing up in early American costumes - there WAS no consensus among the founding fathers about the limits and meaning of the Constitution. It's the Supreme Court, usually,  who has reined in excesses in the process of rendering the meaning of the Constitution.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     You said:  "there WAS no consensus among the founding fathers about the limits and meaning of the Constitution. "
                     
                     Wow, what a load of garbage.
                     
                     Learn something.   Watch this for the next hour and a half...
                     
                     http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295582-1

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I gave historical examples from the first 3 administrations to back up the idea that there has NEVER been a single unified opinion about the meaning of the Constitution in terms of limits. That's a fact.
                        
                        I have nothing but contempt for the clowns in colonial costumes who think they speak for the 'founding fathers' as if the framers held a borg-like single consensus that in reality NEVER existed.

                        replyreport
      2. 59

         weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The "commerce clause" argument is pure feckless sophistry.

         replyreport
2. 59

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   Section 8. Clause 1. 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.
   
   Health Care Reform provides for a TAX which you can avoid by purchasing health care for yourself and dependents. You are not required to buy anything. It's a choice between insurance and a tax.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's pure nonsense.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I gave you the clause and section of the US Constitution so you wouldn't be confused. What don't you understand?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I understand perfectly.  It's you who hasn't a clue here.

            replyreport
   2. 59

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      While you're sputtering over the precisely accurate description of your response, you need to start reading and learning to understand.    Below I'm going to quote the 10th Amendment and ask you some questions.   If you have the capacity to answer the simple questions, you will have invalidated your entire argument and everyting you think on the subject. 
      
      Amendment 10:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
      
      And, for further edification on YOUR part, Amendment 9.  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
      
      So, answer for the audience, please...
      
      1.  Who are "The people" in Amendment 10?
      2. Who is called "The states"?
      3.  Who is called "The United States"?
      4.  What specific delegated powers are included in Article 1, section 8?   And, whose "welfare" is addressed? 
      
      Now, you must be intellectually honest, logically consistent in your answer. 
      
      Once you've argued this about 30 times in your own mind, reminding yourself about utterly wrong you've been, you can come back and explain how utterly mindless your previous statement was. 
      
      Thanks for enlightening yourself.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      For everyone else, who would like to enjoy a very good understanding of the Constitutional role of the federal government and its relationship to the States, along with some in-depth understanding of exactly why the Constitution says what it does and means exactly what it says (unlike the bleatings of our now entrapped antagonist), I offer a CSPAN video from a good author who makes an entertainingly presented, and very enlightening presentation... Here:
      
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295582-1
      
      It is an hour and 25 minutes long, but in that period of time you'll gain more insight than most people have so far in their life, as it concerns the Constitution.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Debts, Defense, General Welfare - where is compelled purchase of Social Security or Health Care in there??

      replyreport
3. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   oh my god. Someone else demanding that the 10th amendment be enforced?
   
   I think I'm going to faint!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why?

      replyreport
4. 75

   Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago

   All congress had to do was to allow citizens to buy insurance across State lines.
   
   This would have given the Federal government a standing under the Constitution.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines would remove the ability of states to control insurance fraud and reduce, us all to the lowest common denominator as was the case with credit card tricks and traps emanating from North Dakota.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         But it would have given the Federal Government a better case.
         
         Right now I think they are going to have a problem with the Judiciary branch.

         replyreport
5. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   The government has the power to collect money (and even property) from citizens and use it for the good of the country.  It is futile to argue otherwise.  Better to focus on expressing your views about how much and what for, through representative process set up for this purpose.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      Yes they do through force and intimidation as well as the spectre of Fear!

      replyreport
   2. 59

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      psycheskinner:   No, you are wrong.    You need to read the Constitution.   The Congress has the power to tax ONLY FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES.   
      
      None of them are "health care" or "redistribution to people who didn't earn it" or any other such thing.   It is not "futile" to tell the truth, it's THE TRUTH, and YOU are wrong.

      replyreport
6. 63

   Wayne Orvisburgposted 13 years ago

   I'd like to point out that personal income taxes were ammended to the Constitution long after the original draft. Now, the government can take your wages, your property, and your freedom if you do not pay them. How on Earth could we believe the founders of this nation would stand for that? I'm sure everyone is sick of hearing about it, but I'm not looking forward to my taxes going up next year when the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If you make less than $250K per year - and IF the President and democrats  in Congress have their way - your taxes will NOT go up.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You can't even address what matters.    Still arguing over pointless details, while principle completely evades all recesses of your mind.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, but why should those making more than that give up more than the next guy?  And the guy above that should be saying the same thing.  Who arbitrates the line?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            A better question to ask is, "what is the moral justification for confiscating a specific group of people's money?"
            
            Of course, when you ask this, liberals immediately explode in all sorts of absolutely mindless blather, based upon the presumption that you're stupid, mindless, ignorant, mentally retarded, morally degenerate, sociopathic, and criminally insane.   So, you have to preemptively explain how you understand that taxes do have to be collected, because we really DO expect to have a city, state, and federal government, and our beliefs in those things do NOT intellectually conflict with what we say.   So, that means about 20 rounds of "you're selfish", "you don't care about the poor", "you're a greedy monster", during which they hope that you'll either tire of the argument, or get sidetracked by their endless ad hominems. 
            
            But if you prevail, they cannot answer what the moral justification is for choosing to take someone's money away.     See, we have a tax rate:  X.   Everyone pays X percent of their taxable income.   Whatever is left is theirs.   But along come certain types who then claim that once you have Y level of income, you should pay X + some level of more.    And, that not only have you no claim to your own money,  it is evil of you to expect to keep that level of "more" above X.   And how is Y determined?   Since Y is a morally derived ( if you have more than that, more is immoral to keep), there must be a moral foundation for treating one group of people differently from another.   And, they can't answer.   Most haven't even the capacity to understand how it's a moral question.   Some can't even understand how one could object.   They're so steeped in their ideology, that reason and morality no longer register in their minds.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Teddy Roosevelt - The Republican Roosevelt said -
            
            "No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered - not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

            replyreport
            1. 59

               weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               And Teddy Roosevelt was utterly wrong.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You, of course, will replace him on Mt. Rushmore.

                  replyreport