Time for the 112th Congress to repeal Obamacare and why!

[johnwk]

The irrefutable fact is, the American People have never debated granting a power to Congress to regulate their healthcare needs and choices as described in Obamacare, and then approved the delegation of said power via our Constitution’s Article V provision which requires approval by “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof “ prior to the exercised of any new power by Congress.

It is self evident that any member of Congress, as well as any federal judge or Justice, who acts to enforce Obamacare and pretends to the public that Obamacare is within the powers granted to Congress, and particularly works to enforce that part of Obamacare under which federal force would be used to enter the states to compel the people therein to purchased health insurance, would be guilty, at the very least, of malfeasance, misfeasance and/or nonfeasance.

In fact, the enforcement of Obamacare by any federal official would be an overt act of tyranny, whether it is supported by members of Congress or given approval by our Supreme Court because 21 States have officially expressed their disapproval of Obamacare, and therefore, Article V’s requirement, consent of the governed, has been specifically stated in the negative! In addition, by every poll taken, the overwhelming majority of Americans reject Obamacare as written.

The simple truth is, those who point to this or that part of our Constitution and suggest they have identified the provision under which the people have given their consent and delegated the power in question to Congress, offer their opinion without a shred of evidence to support their claim from the historical debates during which time the contended provision was debated and became part of our Constitution.


Bottom line is, those who contend a provision exists in our Constitution under which the American People have knowingly and willingly given their consent to allow Congress to enter the various united States and assume control over their health care needs and choices are delinquent in producing a shred of documentation from the historical record establishing the “legislative intent” of the provision they point to supports their claim, and so, they may as well point to the moon and claim it is the source of constitutional power which allows Obamacare.


JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

[KarlMarx]

What I think should be done:

1. Repeal Obamacare. Whether it's a good idea (it isn't) or a bad idea is moot. It's an expensive one and one that we can't afford. Also, Obamacare is unconstitutional (the government cannot force you to engage in commerce, which makes me wonder why it can force me to be in the Social Security system)

2. Tort Reform legislation at the federal level is needed. First of all, in cases of litigation the standard of proof should be raised from "preponderance of evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt". Also, a jury of people must be all in agreement rather than 3/4. Also, lawyers should be compensated for their time and expenses for preparing the case. Lawyers should never be able to collect a percentage of the reward.

3. Insurance companies should be subject to anti-trust legislation. Currently, they are not. Also, people should be able to purchase insurance across state lines.

These three will help bring down the cost of medical insurance, it will still be expensive, perhaps, but less so

[treedancer]

Before we repeal Obama care we should have something better to replace it with.At least something with single payer as the starting point.

[johnwk]

Before we repeal Obama care we should have something better to replace it with.At least something with single payer as the starting point.



We? We should have something better? Is that your progressive collectivist mind speaking?

The solution to your health care needs is very simple. Get a freaken job and pay for your health care needs. And stop trying to force young healthy adults just out of college to finance your health care needs. Stop trying to enslave our nation’s younger generation to pay for your personal economic needs.

JWK



There is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor are nothing more than sissy thieves, too chicken livered to confront their neighbor face to face and forcefully take what they want. This is the sum of our progressive gang … a bunch of punk whiners, incapable of doing anything productive for themselves.

[red states rule]

Before we repeal Obama care we should have something better to replace it with.At least something with single payer as the starting point.

A majority wants it repealed due to the additional cost in the deficit, the increased number of people who are losing their coverage, the increased cost of coverage, and the number of Doctors who will close their practice if Obamcare is not repealed

Of course Dems shot down all provisions offerd by Republicans that would have made it easier for people to get a wider choice in coverage and lower the cost of the coverage

Dems never intended for those goals to be attained. they want private insurance to be a thing of the past and thus the Federal government would be the ONLY health care insurance company in the US

[fj1200]

Before we repeal Obama care we should have something better to replace it with.At least something with single payer as the starting point.

I would not have thought a two sentence post could contain that much contradiction. Records are made to be broken I guess.

[johnwk]

Well, I see the Republican Party leadership is up to their old RINO tricks. Their REPEAL OF OBAMACARE (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2:..) is pure fluff and ignores the primary reason for repealing Obamacare!

The repeal does not mention Obamacare as written is its unconstitutional

The repeal does not mention that the people of the united States have never debated granting a power to Congress to regulate their health care needs and choices and then through their various state legislatures, or by conventions held within the states, approved granting a power to Congress to regulate their healthcare needs and choices

Nor does the repeal mention 21 States have officially stated their objection to Obamacare which establishes the required number of States to approve granting such regulatory power to Congress cannot at this time be met, and thus, to enforce the provisions of Obamacare would be an act of tyranny in view of the fact the people’s consent has not been obtained and confirmed by “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof ”

Nor does the repeal mention that 75% Want Health Care Law Changed (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/75_want_health_care_law_changed) confirming the American people do not support Obamacare as written.

And why is it important for the Republican Party leadership to mention the above stated facts in its repeal of Obamacare? Because the House, in stating these facts would be sending a very powerful statement to the United States Supreme Court which will eventually have to deal with the constitutionality of Obamacare. In addition, those in Congress who would vote against the repeal, would in fact be admitting they do not find it necessary to obtain “consent of the governed” as required under our Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments prior to exercising new powers, which may only be obtained with the approveal of “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof ”

Is it not time to identify our progressive crowd on Capitol Hill whose primary concern is how to use the force of government to impose their whims and fancies upon the people of the united States, and trash our Constitution in the process?

So why has the leadership of the Republican Party offered nothing but fluff in its proposed repeal of Obamacare?


JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

[johnwk]

So, is anyone up to explaining why the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress offered nothing but fluff in its proposed REPEAL OF OBAMACARE (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2:..) ? Why is there no mentioned about the unconstitutional nature of Obamacare and its failure to gain consent of the governed as outlined in Article V of our Constitution?


Seems quite clear our Republican Party leadership in Congress is not interested in giving its support to the 21 States who have officially found Obamacare to be unconstitutional, and is more interested in reaching across the isle to Democrats in a concerted effort to avoid the proposed repeal being based upon Congress’ failure to obtain consent of the governed prior to the exercise of a power to regulate the people`s health care needs and choices.


We must rid ourselves of these despotic and traitorous RINOs!


JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

[johnwk]

Question!


If 26 States [a majority of the States] have officially declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional and have rejected it, which they have, see: Six more states have joined Florida's lawsuit against President Obama's landmark healthcare law, arguing the controversial measure is unconstitutional. (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/18/2022545/more-states-join-florida-lawsuit.html), and the overwhelming number of Americans reject Obamacare as written, which is also the case, see 75% Want Health Care Law Changed (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/75_want_health_care_law_changed), and our Constitution requires the approval of “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof ” prior to the exercise of any new power by Congress, how can one contend the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010 is constitutional when the American people have never debated and then granted a power to Congress to regulate the American People’s health care needs and choices as required under Article Five of our Constitution?

By the above stated facts, Obama‘s “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” cannot at this time obtain the consent of the governed (the required number of States) for it to be within the four walls of our Constitution.


Where have I gone wrong especially when our Constitution declares:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And


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.


JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

[fj1200]

If 26 States [a majority of the States] have officially declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional and have rejected it, which they have...

Last I checked they don't have the final say.

[revelarts]

It would be interesting to see the states defy the law.
they have the power.

It seems the feds would have little recourse, what could they do,

-cut fed funds to the states ... not a vote getter.
-send in law enforcement to arrest state officials
-send in troops to enforce the law.
-circumvent the states and enforce the law through hospitals and insurance companies and pharmaceuticals and arrest individuals under fed law for non compliance.

Not good options for the feds. but i may be missing something.

the best thing the fed has going for it is the inertia of the states compliance and the peoples general sense of "obeying the law". "OH well it's the law , just go along... it's the price we have to pay for..."

[logroller]

Last I checked they don't have the final say.

Just curious. If this healthcare plan is found unconstitutional, can they choose to only delete the sections which are in violation? What differences are present in Medicare/Medicaid that subscribe to constitutional authority/ national responsibility?

[fj1200]

Just curious. If this healthcare plan is found unconstitutional, can they choose to only delete the sections which are in violation? What differences are present in Medicare/Medicaid that subscribe to constitutional authority/ national responsibility?

You're putting my amateur con-law scholar abilities to the test. They usually only strike the offending part of the law, not the whole thing.

[Kathianne]

You're putting my amateur con-law scholar abilities to the test. They usually only strike the offending part of the law, not the whole thing.

My incomplete understanding is the same as yours. I think what we'll probably find is that some will be declared unconstitutional-in particular the over reach of compelling purchase of insurance or penalties applied.

I think some will go unfunded, thus moot. I think there's going to be some pressure towards real reform and less government interference. That last may just be wishful thinking.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

If 26 States [a majority of the States] have officially declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional and have rejected it, which they have...


Last I checked they don't have the final say.


I’m not sure I understand your comment. Seems to me the States do have the final say in granting new powers to Congress.

What you may have missed is that Congress has not sent an amendment to the States for ratification which declares:


The Congress shall have power to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.


And without such an amendment being ratified by “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof ” the States are well within reason to say Obamacare is not within the four corners of our Constitution.


Keep in mind our Constitution states in clear language:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

I think that makes it quite clear the various State Legislatures are bound to do exactly what 26 of them have done!


Perhaps Congress ought to send the above mentioned amendment to the states for ratification and obtain consent of the governed prior to attempting to exercise a power never granted.


BTW, my suggested reading for today is: How To Treat Unconstitutional Acts of Congress (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=oldg;cc=oldg;rgn=full%20text;idno=oldg0001-5;didno=oldg0001-5;view=image;seq=00127;node=oldg0001-5%3A1). I found it very inspiring!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[fj1200]

I’m not sure I understand your comment. Seems to me the States do have the final say in granting new powers to Congress.

It really wasn't that complicated. The state's attorneys general are not in a position to declare anything unconstitutional. The question being has the Federal government overreached in passing these "new powers" or not? I may agree with you but constitutionality is not determined by the states.

[logroller]

It really wasn't that complicated. The state's attorneys general are not in a position to declare anything unconstitutional. The question being has the Federal government overreached in passing these "new powers" or not? I may agree with you but constitutionality is not determined by the states.

Just to clarify, Constitutionality is decided by the fed judicial(ultimately the US Supreme Court), the constitution (addons/changes) is written by congress, subject to state approval(ratification). I believe we have two different arguments here, where the latter is hypothetical pending the reversal of the first:

1) Is the healthcare plan Constitutionally sound? (fed courts decide this)
-if not-
2) Will 3/4 of the states ratify an amendment to make it so? (Highly unlikely considering the current contestment)

[Palin Rider]

Repeal now, before it's too late!

Watch (http://www.markfiore.com/political-cartoons/watch-repeal-health-care-reform-obamacare-republican-congress-house-video-mark-fiore-)

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
I’m not sure I understand your comment. Seems to me the States do have the final say in granting new powers to Congress.


It really wasn't that complicated. The state's attorneys general are not in a position to declare anything unconstitutional. The question being has the Federal government overreached in passing these "new powers" or not? I may agree with you but constitutionality is not determined by the states.

What isn’t complicated is the irrefutable fact that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.

What isn’t complicated is, 26 States have official noted that Congress is attempting to exercise a power never granted to Congress. And it doesn’t take a confirmation from the judicial branch of government to make Congress’ attempted usurpation of power a fact. A fact is a fact and the confirmation comes from a review of the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to factually confirm the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power, including under via Article V, to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make., and hence, Congress is now acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

I might also add that our Supreme Court has been derelict in its duties in the State challenges to Obamacare in that our Constitution commands that the Supreme Court, and not an inferior court created by Congress “shall” have original jurisdiction in cases in which A STATE shall be a party. The was explicitly stated in the Federalist papers and also confirmed under “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“ Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 Supreme court, original jurisdiction (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=203) (scroll to bottom of page):

"SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."

There is a concerted attempt to delay the constitutionality of Obamacare being decided in the Supreme Court which in turn is allowing some of its provisions to be implemented and will create a dependency upon Obamacare, which in turn creates the classic argument that “we cant find Obamacare to be un-constitutional at this point in time as the earth will stop spinning and people will die in the streets if we do”.

The American People are being played like a fiddle while the Washington Establishment--- Congress, the Executive and the Supreme Court, work day and night to seize powers never granted by our written Constitution. And you want to confuse the issue with stating the obvious and suggest it is taboo for the American People to read their own Constitution and decide when it is being subjugated by the very guardians charged with defending it?

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[fj1200]

Just to clarify, Constitutionality is decided by the fed judicial(ultimately the US Supreme Court), the constitution (addons/changes) is written by congress, subject to state approval(ratification). I believe we have two different arguments here, where the latter is hypothetical pending the reversal of the first:

1) Is the healthcare plan Constitutionally sound? (fed courts decide this)
-if not-
2) Will 3/4 of the states ratify an amendment to make it so? (Highly unlikely considering the current contestment)

Yessah.

[Kathianne]

Actually it's now at least 28 states, the 26 with FL and VA and OK, that have filed suit or state attorney has indicated they will file suit.

[fj1200]

What isn’t complicated is the irrefutable fact that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.

Nor have we debated and knowingly granted a whole list of things.


What isn’t complicated is, 26 States have official noted that Congress is attempting to exercise a power never granted to Congress. And it doesn’t take a confirmation from the judicial branch of government to make Congress’ attempted usurpation of power a fact...

They've made 26 official notices of opinion.


The American People are being played like a fiddle while the Washington Establishment--- Congress, the Executive and the Supreme Court, work day and night to seize powers never granted by our written Constitution. And you want to confuse the issue with stating the obvious and suggest it is taboo for the American People to read their own Constitution and decide when it is being subjugated by the very guardians charged with defending it?


No.

[johnwk]

What isn’t complicated is the irrefutable fact that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.

Nor have we debated and knowingly granted a whole list of things.


We are not talking about “a whole list of things”. We are talking about the irrefutable fact that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.




What isn’t complicated is, 26 States have official noted that Congress is attempting to exercise a power never granted to Congress. And it doesn’t take a confirmation from the judicial branch of government to make Congress’ attempted usurpation of power a fact...

They've made 26 official notices of opinion.


And the 26 opinions your refer to are supported by the historical fact that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.

What is the point of your one liner? Is there some hidden revelation aside from the obvious, that the States have officially expressed their “opinion”?





The American People are being played like a fiddle while the Washington Establishment--- Congress, the Executive and the Supreme Court, work day and night to seize powers never granted by our written Constitution. And you want to confuse the issue with stating the obvious and suggest it is taboo for the American People to read their own Constitution and decide when it is being subjugated by the very guardians charged with defending it?

No.

Well, I’m glad to know that.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[bullypulpit]

A majority wants it repealed due to the additional cost in the deficit, the increased number of people who are losing their coverage, the increased cost of coverage, and the number of Doctors who will close their practice if Obamcare is not repealed

Of course Dems shot down all provisions offerd by Republicans that would have made it easier for people to get a wider choice in coverage and lower the cost of the coverage

Dems never intended for those goals to be attained. they want private insurance to be a thing of the past and thus the Federal government would be the ONLY health care insurance company in the US

Nay, nay Mooseface! Only 18% of Americans want health-care, as it now stands, repealed.

<center><a href=http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/health-myths/>Ten Myths About Health Care Reform</a></center>

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/research/201101190017>Fox Prepares For Health Care Repeal By Misinforming About Health Care Reform ... Again</a></center>

So you keep on repeating the right wing-nut spin, Red and I'll keep shootin' yer dumb ass down. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Nay, nay Mooseface! Only 18% of Americans want health-care, as it now stands, repealed.

<center>Ten Myths About Health Care Reform (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/health-myths/)</center>

<center>Fox Prepares For Health Care Repeal By Misinforming About Health Care Reform ... Again (http://mediamatters.org/research/201101190017)</center>

So you keep on repeating the right wing-nut spin, Red and I'll keep shootin' yer dumb ass down. :laugh2:

Thinkprogress and mediamatters?

How about what all the dems wanted to use during the national elections, which is a cumulative scoring. Here is a list of all the major polls and it's clear the majority of the nation is opposed.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/health.jpg

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

[johnwk]

Thinkprogress and mediamatters?

How about what all the dems wanted to use during the national elections, which is a cumulative scoring. Here is a list of all the major polls and it's clear the majority of the nation is opposed.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/health.jpg

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html


And more than half the States, speaking as States, are opposed and fighting Obamacare in court, and this means if our beloved PROGRESSIVE CROWD (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&amp;ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) attempted to have “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof “ grant the power in question to Congress as required under Article V of our Constitution, it would never pass. But heck, we all know progressives have no interest in abiding by our written Constitution. Their goal is to impose their whims and fancies upon the entire nation, and screw consent of the governed.


JWK



America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&amp;ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the circumvention of the protections of our judicial system; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

[fj1200]

We are not talking about “a whole list of things”. We are talking about the irrefutable fact that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.

And the 26 opinions your refer to are supported by the historical fact that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.

What is the point of your one liner? Is there some hidden revelation aside from the obvious, that the States have officially expressed their “opinion”?

Did the American people debate and knowingly grant power to Congress to create Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/...?


Well, I’m glad to know that.

Happy to clear that up for you.

[johnwk]

We are not talking about “a whole list of things”. We are talking about the irrefutable fact that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.

And the 26 opinions your refer to are supported by the historical fact that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to regulate the health care decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make.

What is the point of your one liner? Is there some hidden revelation aside from the obvious, that the States have officially expressed their “opinion”?


Did the American people debate and knowingly grant power to Congress to create Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/...?


Well, your above question seems to confirm your disjointed and silly responses in the thread. You do not even know a constitutional amendment was never passed granting power to Congress “to create Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/..”

Thank you for clearing up the cause of your silly posts.

JWK

[fj1200]

Well, your above question seems to confirm your disjointed and silly responses in the thread. You do not even know a constitutional amendment was never passed granting power to Congress “to create Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/..”

Thank you for clearing up the cause of your silly posts.

JWK
Then you just failed at reading comprehension because that's the point. Your insistence that HC reform is unconstitutional is a pre-1930s argument because those other programs/laws have been on the books for quite some time and have withstood constitutional muster.

[johnwk]

Then you just failed at reading comprehension because that's the point. Your insistence that HC reform is unconstitutional is a pre-1930s argument because those other programs/laws have been on the books for quite some time and have withstood constitutional muster.

There you go again, posting silly comments, probably because of your reading comprehension problem. It is 27 “States” who have found Obamacare to be unconstitutional.

Additionally, you are flat wrong to suggest that Social Security has withstood constitutional muster. Hopefully you know the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is summarized as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

Now, as to Social Security having passed constitutional muster as you suggest, in fact the Supreme Court case deciding the issue is a wonderful example of the court ignoring the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and imposing its personal whims and fancies upon the people to advance the PROGRESSIVE’S (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&amp;ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) un-American agenda. The Court’s decision in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), [and Steward Machine Co. decided along with Helvering] which upheld the Social Security Act is where the big lie begins about the phrase “general welfare” which appears in our Constitution.

In the Helvering decision the Court stated:

"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents"



What is significant is, the court cites the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and, the Court will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court is not interested in reviewing the historical record during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution and is satisfied with Hamilton’s point of view.


What is not pointed out by the Court is the Hamilton “view” which the Court relied upon was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution. It was made after the Constitution had been ratified when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, and was made to gain support for appropriating revenue from the federal treasury to be used to encourage specific manufactures.

In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, See Page 136 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=009/llsp009.db&recNum=140)
“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive than the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”

Now that’s amazing for Hamilton to say that because in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."


This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates:

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."


Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]

Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."


Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, as it turns out, Social Security did not pass constitutional muster, as you suggest. The fact is, the Court did not rely upon the expressed intentions of the founding fathers regarding the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” which were expressed during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution. The Court in Helvering, to advance FDR’s progressive agenda, decided to create the big lie and relied upon an opinion expressed after the Constitution had been ratified concerning the phrase “general welfare” which actually conflicted with the undisputed documented intentions and meaning of the phrase as it was understood during the framing and ratification process our Constitution.

Another fundamental principle of constitutional law with regard to the meaning of words is stated as follows:


“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)



Bottom line is, you are flat wrong the Social Security has “withstood constitutional muster.” And you are wrong because the court did not follow the most fundamental rule of constitutional law when deciding the case …enforcing our Constitution “legislative intent”.

JWK


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

[fj1200]

There you go again, posting silly comments, probably because of your reading comprehension problem. It is 27 “States” who have found Obamacare to be unconstitutional.

Wow, you added 1 to a previously argued practically meaningless number. Quite the loose constructionist aren't you?


Additionally, you are flat wrong to suggest that Social Security has withstood constitutional muster. Hopefully you know the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is summarized as follows:
...

People have differing views on the constitution? :eek: I'm taken aback.

When can I expect a return of my contributions?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
Additionally, you are flat wrong to suggest that Social Security has withstood constitutional muster. Hopefully you know the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is summarized as follows:

People have differing views on the constitution?:eek: I'm taken aback.




We are not talking about people having differing views on the Constitution. We were talking about the Social Security Act passing constitutional muster as your suggested, and the fact that the Court’s written decision violated the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, and which I took the time to document for you IN POST NO. 30 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30449-Time-for-the-112th-Congress-to-repeal-Obamacare-and-why!&p=460033#post460033). The violation has nothing to do with “differing views” on the Constitution, but rather, has everything to do with the Court intentionally ignoring the documented “legislative intent” of our Constitution in order to advance FDR’s progressive agenda.

Why is it that you obfuscate and continually ignore documented historical facts when they are presented to you? Is you mission here to troll threads and cloud the specific issues being discussed?

JWK

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

[fj1200]

Why is it that you obfuscate and continually ignore documented historical facts when they are presented to you? Is you mission here to troll threads and cloud the specific issues being discussed?

Well you don't really discuss (OMG did I just say that? :eek: ) you beat over the head in the tunnel like way that you view things. You think that the HC law is going to be overturned based on what you've pointed out? Until all those other programs that have passed constitutional muster ;) are overturned then you're not going to have much luck on this one, HC mandate excepted.

My mission is clarity, you don't offer more clarity and in some cases purposefully cloud the issue IMO.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
Why is it that you obfuscate and continually ignore documented historical facts when they are presented to you? Is you mission here to troll threads and cloud the specific issues being discussed?
Well you don't really discuss (OMG did I just say that? :eek: ) you beat over the head in the tunnel like way that you view things. You think that the HC law is going to be overturned based on what you've pointed out? Until all those other programs that have passed constitutional muster ;) are overturned then you're not going to have much luck on this one, HC mandate excepted.

My mission is clarity, you don't offer more clarity and in some cases purposefully cloud the issue IMO.



So now you bring "clarity" to the discussion by reading tea leaves and predicting the future?

Bye, bye, and have a wonderful evening thinking of more ways to misdirect the subject of the thread.

JWK

[fj1200]

So now you bring "clarity" to the discussion by reading tea leaves and predicting the future?

Bye, bye, and have a wonderful evening thinking of more ways to misdirect the subject of the thread.

JWK

No, I was hoping YOU would clarify. I made no predictions.

Bye then, I await your next thread that tells us all the things we are doing differently than the founding fathers intended.

[logroller]

So now you bring "clarity" to the discussion by reading tea leaves and predicting the future?

Bye, bye, and have a wonderful evening thinking of more ways to misdirect the subject of the thread.

JWK


Near as I can tell Johnny here is the tea party advocate:laugh2:

[logroller]

No, I was hoping YOU would clarify. I made no predictions.

Bye then, I await your next thread that tells us all the things we are doing differently than the founding fathers intended.

I suppose realism and idealism are mutually exclusive.

[fj1200]

Near as I can tell Johnny here is the tea party advocate:laugh2:

Could be. I called him a "loose constructionist" and didn't get challenged to a duel Hamilton-Burr style... I think I dodged a musket ball on that one.

[red states rule]

Nay, nay Mooseface! Only 18% of Americans want health-care, as it now stands, repealed.

<center><a href=http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/health-myths/>Ten Myths About Health Care Reform</a></center>

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/research/201101190017>Fox Prepares For Health Care Repeal By Misinforming About Health Care Reform ... Again</a></center>

So you keep on repeating the right wing-nut spin, Red and I'll keep shootin' yer dumb ass down. :laugh2:

I recall you dismissing the polls showing Dems were going to be slaughtered on November 2.

You really need to fins other sources then Media Matters BP that tells you only what you want to read and hear

Bottom line is, Dems lost the last election by ramming thru crap the voters did not want. Theywill lose the next election by not repealing the crap the voters do not want

[red states rule]

If you have discussed Obamacare with your Doctor, you want Obamacare repealed




Support for repeal of the national health care law remains high, as does belief that the measure may be repealed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care bill, with 44% who Strongly Favor it. Forty percent (40%) are opposed to repeal, including 28% who are Strongly Opposed.

Support for repeal is even higher – at 62% - among those who have discussed the health care law with a doctor, a nurse or other health care professional.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/most_still_support_repeal_of_health_care_bill_49_s ay_it_s_likely

[GUBMINT Cheese]

Screw Obamacare, I just got a GUBMINT job with benefits, what could be better than that?!......:dance:
I did have to join the SEIU, though......:eek: