And the Majority of America takes a SIGH of relief!
- Thread starter lopezri
- Start date
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
My point, which you obviously missed, is that those law are not bound by time and space. They existed before Newton discovered them and wrote them down for later minds such as Einstein to build upon.
The inalienable rights enumerated in the Constitution are timeless as well. History had to unfold the way it did in order for them to coalesce in 1787 into a document that changed the world.
Today you benefit from the rights set forth in that document you so blithely dismiss.
abe23
Active Member
So you have an inalienable right not to buy health insurance, huh...? Or are you saying this is something that should be regulated by states. Because you can't have it both ways. If it's an inalienable right then the MA state government has no power to mandate health insurance either, right?
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Health insurance is not an inalienable right either way. And I do not recall stating that it was. Your attempt to muddle up the argument notwithstanding.
I am saying that the federal government has no authority to determine if I have health insurance or not.
If I live in a state that mandates health insurance and I disagree, nothing keeps me from leaving that state and moving to a state more conducive to my beliefs in that regard.
The 10th Amendment says I can have it both ways.
ViRedd
New Member
With all due respect: Med-'O-Mao, you ignorant slut! Hitler was the head of the German National Socialist Party. In order to get someone (slightly) to the right of Hitler, you'd have to run Rahm Emmanuel ... or rerun Obama.
abe23
Active Member
I wasn't trying to muddle anything up, I just wanted to understand exactly what about individual mandates for healthcare is unconstitutional.... whether it was because someone is forcing you to buy something or whether you object to that someone being the federal government.
If the tenth amendment gives your state the decision over whether or not to mandate health insurance, wouldn't you say that mine should have the right to ban certain types of firearms, say handguns for instance?
abe23
Active Member
Wow, talk about brick houses....With all due respect: Med-'O-Mao, you ignorant slut! Hitler was the head of the German National Socialist Party. In order to get someone (slightly) to the right of Hitler, you'd have to run Rahm Emmanuel ... or rerun Obama.
Even ignoring the fact that you're comparing a jew and a black man to hitler, that comment was pretty fucking stupid.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
The constitutional argument is simply that there is no enumerated power in the constitution to fine a citizen for having done nothing. What's next - fine them for not jogging?
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The Second Amendment takes care of that. The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms so no, state law could not supersede it per the 10th Amendment.
Abe, I know you are not dense. The way this discussion is going suggests three possibilities:
1) You are not Abe23. You are someone currently on his userid.
2) You are trying to rattle me by expecting me to explain elementary Constitutional principles.
3) You are going through this exercise as a means to elucidate. Explanation by way of discussion.
I choose to believe option three, but I have been wrong before.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Oh so by saying that maybe laws existed, but they were not as well understood as they are today, I somehow did not explain that I am saying shit changes how we have to view things as we learn more about them?
The ingredients for mydol have always been around, and the same can be true of PMS. So just because they used to believe that drowning would stop it (which it actually would) we should not use the mydol, because they came up with a different idea first?
If we found a way to fix all hunger, poverty, and violence that allowed everyone to live a very full and productive life, but it broke one of the rules of the constitution then we would not be allowed to do it because of that. And we could also then not do things that would improve them, I say screw that we need to keep evolving and building, and developing new and better ways to do things.
And inaliable rights is a great idea, but it is not something that is real. think about all the murder, and mayhem that goes on in the world, how can people think that we have a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, we have to work damn hard for that, and get lucky at times. That is as far from a natural law of existence as you can get.
ViRedd
New Member
Where did I compare anyone based upon religion or race? I was trying to point out that Hitler was not a man of the Right, but a man of the Left ... the leader of the German National SOCIALIST Party. His fascist economic policies were not unlike those of the Obama administration ... or Wilson, or FDR for that matter. The Progressive movement is over 100 years old in this country and their policies have always led to more government interference in our lives ... and account for a huge loss in both economic and political liberty. They have given us our funny-money (the FED), the progressive income tax ... and the feared IRS that came along with it. A good example of the way they do things would be in their latest health care proposal, whereby citizens would be FORCED to buy insurance ... at the point of a gun if necessary.
Nope, it is not I that is stupid ... and I don't believe that you are either. However, I do think you may be stone-blind to the truth about the Progressive movement and Hitler's fascist economic policies.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Inalienable rights are as real as the Three Laws of Motion. Rights must be defended or they might as well not exist.
Now you are reaching. Mydol is arguably better at treating PMS because the sufferer gets to live following the treatment. But to compare the Constitution to medieval medicine, as you seem to be doing, is ludicrous. Namely because nothing has come along better. Absence of Constitutional principles invites tyranny. To use your example, we would be going back to drowning as a cure for PMS.
Einstein stood on the shoulders of the giants who came before him in order to do his work. Had he squandered his time and energy re-discovering everything which had been discovered previously he would not have done what he did.
No man is owed a living. My only responsibility is to myself and my family. If I choose to assist someone in need, that is my prerogative. But to violate my rights as an individual and force me to do so is not a better solution.
You want to re-invent the wheel? Go to some Third World shithole and build your utopia. Leave me out of it.
abe23
Active Member
Haha, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. If anything 3) might be closest though...
I just find your interpretation of the constitution a bit rigid at times. Remember that a lot of these issues - not healthcare specifically, but states vs federal rights - have been discussed since the country was founded. And these discussions are far from settled...
As is the point about gun laws. The second amendment hardly specifies what kind of gun you are allowed to own, just that you have a right to bear arms. It says nothing about your right to own a full auto ak or a 44. magnum specifically. So if my state decides that they want to ban a certain category of firearms, while preserving their right to own another, that doesn't strike me as unconstitutional.
In the end, I think we all interpret the constitution based on our outlook, political and historical. I for one happen to think that it's my constitutional right to pursue happiness by growing and smoking a certain herb or that it's unconstitutional to torture anyone under any circumstances. A lot of people will disagree with me...
abe23
Active Member
I do think bringing the nazis into a discussion about healthcare is stupid, but I don't think that you are either.
I'm too stoned to do this right now, but one of these days I'll have to address why having a functional and smart federal government isn't the same as national-socialism. It's true though that totalitarianism is very similar, whether it's fascist or socialist in outlook...
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I'll stick with option three, too.
The Supreme Court ultimately would determine if a particular firearms law were unconstitutional. By the way, fully automatic weapons have been de facto illegal since 1968. They can be had, but the permitting process is hellacious and the weapons themselves are very expensive due to onerous regulations. But the coppers and soldiers have all they care to have.
If only all the enemies of our country, and some of our allies, shared your convictions on the rights of a POW to be humanely treated.
I happen to agree with you that the Federal Government has no say over the cannabis Prohibition question. It is for each state to decide. I realize there are many Republicans who disagree with me, but I have changed a few of minds of the Right side with calm and logical arguments about the absurdity of the War on Drugs; or as I call it when among extreme right wingers, The War on the American People.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
From my point of view you wish to go back to the model t.
The constitution was and is great, but to put it up with the laws of motion, is a reach.
Yes Einstein was on the shoulders of greats, and that is why he was able to make such amazing discoveries. And scientists today are still pushing the envelope.
I am not worried about utopia, but for better and worse the constitution has been altered over the years through amendments, and all the other stuff I am sure someone can go into. And to dismiss all the innovation, and work that we as a society have pushed for over the centuries and just call everything unconstitutional if it doesn't work exactly as the original doc said it should, is to use our favorite saying, tossing a woman into a lake instead of giving her mydol.
Just like to say we don't have fat we can trim on all the laws ect that have been passed is equally closed minded.
The constitution was and is great, but to put it up with the laws of motion, is a reach.
Yes Einstein was on the shoulders of greats, and that is why he was able to make such amazing discoveries. And scientists today are still pushing the envelope.
I am not worried about utopia, but for better and worse the constitution has been altered over the years through amendments, and all the other stuff I am sure someone can go into. And to dismiss all the innovation, and work that we as a society have pushed for over the centuries and just call everything unconstitutional if it doesn't work exactly as the original doc said it should, is to use our favorite saying, tossing a woman into a lake instead of giving her mydol.
Just like to say we don't have fat we can trim on all the laws ect that have been passed is equally closed minded.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I never called you closed minded.
And you are correct. The Constitution can, and has been, amended.
So do it already!
The system is broken precisely because the Federal Government has systematically overreached outside the bounds of the Constitution.
Damn, there's that pesky closed-mindedness of mine popping up again.
Dragline
Well-Known Member
Why do you guys say things that make me come in here and drop knowledge on you?
For starters, the fact that the Nazis had the word "SOCIALIST" in their name is a misnomer. Hitler actually despised both Socialism and Communism. He actually believed Marxism planned to hand the world over to the Jews.
"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."
"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."
Early in Hitlers rise to power he essentially played both sides of the tracks. To gain the support of workers he promised to strengthen labor unions and raise the standard of living. While at the same time assuring wealthy German businessmen once he achieved power he would crack down on labor. (Imagine that!! Hitler was a two faced liar!)
Once in power Hitler actually abolished trade unions, collective bargaining, and the right to strike.The economy under Hitler was a mix of Aristocracy and Capitalism. Businesses in return for keeping prices low were assured lucrative government contracts producing goods for the war effort. But outside of that businesses were left to run themselves. Hardly a "Socialist" economy wouldn't you think?
In other simple terms Hitler was a Nationalist gone to extremes. Nationalism in itself is a right wing trait. Now does that mean I am comparing Hitler to Conservatives? Absolutely NOT!!!! You actually can't even translate Nazism into American Left/Right ideology. On a world political compass both American Conservatism and Liberalism would actually be right wing. But in that same compass, Hitler was right wing as opposed to your true left wing tyrants like Stalin and Mao.
jeff f
New Member
beyond stupid. and absolutely no clue of how business works. we could educate you buy you wouldnt listen.
jeff f
New Member
yes, you are better off just doing like han....ignore all the people who are telling the truth and what is going on. you may as well b e just like him.....dumb and all
