sorry ace, I've brought up many points in direct conflict with what you've specifically said.

and you repeat yourself.

thought there was more to you than this.

if you cant move the ball forward, there's not much else to say here.

cya!

Wait - now we're talking about congress?

ok - changing subjects is supposed to be the "liberal" tactic isn't it? :-)

Yes, I saw that. Looks like politics as usual to me. I dont like it. But, they aren't my reps.

I can 100 percent count on my rep to vote NO to anything Obama tries to pass. Good, bad, or for money.

Once again ace, I'm not saying it's perfect. But you want it to be this perfectly BAD thing. THis perfectly corrupt thing...just as you imagine it.

IT aint that at all. It's good, funny, honorable, bad, crazy, creepy, crooked, stupid, illegal at times, arrogant and a hundred other things on every spot of the spectrum of humanity.

it leans one way, then another, then back...painfully slow to change or act when you want it to. and ridiculously rash and imprudent when it shouldnt be.

Kind of like us.

We get the govt we deserve.

Ace, if you believe that finding one example of how people vote proves anything, touche - ya got me.

I've conceded that point over and over.

You're just battling shadows at this point dude.

and you've yet to answer my question on, if you're right, where this is born out in elections.

You point to a tiny selection of a few voters and one election as "proof" of systematic behavior and resulting policy through the one guy who you think got elected this way.

I point to all elections since the 50's, state/fed and ask you how that applies to those and you repeat yourself.

truly - if this is it for you, ok. I get it. looking through this tube you've constructed, it looks just like you want it to.

when you can thoughtfully address my points and questions, I'll be here.

Okay, let me get this straight: Statements from people that they voted for plunder is proof they Didn't vote for plunder?

No wonder Statists always screw things up, that's what passes for “logic” in their minds.

Proof that something happened is proof that it didn't happen! Okay, got it!

And you people want to control our healthcare?

Pitiful, just pitiful.

Ken Rogulski, WJR in Detroit.
ROGULSKI: Why are you here?
WOMAN #1: To get some money.
ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?
WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from. But, he givin' it to us. To help us.
WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!
WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

(Yes or No)

Why can't you understand that simple concept.

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this until you understand it?

If the Statists can use the Police power of government to seize the property of some and give it to others in exchange for their vote – as exemplified by the story from Detroit, then what does it matter if the people they take the plunder from vote for them or not?

Either the government has an unlimited claim on a man's labor, time and property, to do as they wish, or it doesn't, therefore government has no limitations.

Someone needs to give John Boehner a copy also as he stood in front of those at the House Call meeting yesterday and quoted from the Declaration of Independence, calling it the Constitution of the United States, and he was reading it to boot! Republicraps need to get out of Washington too! F**k all of'em!

You proved that when you agreed that they have an unlimited claim on a man's labor, time and property, to do as they wish.

Checkmate.

Did you or did you not say you were a progressive? They do not support our form of government. So which is it?
By Joyce M/Blythe

that's for snark

Oh and no our government is no longer functioning as intended since they are supposed to listen to us, not vote how they see fit. When next we "have our say" maybe then it will being to function as intended. You won't like it, but tough.

ace, ya just miss it man.

unlimited government? I dont even know what that means.

Our govt functions as it was intended and we have a say.

this isnt the former soviet union.

the govt has the constitutional authority to levy taxes.

and we have elections every 2/4/6 years to check that power.

and we have two other branches of govt, both checked by our votes (either directly or through our elected reps) to check that power as it relates to either our will or our constitution.

hamilton saw judicial review as a needed thing because without it, we WOULD have unchecked power in congress. There would be no traffic cop for the constitution. No power to ultimately say something CANNOT be done because it violates our founding document.

unlimited govt? govt is only limited by us as a collection of states and citizens.

your problem is with you and your fellow man simply acting within the rules of the road.

so, hows about you tell me where you get this crazy idea that govt is "unlimited". and, for once, could you provide something more substantive than ancillary examples of crazies or random quotable quotes?

At least Boehner never ran down someone in his car while he was drunk like Rick Sanchez did. Sanchez is a killer and CNN has him on TV everyday as their mouthpiece for indignant outrage. Pathetic.

rejoyce
Your disagreement with me is based on your own misreading of how this works.

I can't make you smarter. I've told you how it works, backed that up with precedent, and shown you where it's stated in the constitution.

if you still dont get it, I'm sorry. You're just another ignorant voter at that point.

I hear they have jackets.
By snarkybird

You don't have the brains to educate me, sorry little bird, I know that just bursts your bubble.

Did you or did you not say you were a progressive? They do not support our form of government. So which is it?

Your disagreement with me is based on your own misreading of how this works.

I can't make you smarter. I've told you how it works, backed that up with precedent, and shown you where it's stated in the constitution.

if you still dont get it, I'm sorry. You're just another ignorant voter at that point.

I hear they have jackets.

Wouldn't it be great if the mouth-breathers at CNN would go to these lengths to check the veracity of quotes, stats, and "facts" that are uttered by Democrats on the Hill everyday?

"I'm in favor of our system of governance. Why aren't you?"

You mean you approve of constitutional lawyers twisting and contorting our system to get what the progressives want?

You can take any set of rules and abuse them, you are still outside the intent of the rule makers.

From all your past driveling you cannot convince anyone you are in favor of our current government system IF it was working the way it should. That's the problem, maybe you confuse this current mess we call government for the intended method. Your previous posts make it clear you prefer more government involvement in every aspect of our lives. You do NOT approve of personal responsibility, with local being responsible for taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

You are a progressive, you've stated that you are. Which makes the statement "I'm in favor of our system of governance" a baldfaced lie.

Democrats hate the Constitution because it gives individuals freedom and they can't control or pander to them.

below is what democrats really love

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. (kelo vs new London, supreme court ruled “common good” rather than “public use”)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (check… we have it)
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (partially there, death tax)
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (reverse, illegal’s get handouts at the cost of the taxpayers... really just vote buying)
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (gee.. what’s happening now, control of banks)
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. (FCC expansion , Cap and Trade)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (let’s just start with GM and Chrysler, plus all the mandates, regulations and laws that inhibit production… oh yeah, cap and trade)
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (is this the civilian force as strong as the military Obama was talking about?)
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. (farmer subsidy comes with government control.)
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc. (check… got it, well almost.. home school and private are still being targeted)

Or the 57 states.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government" - James Madison

RANDY.......you dipstick.....that was my first job......

didn't make any money.....I waz always inda hole........

beer run.....NOW!....GO!.......

Hamilton disagreed with Madison.

This argument (albeit over a different issue) did go to the SCOTUS.

-----------
""Justice Cardozo wrote the opinions in Helvering vs. Davis and Steward Machine. After giving the 1788 dictionary the consideration he thought it deserved, he made clear the Court's view on the scope of the government's spending authority: "There have been statesman in our history who have stood for other views. . .We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . .has prevailed over that of Madison. . ." Arguing that the unemployment compensation program provided for the general welfare, Cardozo observed: ". . .there is need to remind ourselves of facts as to the problem of unemployment that are now matters of common knowledge. . .the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose [other] than the promotion of the general welfare.""
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
---------

That's a strong precedent for what's been legislated since to provide for the general welfare of the united states

BTW, it IS "provide" not "promote". But either word creates the same result.

And it is NOT in the preamble. It is in article 1, sec 8 defining the powers of congress specifically. You can't call this one section a "preamble" and then compare it to any other section and make that same case. It's not an introduction to be cast aside or that is simply a function of the statements below it. It exists as its own statement.

and the SCOTUS, as quoted above, agrees.

The old saying goes:
"Doesn't matter what they write/say about you, only that they spell/pronounce your name correctly."
(Bet he knows how many States in the U.S.)

“And I think, after it passes, it's time to start looking at cuts in Medicaid/Medicare, changes to SS including raising retirement age, raising bar on taxable income, as well as cuts to defense.”

You're not making sense – you want to create a bloated bureaucracy and then shrink government?

As you constantly say: you cant have it both ways.

SB: “Are you also on the "welfare state voting for free stuff" bandwagon like Ace?”

Did you NOT see the quotes I posted – including the one that Neal puts at the top of the page?

How many times do we have to demolish that argument?

People HAVE voted for plunder, and they Will vote for plunder.

And your argument that the Constitution doesn't limit the Statists on healthcare should eviscerate you own tired argument about the founding fathers and the Constructional setup of the Government.

Face it, you are in favor of Unlimited government, that's why you support the take over of healthcare.

It should be patently clear that this takeover will Raise Costs, Lower Quality of care and diminish our freedoms and Liberties in the bargain.

Why are you in favor of that?

The preamble of the Constitution is just that: a preamble. It is not operative. Just as the preamble to the second amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...", is not operative. It is, like other parts of the Constitution, an introduction to the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The preamble of the Constitution, merely served as an explanation as to why the document was being written. It proceeded to, in Article 1, Section 1, to say, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.."

In all subsequent sections, a preamble was again used to explain the purpose of the section. In Article 1, Section 8, the preamble states, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” It's not operative. It’s nothing more than an explanation for the purpose of the section, followed by the operative. The powers listed after the preamble are ALL that Congress has purview over.

The ‘United States’ does not mean ‘people’, it means the country- the government. When the founders wrote the Constitution, they were very specific with the rights of the people. How would one know this? Well, they mentioned it specifically: “..the right of the people to peacefully assemble” (I Amendment); “the right of the people to be secure…” (IV Amendment); “….are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (X Amendment); “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” (II Amendment)

Healthcare is not a right, and it never has been. It is also not a federal power, it never has been. It is a state power, delegated to the states under the X Amendment. If people want socialized healthcare, I’m fine with that. Massachusetts has it, and NO one has heard a peep from me. It is a disaster, but not one soul has heard me condemn it-- it is their right to institute it, no matter how much I hate the idea.

It was no accident that the constitution was written the way it was, as they knew full well that local government is more efficient and less oppressive than a centralized government, and took measures to ensure it. And they were right: the states of California and Michigan, as terribly screwed as they are, are FAR more efficient than the federal government. It’s why Chicago, as corrupt as that city is, is far less corrupt than the federal government. If the states want socialized healthcare, they should pursue it. Where it should not be pursued is in Congress, as they’ve absolutely zero authority to do so.

I think the problem is that people in Washington DON'T see the constitution as a limit on what they can do.

The plan only provides "healthcare" for those who the government board determines may have it (rationing).
The other citizens will just have to go home and die. The only requirement will be to pay for health care over which you have no control and now you are denied.
Didn't we have a revolution to be free from being taxed and getting nothing in return?
"Healthcare for everyone" is a huge lie from DC.

When the Founding Father penned the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Marx hadn't even published his Manifesto. Americans in the late 18th century generally just wanted to be left alone. As recent immigrants from big government nations, they had an instinctual distrust of government in any form.
Marx changed all that. Now, many Americans see government as benign at worst and benevolent at best.
The Constitution was written for people that just wanted to be free. Because of Marx and his influence on political thought, its now the job of politicians to interpret this document to allow people to be enslaved.

Snarky said it best:

"Good luck arguing that everyone being required to have health insurance is not in the interest of the general welfare of the united states. Or that Congress can't impose this in the form of a duty/excise/tax/impost.

Or that they can't regulate the way insurance is provided to everyone.

I'm no judge... perhaps I'm just missing your legal standing here."

Bye, bye, Miss American Pie

Section 8 is one of the favorite sections of the constitution for liberals to abuse.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

Read that and it sounds like they have an argument, I mean, it does say to provide for the General Welfare. Of course, the argument is only valid if you ignore the rest of the section which goes on to outline exactly what those powers are, and nowhere in there, does it say anything about healthcare.

Come on, simple logic tells you that the general welfare clause cannot be used to say Government Healthcare is covered by it, because under that argument, there would be no need for a Constitution, because anything a government could do could be said to be for the “general welfare” of the people. Outlaw abortion “for the general welfare”, make abortion illegal “for the general welfare”, make being gay illegal “for the general welfare”, make being gay mandatory “for the general welfare”, make having children illegal, make it legal, set your pay, tell you where you can live, where you can go to school, what job you can have, all for “the general welfare”. See how that would works?

Sorry, the founders weren’t that stupid, the opening sentence is specifying what the section is about, the rest of the section is laying out the powers; it’s not the open ended catchall that you liberals would like it to be.

When he flubbed it yesterday. How on earth did Neal miss that one?

Actually, The Heritage Foundation provided a copy of The Constitution and Declaration of Independence (pocket size booklet) to every member of congress. How much you wanna bet they didn't read the 42 +/- pages.

They know very well what the constitutions says since they spent many years trying to get around it. They just ignore it now.

Someone should get up in front of Congress and the Senate and read the Constitution aloud to them. Not that they would understand it but it might be pointed out that it doesn't mention anyone being forced at the point of a gun to pay for healthcare for everyone.

I don’t think liberals hate America. Most liberals I know want the same things I do; they want a place to raise their children in relative piece, a fair way to make a living, a country strong enough to protect itself from external threats and a country that takes care of those who can’t take care of themselves. By and large, it’s not a matter of conservatives and liberals wanting different things, it’s that we don’t see eye to eye on how to accomplish those things.

If you actually read and understand the constitution, it wasn’t a document designed to make this country capitalist or socialist or fascist or any ist, it was designed to allow the states and the people in those states to determine their own form of government as long as they didn’t violate the tenets of the constitution. Remember, the constitution is an agreement between the STATES as to what limited powers they were willing to yield to the federal government in order to form a nation that could defend itself and trade with foreign countries with a single voice.

My frustration with liberals and some conservative movements (i.e. The drug war) is that they insist on doing everything at the Federal level, and thereby negate one of the most brilliant aspects of the constitution, letting the states compete for the citizens. See, the founders understood that no government system is perfect and that throughout history large centralized governments, no matter how well intentioned to begin with, eventually ended up serving themselves and not the people.

So they setup a system whereby the States would have to compete for the people. Under this system if any state government became to oppressive, the people would have to right to leave, thus, providing a check on too much government power. But when we centralize all our power in Washington, we are depriving ourselves of that check.

Let me ask you liberals, if government sponsored healthcare is such a great idea, why can’t it be done on a state by state basis? If, as you claim, it will lower cost and provide better coverage for everyone, wouldn’t the State that did it right be a great example for all other states to follow. Wouldn’t people flock to that State to take advantage of such a wonderful program, thus bringing more business and tax payers to their State? Isn’t that the way it should work, you know, they way the constitution was actually written?

This guy isn't qualified to be a janitor in a whore house. It surprises me zero, to learn that he knows nothing at all about constitutionality.