Making Laws ``necessary and proper``, our Founder`s meaning!

[johnwk]

Our federal Constitution grants power to Congress:


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof ---Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18


So, what did the framers and ratifiers intend by including these words in our Constitution? Were the words in question intended to allow Congress to make and enforce any law it may decide to be “necessary and proper”? The Anti-Federalist vigorously objected to vest such power in the new government being created, and, the clause in question, as stated by the Anti-Federalist appeared to be an allowance for unlimited power and would ultimately be used by the federal government to consume all powers intended to be reserved by the various States. In answer to such fears, the Federalists repeatedly assured that such interpretations of the clause in question were not intended, nor could the clause in question be construed as such without intentional misrepresentations!


In Federalist No. 33 Hamilton, in explaining the clause with relation to taxation says:
These two clauses have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution….This simple train of inquiry furnishes us at once with a test by which to judge of the true nature of the clause complained of. It conducts us to this palpable truth, that a power to lay and collect taxes must be a power to pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER for the execution of that power; and what does the unfortunate and culumniated provision in question do more than declare the same truth, to wit, that the national legislature, to whom the power of laying and collecting taxes had been previously given, might, in the execution of that power, pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER to carry it into effect? I have applied these observations thus particularly to the power of taxation, because it is the immediate subject under consideration, and because it is the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union. But the same process will lead to the same result, in relation to all other powers declared in the Constitution. And it is EXPRESSLY to execute these powers that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorizes the national legislature to pass all NECESSARY and PROPER laws. If there is any thing exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which this general declaration is predicated. The declaration itself, though it may be chargeable with tautology or redundancy, is at least perfectly harmless.


Likewise, MADISON states the following with regard to the necessary and proper clause:


But it gives no supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the delegated powers. If the delegation of their powers be safe, no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most but explanatory. For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it. Were it possible to delineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances in which legislation by the general legislature would be necessary, and leave to the states all the other powers, I imagine no gentleman would object to it. But this is not within the limits of human capacity. The particular powers which are found necessary to be given are therefore delegated generally, and particular and minute specification is left to the legislature.---3 Elliots 438 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=449&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit% 28ed0031%29%29%230030001&linkText=1)


Madison’s words are also in harmony with that of GEORGE NICHOLAS regarding the clause in question:


…he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was no augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.---3 Elliots 443 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=454&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit% 28ed0031%29%29%230030001&linkText=1)


And, in the North Carolina ratification debates, MACLAINE says the following:


Mr. Chairman,


…if we had all power before, and give away but a part, we still retain the rest. It is as plain a thing as possibly can be, that Congress can have no power but what we expressly give them. There is an express clause which, however disingenuously it has been perverted from its true meaning, clearly demonstrates that they are confined to those powers which are given them. This clause enables them to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officers thereof." This clause specifies that they shall make laws to carry into execution all the powers vested by this Constitution; consequently, they can make no laws to execute any other power. This clause gives no new power, but declares that those already given are to be executed by proper laws. I hope this will satisfy gentlemen.---4 Elliots 141 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=152&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit% 28ed0041%29%29%230040001&linkText=1)


It should also be noted that Wilson, who participated in the drafting the Constitution, states the following during the Pennsylvania ratification debates:


The gentleman in opposition strongly insists that the general clause at the end of the eighth section gives to Congress a power of legislating generally; but I cannot conceive by what means he will render the words susceptible of that expansion. Can the words, "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers," be capable of giving them general legislative power? I hope that it is not meant to give to Congress merely an illusive show of authority, to deceive themselves or constituents any longer. On the contrary, I trust it is meant that they shall have the power of carrying into effect the laws which they shall make under the powers vested in them by this Constitution.--- 2 Elliots 448 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=002/lled002.db&recNum=459&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit% 28ed0021%29%29%230020001&linkText=1)……. And he goes on to state that the power in question “gives no more or other powers; nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are limited and denned by the following, "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." It is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried into execution---2 Elliots 468 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=002/lled002.db&recNum=479&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit% 28ed0021%29%29%230020001&linkText=1)


Which brings us to the following line of reasoning. If the Anti Federalist feared the necessary and proper clause would create a general and unlimited legislative power and were against such power being granted to Congress, and, the Federalists assured the Anti-Federalist that such an interpretation was not within the intended meaning of the clause in question, who can be pointed to during the framing and ratification of our Constitution as being an advocate for granting this unlimited power to Congress? I suspect the only ones who attach an unlimited and general legislative power to the clause in question are those who today want the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean and want our Washington Establishment to be able to adopt and enforce a variety of new regulatory powers never intended to be exercised under our written Constitution, and are actually forbidden to be exercised by our Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth amendments!


JWK


Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution [each article, section, clause and amendment] was adopted in order to then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[johnwk]

.
BTW, what urged me to post this thread was the following kind of crap which our progressives flood the internet with: Analysis: Health-care law is probably constitutional under Commerce Clause, say legal scholars (http://www.stlbeacon.org/content/view/101217/186/)


“Joel Goldstein, a Saint Louis University law professor, wrote in an email: "Unless the court is disposed to change its Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I don't see a serious commerce clause problem with mandating the purchase of health coverage. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate an intrastate economic activity....which substantially affects commerce; under the Necessary and Proper Clause Congress can regulate even noneconomic intrastate activities if reasonably adapted to give effect to a regulation of commerce.”


The problem with the above assertion is, our constitution does not grant power to Congress “to regulate activities which substantially affects commerce”, and, the meaning of commerce as used by our founding fathers during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution does not even remotely relate to the people’s health care needs and the choices they make with regard to their health care needs. In fact, the meaning of commerce within our Constitution means the transportation of goods and not their consumption!

Goldstein needs to read Lopez in which the definition of commerce is summarized as follows:

Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles. ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

And so, the necessary and proper clause has no bearing whatsoever with regard to Obamacare. Bottom line is, our progressive crowd needs to be called on the carpet whenever they try to squeeze a meaning out of our Constitution never intended by those who framed and ratified the document!

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.

[darin]

How about 'bottom-line-up-front' to these threads of yours?

[revelarts]

.
BTW, what urged me to post this thread was the following kind of crap which our progressives flood the internet with: Analysis: Health-care law is probably constitutional under Commerce Clause, say legal scholars (http://www.stlbeacon.org/content/view/101217/186/)


“Joel Goldstein, a Saint Louis University law professor, wrote in an email: "Unless the court is disposed to change its Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I don't see a serious commerce clause problem with mandating the purchase of health coverage. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate an intrastate economic activity....which substantially affects commerce; under the Necessary and Proper Clause Congress can regulate even noneconomic intrastate activities if reasonably adapted to give effect to a regulation of commerce.”


The problem with the above assertion is, our constitution does not grant power to Congress “to regulate activities which substantially affects commerce”, and, the meaning of commerce as used by our founding fathers during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution does not even remotely relate to the people’s health care needs and the choices they make with regard to their health care needs. In fact, the meaning of commerce within our Constitution means the transportation of goods and not their consumption!

Goldstein needs to read Lopez in which the definition of commerce is summarized as follows:

Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles. ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

And so, the necessary and proper clause has no bearing whatsoever with regard to Obamacare. Bottom line is, our progressive crowd needs to be called on the carpet whenever they try to squeeze a meaning out of our Constitution never intended by those who framed and ratified the document!

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.

"Unless the court is disposed to change its Commerce Clause jurisprudence,... "

This is where the law professor hangs his hat. The unconstitutional supreme court decisions that have allowed the expansive use of the commerce clause. Not the clear reading of the text and clear intentions of the founders you've sighted. Even though you do point to one fairly good court decision they will hold to others as a lifeline for justification of the NEW legal powers they want to weld.

I'm not sure which is worse those that try to eek out some twisted legal justification for unconstitutional actions or those that say "we do plenty of things that are not in the constitution who cares" or those who say "we need to do -FILL IN THE BLANK- inspite of the constitution to SAVE LIVES".

thanks for the post John

[Mr. P]

John William...your posts on Constitutional issues with background support are much appreciated. Thanks!

[Palin Rider]

"Unless the court is disposed to change its Commerce Clause jurisprudence,... "

This is where the law professor hangs his hat. The unconstitutional supreme court decisions that have allowed the expansive use of the commerce clause.

You must remember the quote "The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is." That feature is part of the checks and balances between the branches.

(And GWB wouldn't have been president without it.)

[johnwk]

"Unless the court is disposed to change its Commerce Clause jurisprudence,... "

This is where the law professor hangs his hat. The unconstitutional supreme court decisions that have allowed the expansive use of the commerce clause. Not the clear reading of the text and clear intentions of the founders you've sighted. Even though you do point to one fairly good court decision they will hold to others as a lifeline for justification of the NEW legal powers they want to weld.

I'm not sure which is worse those that try to eek out some twisted legal justification for unconstitutional actions or those that say "we do plenty of things that are not in the constitution who cares" or those who say "we need to do -FILL IN THE BLANK- inspite of the constitution to SAVE LIVES".

thanks for the post John

Revelarts,

The way I see things is, there is no difference among those who intentionally work to subjugate the legislative intent of our Constitution. They need to be viewed as domestic enemies of our country and dealt with accordingly.

I imagine studying Supreme Court decisions would be a very boring job to most, but when one carefully studies the Supreme Court, the evidence points in one direction. There has been a concerted effort by the Court to create a number of tools used by the Court so the Court may arrive at decisions which reflect the Court’s personal whims and fancies rather than enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. When an individual is aware of these tools and reads the Court`s current decisions, in many cases it becomes only too obvious when the Court is intentionally working to arrive at a predetermined conclusion rather than enforcing the Constitution which every member of the Court took an oath to support and defend.

I wrote the following a couple of years ago:


One of the Supreme Court‘s “inventions” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution, are various tests the court has created which are now used to subjugate and overcome the documented intentions and beliefs under which the various provisions of our Constitution have been adopted. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allowed the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not cstitutional, to a question having nothing to do with its constitutionality. Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and its prerogative, and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government.

For example, imaging for a moment that a black male was denied employment as a prison guard by a local state government based upon his race and the court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s intended protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment because the local government presented an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for not hiring the black male. This is what these tests are about, creating a platform for progressives on the Court to ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and impose their whims and fancies upon the people using flowery terms and phrases to justify ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution!


Now, with the above in mind, if you read the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, you will find there is nothing in the decision to support the notion that the 14th Amendment was adopted to forbid distinctions based upon sex. In fact, the Court via Ginsburg’s opinion, hung its hat on a notion that, when making a distinction based upon sex one must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

And so, regardless of the validity of the arguments presented, the court places itself in a position to declare an argument made may, or may not offer an “exceedingly persuasive justification”. Of course, we all know the decision of the Court will reflect the Court’s personal predilections, regardless of what the Constitution says!


JWK

[Missileman]

You must remember the quote "The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is." That feature is part of the checks and balances between the branches.

(And GWB wouldn't have been president without it.)

GWB won Florida...don't you think it's time to stop whining about it?

[Palin Rider]

GWB won Florida...don't you think it's time to stop whining about it?

Florida was rigged...don't you think it's time to admit it?

[Mr. P]

Florida was rigged...don't you think it's time to admit it?
Yea it was rigged..and the Dem plan to steal it was uncovered. Bush won and served TWO terms. :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

Yea it was rigged..and the Dem plan to steal it was uncovered. Bush won and served TWO terms. :laugh:

I guess you think Jeb Bush was working for the dems, too. You're as demented as Gaffer. :cuckoo:

[logroller]

"Unless the court is disposed to change its Commerce Clause jurisprudence,... "

This is where the law professor hangs his hat. The unconstitutional supreme court decisions that have allowed the expansive use of the commerce clause. Not the clear reading of the text and clear intentions of the founders you've sighted. Even though you do point to one fairly good court decision they will hold to others as a lifeline for justification of the NEW legal powers they want to weld.

I'm not sure which is worse those that try to eek out some twisted legal justification for unconstitutional actions or those that say "we do plenty of things that are not in the constitution who cares" or those who say "we need to do -FILL IN THE BLANK- inspite of the constitution to SAVE LIVES".

thanks for the post John

There is always irrational opinion. Of course healthcare isn't an enumerated power, but doesn't general welfare include the health of its citizens? The issue would instead be argued "we need to xxxxx, because the constitutional rights of all citizens will be best served." Now I know there is a hotbed of debate over healthcare reform, but that is just what we need. I think the problem is insurance, so requiring insurance isn't going to solve the problem. What we need is pricing which discounts cash customers, as opposed to insurance discounts. I've talked about this elswhere, so I shall continue with the issue at hand; Constitutionality. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume healthcare is a right. The 9th amendment reads
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - Does the requirement of health insurance for all citizens qualify as denial or disparagment?
It could, if you choose to not have insurance for healthcare and either, never go to the doctor, or pay cash. But I think most people do go to the doctor at some point, and anyone who has ever paid cash for healthcare services realizes how over-priced the services are; mostly because of insurance claim costs, but I digress. This is a slippery slope, as it could easily abridge many other rights beyond what most find reasonable. However, there remains a powerful and well-funded party; the private health insurance system which serves their private interests, and not the general welfare -- and if that consideration doesn't fall to Congress, than to whom?

[Palin Rider]

Now I know there is a hotbed of debate over healthcare reform, but that is just what we need. I think the problem is insurance, so requiring insurance isn't going to solve the problem. What we need is pricing which discounts cash customers, as opposed to insurance discounts.
Pricing isn't the right problem to attack. Health care is like building a house. You need experts, equipment (which is often expensive), and coordination. The health care system as of 2008 doesn't pay a contractor to pull together a team and keep them on track, the way a house is built. Instead, it pays an electrician for every outlet and a plumber for every faucet. The house ends up with dozens of extra outlets and faucets, then falls apart in a few years.

[logroller]

Pricing isn't the right problem to attack. Health care is like building a house. You need experts, equipment (which is often expensive), and coordination. The health care system as of 2008 doesn't pay a contractor to pull together a team and keep them on track, the way a house is built. Instead, it pays an electrician for every outlet and a plumber for every faucet. The house ends up with dozens of extra outlets and faucets, then falls apart in a few years.

I think your house analogy has a few inconsistencies, but shall indulge it none the less:cool:

If you go and see a home in new subdivision and you notice the outlets aren't where they belong or there's a faucet in closet, that's not very efficient right. So you say to the builder, hey I need a house, but those outlets and faucets belong somewhere else, I'd never buy this house. To which the contractor could say, that's too bad for you, I'm the only builder and that's the way it's done everywhere; if you want a house- that's what you get!

To support my pricing claims. Let's say you build a house, and you must use a registered contractor. You go meet with the contractor and he has you sign a form saying before he does anything, you are responsible for the charges. Of course you'd want to know how much he's going to charge you right? When you ask how much, the contractor responds, well you have a credit card right- I'll just take that, you pay me the $25 minimum payment now and I'll figure out how much more you owe me and let you know by mail! Sound about right? Uh, no. I ran a contracting business and that's not the way it's done; but in the healthcare field it's business as usual and it's a problem.

[Palin Rider]

I think your house analogy has a few inconsistencies, but shall indulge it none the less:cool:

If you go and see a home in new subdivision and you notice the outlets aren't where they belong or there's a faucet in closet, that's not very efficient right. So you say to the builder, hey I need a house, but those outlets and faucets belong somewhere else, I'd never buy this house. To which the contractor could say, that's too bad for you, I'm the only builder and that's the way it's done everywhere; if you want a house- that's what you get!

To support my pricing claims. Let's say you build a house, and you must use a registered contractor. You go meet with the contractor and he has you sign a form saying before he does anything, you are responsible for the charges. Of course you'd want to know how much he's going to charge you right? When you ask how much, the contractor responds, well you have a credit card right- I'll just take that, you pay me the $25 minimum payment now and I'll figure out how much more you owe me and let you know by mail! Sound about right? Uh, no. I ran a contracting business and that's not the way it's done; but in the healthcare field it's business as usual and it's a problem.

To continue the analogy, it sounds from the above like the best option is to put a cap on what the contractor can charge for a house of X square feet. Of course, the cap would have to allow for a reasonable profit margin, and in those rare cases where the contractor ends up losing money because of variables nobody could predict, give him a tax credit for it.

[fj1200]

To continue the analogy, it sounds from the above like the best option is to put a cap on what the contractor can charge for a house of X square feet. Of course, the cap would have to allow for a reasonable profit margin, and in those rare cases where the contractor ends up losing money because of variables nobody could predict, give him a tax credit for it.

It's just a stupid analogy all around. If I want to buy a house like HC I'm going to set up a predetermined deduction to my employer, who of course is going to "pay" a portion of it at which point it will be renegotiated at the beginning of the next cycle. And of course I will have little say in the housing that I actually receive. My employer will also be the one getting the tax deduction for the expense of course. I will also demand to live in a mcmansion because I'm entitled to receive the best housing out there.

Oh, and any housing that I do receive I will be constantly told that European housing is just so much better.

[logroller]

To continue the analogy, it sounds from the above like the best option is to put a cap on what the contractor can charge for a house of X square feet. Of course, the cap would have to allow for a reasonable profit margin, and in those rare cases where the contractor ends up losing money because of variables nobody could predict, give him a tax credit for it.

Look, i'm not saying anything about a cap, that would have an entirely different effect. I just want the prices available to the consumer before they agree to pay for it. If the price is too high, i can shop elsewhere in a freemarket; with a single service provider, I could not. I still have the right to make my own decision about healthcare, i just want the information I use to make the decision to be clear: its economics 101. The problem we have is that presenting insurance has jaded patients to the actual charges, so people go to the doctor on a whim, with little consideration beyond "i have a fever and a cough". To fix this problem, 4 people would likely do the trick, but the process of getting paid probably requires 3 or 4 extra people: a receptionist enters the patient data and receives payment, a nurse takes vitals, a doctor visits and prescribes treatment, and a pharmacist fills the prescription. Each person aforementioned is necessary and deserves payment. However, the billing takes a different set of people. Each treatment code gets entered into the computer by an additional person, then this goes to insurance, where another person verifies eligibility and calcs coverage amounts, another person sends payment back to the doctors office where they may or may not make adjustments and then yet another person bills the patient for the balance. I had a fever and cough; At most I needed an antibiotic that cost 10 bucks, I'll fork over an additional $50 for the 10 to 15 minutes of service- est. total $60; but my service bills at $125; doubled because of the additional labor required for billing insurance. HMOs do a better job of reducing this, but if the don't offer the best service, the members don't have a choice to go elsewhere.(aside from paying the overpriced PPO sector pricing)

Just think about PR, what was the bill the last time you went to the doctor, not merely what you had to pay, but what amount was exchanged; I'm sure you'll find it significantly higher than what was necessary.

[Palin Rider]

It's just a stupid analogy all around. If I want to buy a house like HC I'm going to set up a predetermined deduction to my employer, who of course is going to "pay" a portion of it at which point it will be renegotiated at the beginning of the next cycle. And of course I will have little say in the housing that I actually receive. My employer will also be the one getting the tax deduction for the expense of course. I will also demand to live in a mcmansion because I'm entitled to receive the best housing out there.
No.

The idea of employer-sponsored HC is stupid all around. The US is the only industrialized country in the world that relies on it.


Look, i'm not saying anything about a cap, that would have an entirely different effect. I just want the prices available to the consumer before they agree to pay for it. If the price is too high, i can shop elsewhere in a freemarket; with a single service provider, I could not. I still have the right to make my own decision about healthcare, i just want the information I use to make the decision to be clear: its economics 101.

That's perfectly compatible with the existing HC legislation, isn't it?

[logroller]

That's perfectly compatible with the existing HC legislation, isn't it?

Compatible, its downright necessary for any exchange market-- it's just not present in healthcare! If there is lack of good information, any decisions made are likely flawed. I'm not an opponant of gov healthcare, but i'd like to give a private healthcare a fair shake first; starting with accurate information. If that doesn't increase quality and availability, then try socialist models, as I think that a hybrid model exacerbates the weak points of both!

[fj1200]

No.

The idea of employer-sponsored HC is stupid all around. The US is the only industrialized country in the world that relies on it.

Yup, thank your, likely dead, local New Dealer.

[GUBMINT Cheese]

No.

The idea of employer-sponsored HC is stupid all around. The US is the only industrialized country in the world that relies on it.

I think state-sponsored HC is stupid all around......
Why get a job when the GUBMINT will hand you free shit while you sit on your keester?.....
The PURSUIT of life, liberty, etc.....
Not the HANDOUT of said items......


I think state-sponsored HC is stupid all around......
Why get a job when the GUBMINT will hand you free shit while you sit on your keester?.....
The PURSUIT of life, liberty, etc.....
Not the HANDOUT of said items......
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b241/jjammer18/frreshit.jpg

[chloe]

It's just a stupid analogy all around. If I want to buy a house like HC I'm going to set up a predetermined deduction to my employer, who of course is going to "pay" a portion of it at which point it will be renegotiated at the beginning of the next cycle. And of course I will have little say in the housing that I actually receive. My employer will also be the one getting the tax deduction for the expense of course. I will also demand to live in a mcmansion because I'm entitled to receive the best housing out there.

Oh, and any housing that I do receive I will be constantly told that European housing is just so much better.

The only house worth buying is the House of Representatives:laugh2: kidden

[logroller]

The only house worth buying is the House of Representatives:laugh2: kidden

That's why you can only lease it for two years at a time!:laugh2::laugh2:

[Palin Rider]

I think state-sponsored HC is stupid all around......
Why get a job when the GUBMINT will hand you free shit while you sit on your keester?.....
The PURSUIT of life, liberty, etc.....
Not the HANDOUT of said items......
Wrong, kid. It's just the pursuit of happiness. Life and liberty are RIGHTS.

[johnwk]

Wrong, kid. It's just the pursuit of happiness. Life and liberty are RIGHTS.

Thank you for confirming “liberty” is a right, and that includes the liberty to be free of the federal government’s intrusion into the people’s personal health care needs and the choices they make with regard to their health care needs.

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!

[Palin Rider]

Thank you for confirming “liberty” is a right, and that includes the liberty to be free of the federal government’s intrusion into the people’s personal health care needs and the choices they make with regard to their health care needs.

Exclusively your opinion. Find a credible Con-law scholar who agrees and I might entertain it further.

[red states rule]

Exclusively your opinion. Find a credible Con-law scholar who agrees and I might entertain it further.


http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/thumbnail_photos/2011/January/Dunce_0.jpg

[Palin Rider]

http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/thumbnail_photos/2011/January/Dunce_0.jpg

No you won't, Burger King Kid. Your record speaks for itself.