Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree98Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 30th, 2017, 11:51 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
And you guys are still wondering why you keep loosing election after election, seriously?

Keep it up. America thanks you for it.
We've lost a few elections, and we'll lose more.
But we haven't been routed, the balance is there, it's easy to tip.
Look at what we have in place, now, after you guys have been "cleaning our clock" for so long now.

We didn't have Social Security, now we do, and it's not going away, it's too popular.
We didn't have a lot of health care, then we got Medicare, Medicaid, both really popular, not going away.
And we have ObamaCare, still, and you may trim it back, but we're in the majority, that counts for something in a democracy eventually, and we'll just make it bigger.

The fact is the country is moving in the direction of federal health care, now along the way, we'll move to single payer, but in the long run, there are things government can do better than the private sector.
goober is offline  
Old June 30th, 2017, 11:56 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
It has not been part of the law since the 1790s. If you want to address that misrepresentation again, let me know. It will end with your being exposed for what you are again.
Signed September 17, 1787 and ratified June 21, 1788. Included is promote the general welfare and healthcare is welfare. Not quite the 1790's but close.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old July 1st, 2017, 12:25 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
It has not been part of the law since the 1790s. If you want to address that misrepresentation again, let me know. It will end with your being exposed for what you are again.
Are you going to apply your secret internet moron ninja skills, and claim you won.
Federal money went to health care in the 1790's
It was mandated for private ventures to participate.

Face it, the reason that reality is so different from your opinion is that your opinion is deficient.
Health Care has been part of US law for hundreds of years.
It's a huge part of what the government does right now.
Those who have the opinion that this is not allowed under the constitution, are just flat out wrong.
Thanks from Twisted Sister
goober is offline  
Old July 1st, 2017, 12:36 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Are you going to apply your secret internet moron ninja skills, and claim you won.
Federal money went to health care in the 1790's
It was mandated for private ventures to participate.

Face it, the reason that reality is so different from your opinion is that your opinion is deficient.
Health Care has been part of US law for hundreds of years.
It's a huge part of what the government does right now.
Those who have the opinion that this is not allowed under the constitution, are just flat out wrong.
jimmyb is a strict Constitutionist and goes by the letter of the law and nowhere in the Constitution is the word healthcare. I have been taught since a young age that the Constitution is living meaning not carved in stone.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old July 1st, 2017, 05:46 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,520
General welfare, our Founder's meaning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
"to promote the General Welfare" is in the original document, thus the US Constitution and Founding Fathers endorsed welfare. I want a free Obamaphone, EBT card, Obamacar. etc.

Let us take a look at the Founders meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during our Constitution’s framing and ratification process. I say this because the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is to adhere to and enforce the meaning and phrases which appear in our Constitution as they were understood during the framing and ratification of our Constitution. See:

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally


”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)

So, what was meant by “general welfare” as it was understood during our Constitution’s framing and ratification process?

In Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution as understood by its framers and to gain ratification, 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 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“.


JWK





The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Thanks from Jimmyb
johnwk is online now  
Old July 1st, 2017, 05:57 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
jimmyb is a strict Constitutionist and goes by the letter of the law and nowhere in the Constitution is the word healthcare. I have been taught since a young age that the Constitution is living meaning not carved in stone.

With reference to our Constitution being "carved in stone", let me assure you that our wise founders provided Article V, our Constitution's amendment process which allows for change to accommodate changing times. But note, our method of change requires consent of the governed by a three-fourths approval, and I cannot put my finger on any amendment granting power to Congress to enter the various states and meddle in the people's health-care decisions and choices, nor tax and spend to provide health-care to the people within the various states. In fact, the Tenth Amendment provides protection prohibiting our federal government from exercising such power!

JWK





"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
___ Justice Story
johnwk is online now  
Old July 1st, 2017, 09:36 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
With reference to our Constitution being "carved in stone", let me assure you that our wise founders provided Article V, our Constitution's amendment process which allows for change to accommodate changing times. But note, our method of change requires consent of the governed by a three-fourths approval, and I cannot put my finger on any amendment granting power to Congress to enter the various states and meddle in the people's health-care decisions and choices, nor tax and spend to provide health-care to the people within the various states. In fact, the Tenth Amendment provides protection prohibiting our federal government from exercising such power!

JWK





"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
___ Justice Story
OTOH, we have tremendous Federal involvement in health care, and the Supreme Court has heard challenges and decided in favor of Federal involvement in health care.

It looks like you are looking at one side of an argument, and pronouncing it as definitive, while ignoring that people who have been chosen to settle disputes on what the constitution really means have found healthcare to be a legitimate area for federal involvement.
goober is offline  
Old July 1st, 2017, 09:51 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of commie hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Are you going to apply your secret internet moron ninja skills, and claim you won.
Federal money went to health care in the 1790's
It was mandated for private ventures to participate.

Face it, the reason that reality is so different from your opinion is that your opinion is deficient.
Health Care has been part of US law for hundreds of years.
It's a huge part of what the government does right now.
Those who have the opinion that this is not allowed under the constitution, are just flat out wrong.
You have already tried that argument and were made to look like the internet searching hack that you are.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 1st, 2017, 09:54 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of commie hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
"to promote the General Welfare" is in the original document, thus the US Constitution and Founding Fathers endorsed welfare. I want a free Obamaphone, EBT card, Obamacar. etc.
Which welfare clause are you referring? Remember, there are two. One in the preamble and one in Article I that is a limitation on the federal government.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 1st, 2017, 10:41 AM   #30
Have you seen my Iguana
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
We've lost a few elections, and we'll lose more.
But we haven't been routed, the balance is there, it's easy to tip.
Look at what we have in place, now, after you guys have been "cleaning our clock" for so long now.

We didn't have Social Security, now we do, and it's not going away, it's too popular.
We didn't have a lot of health care, then we got Medicare, Medicaid, both really popular, not going away.
And we have ObamaCare, still, and you may trim it back, but we're in the majority, that counts for something in a democracy eventually, and we'll just make it bigger.

The fact is the country is moving in the direction of federal health care, now along the way, we'll move to single payer, but in the long run, there are things government can do better than the private sector.

Please keep up w/ the elitist attitude, publicly ridiculing the "fly over states" and their "white trash" occupants. Please continue to make excuses for your failures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
What' the most amusing is all of the free cheese eaters in the states he posts about are all red states.

Except for the fact I have no illusions about what it means to be a functioning human being, I would be in agreement with him to end all of the subsidies going to those states.

Think what the blue states that pay their way could do with that money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
Right wingers wish to go back to a time when men totally controlled women. This is due to their extreme insecurity. These snowflakes will fail as usual.
And I will sit back and watch your dying ideology and smile.
Sabcat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
bill, can’t, ending, funding, introduced, parenthood, planned, type



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Most Americans Want To Keep Funding For Planned Parenthood And Obamacare skews13 Current Events 29 January 30th, 2017 10:35 AM
Obama To Protect Planned Parenthood Funding Permanently skews13 Healthcare 7 September 10th, 2016 07:34 PM
Planned Parenthood Goes To Court To Fight Funding Cuts In Alabama LongWinded Current Events 62 August 31st, 2015 03:46 PM
planned parenthood still at it webguy4 Current Events 1 July 16th, 2014 11:38 AM
Planned Parenthood ad gmeyers1944 Abortion 44 September 5th, 2010 07:36 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.