Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 222

• 0%

  berkeley1 year, 1 month ago

  one of the questions it poses concerns time. can we begin a twenty-year plan that will restore the rule of law? or must we put barricades in the street tomorrow?

  no one knows. even chertoff, with his own agenda, does not really know when, or if, it will succeed. instead, life surprises us every day.

  Reply

  56 Replies

  • 0%

    populist1 year, 1 month ago

    it's an excellent question...time, that is.

    The way I see it is this - it's taken these politicians decades to really break down our system of government, and anyone promising a quick fix is just a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Thinking that 50 years of bending the rules of the Constitution will be repaired in just one election cycle is foolish.

    Unrealistic optimism in the short term only leads to long-term disillusion and pessimism. And, being pessimistic about our long-term hopes drives people to spend all their time on single-issues in the short term, or supporting candidates that are just the "lesser of two evils"

    That's my rant, I guess. In short, we have to be patient...

    Reply

    29 Replies

    • 0%

      slate1 year, 1 month ago

      At least you went back 50 years and not just seven as the author of the article does Pop. This has been going on for some time now. We The People have allowed it to happen, we have allowed the government to do everthing they have done by ellecting them over and over again and they have abused us. It's time for action.

      Reply

      20 Replies

      • 0%

        populist1 year, 1 month ago

        Slate, good comment. The author clearly puts most of his focus on the last 7 years, and I think that's an easy "mistake" to make..why? We're living in it now.

        But, it's important to understand where the abuse of power really comes from - strike the root, so to say.

        It doesn't come at the point your rights are violated, but rather, at the moment in time that a power is created to do so.

        For a long time (more than 50 yrs, actually), we've allowed politicians to operate outside the strict limits of the Constitution - and "bend the rules" - ostensibly for good reasons.

        But, when you allow politicians to work their way around the law for a long period of time, eventually you'll end up with politicians who feel the law doesn't apply at all.

        We're pretty close to that point now.

        We need politicians to follow the entire constitution, not just those parts that they personally like.

        Reply

        19 Replies

        • 0%

          slate1 year, 1 month ago

          Agreed, but you know how it is. The Government has added so many give out programs (ostensibly for good reasons) that many would still want. This is where most of their power lies. Though some of the programs are a good idea if one is a compassionate human, the greed, waste and corruption that is rife in any program makes them less than stellar.

          If there is a general election and the public votes on a topic, any Federal or State judge that overturns the will of the people should be held for treason against the people. I'm sure there are more cases of this but California has had judges do just that in the past when the judges deemed the outcome socially wrong.

          Stop pork barrel spending/Go to the consumption tax/Since we have paid our entire lives for SSI, tell them to fund it and cut other costs/All in all the feds shouldn't need over a trillion of OUR dollars to play with every year and pave the way to reelection at our expense, as they dole out the pork to the 'connected'.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Unlucky3201 year, 1 month ago

            Thats right state, the government has added so many give out programs, and alot of them were based on good reasons, but there are so many people out there that are abusing those programs that the right people rarely get any help. You have women out here having kids just to stay on welfare, illegal immigrants that are getting help when our own elderly and veterans can't. We need to get equality in our country, yes I did say equality, that's not what is happening here. We have minorities getting jobs because there has to be a percentage working,they should have to be qualified. That's not equality. I've heard many times that the reason immigrants are getting jobs are because we "fat" americans don't want to work. We wouldn't have to worry about security for our borders if we treat them like regular Americans. Make them pay taxes, and social security because guess what they are drawing it too. If one comes here at 64 and turns 65, they will draw it. We as American's can't.

            Reply
        • 0%

          Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

          At least since December 23, 1913.

          When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1862, that was in violation of the Constitution. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

          Note that the Constitution mentions the suspension of habeas corpus in the event of Insurrection or Invasion Article 1, Section 9 - which deals with the powers of CONGRESS, not of the President.

          Sic semper tyrannis.

          Reply

          15 Replies

          • 0%

            capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago

            In a message to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln answered Taney. He began by pointing out that he was reluctant to suspend the writ, but that dire threats to the nation in general and the military in particular required such action:

            Soon after the first call for militia it was considered a duty to authorize the Commanding General in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus . . . This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, . . . the attention of the country has been called to proposition that one who is sworn to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" should not himself violate them. Of course some consideration was given to the questions of power and propriety before this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted . . . in nearly one-third of the States.

            Reply

            12 Replies

            • 0%

              Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

              Yes, the northern states were ignoring Article IV, Section 1.

              The Constitution was not a contract by the States to cede sovereignty to the federal government, and the federal government had no authority to hold the States in the Union, if their own elected representatives acted to leave it.

              I'd love to see the Amendment to the Constitution that authorized the Excecutive to take over the perogatives expresly given to the Legislative branch.

              I won't be holding my breath though.

              Reply

              11 Replies

              • 0%

                markoller1 year, 1 month ago

                Do you believe that the Constitution god justifies anything, including slavery?

                Reply

                10 Replies

                • 0%

                  Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

                  The Constitution is a social contract.

                  Slavery is a moral issue. Abolotionists had a winning case for the moral issue, and then abused the Constitution, the rule of law to get their way, instead of arguing their case on the merits. 500,000 men died, and the result was not 'freedom', the result was another 100 years of Jim Crow, and racial conflict that persists up to this very moment.

                  Was that result worth violating the social contract?

                  You tell me.

                  Reply

                  6 Replies

                  • 0%

                    AmericanIdiot1 year, 1 month ago

                    Don't blame Lincoln for the Civil War. Jefferson Davis ended the discussion by encouraging secession of the Southern States of the Confederacy.

                    A true principal does not have to be universally true at all times. Truth is subjective and changes even for the individual from moment to moment. How much more so for a great nation of many millions!

                    The Articles of Confederation were suitable to the purpose, until they weren't. The Republic was worth defending, until it wasn't. Every generation must find its own truth in its own way. We can learn from history, but we cannot turn the clock back.

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago

                      Lincoln and others who held the Union to be indisoluble are entirely responsible for the Civil War. The seceding states did so by plebescite, it was the will of the voters not to remain in the Union. They proceded to set up their own government, peacefully, with the exception of the ejection of foreign troops and taking over foreign military posts. Then they were invaded by Union troops, which was the true start of the war. An agressive action by the Union.

                      Reply
                  • 0%

                    markoller1 year, 1 month ago

                    Gladly. The Constitution, with its state's rights and slavery, led to the Civil War. State's rights and an impotent Federal government was also to blame for Jim Crow. The Federal government was too weak to even prevent state sponsored lynching.

                    No amount of moral debate would have ended slavery. The profit margin for cotton plantations manned by slaves was 30 to 50 percent. So the slave owners were willing to go to any length to preserve slavery, besides fighting in the Civil War themselves. Nor was there any moral debate about slavery in the South, least of all, by the slaves.

                    Like I said in a previous post, if Alexander Hamilton had written the Constitution, states and slavery would have been abolished as soon as the Constitution was ratified. There also would have been a strong central government, which contrary to Jeffersonianism, is a prerequisite for any kind of progress. The middle ages ended when European kings reestablished central government.

                    Reply

                    3 Replies

                    • 0%

                      Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

                      Gee, there is still slavery in Jamaica?

                      Do all the Brits still keep house slaves?

                      Your version of Hamilton is pure fantasy.

                      Reply

                      1 Reply

                      • 0%

                        bill-smith1 year, 1 month ago

                        Hey, guys, don't get Opie mad. He'll call you names. besides, he knows what he's talking about. He took a couple of classes at the community college once!

                        Reply
                    • 0%

                      MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago

                      Exactly..

                      BIG business was cotton, textiles, and rum back then which needed slavery, so that "clause" was put off.

                      back then they had politicians who they "pocketed" to defend their immoral practices of child labor and slavery.

                      NOW big business is hiring lobbysists to do their dirty work in a different way.

                      They defend pollution, overseas contracting, illiegal immigration amnesty for cheap labor, of course), elimination of American jobs and lowering of safety standards to protect:

                      Profit..NOT "we the people"..

                      It was the 33% most morally corrupt big businesses back then and now it is no different. The stakes are just higher.

                      There are more people living here and we require more protection. We're not getting it!

                      Reply
                • 0%

                  tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago

                  The Constitution treated slavery as an established fact, not as a morally debatable issue.

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

                    And the Constitution made it possible for there to be a debate about slavery, on moral grounds.

                    The North chose not to debate, and instead to disobey the Constitution, and the law.

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago

                    Actually, they treated it as "pro-business".

                    Reply
          • 0%

            Teech1 year, 1 month ago

            About 1 in 10 Americans even knows what the Bill of Rights is, let alone where it can be found and read. About 1 in 50 Americans can even recite any one of them by heart. Is it any wonder that the Bushtapo has been able to wreak its havoc on the Constitution?

            That loud, buzzing sound is Thomas Jefferson turning over in his grave.....at about 2,000 rpm.

            Now, for those Americans who think Jefferson is a rock group.....oh, never mind.

            Reply
          • 0%

            professorT1 year, 1 month ago

            Everyone is skipping over some important issues here. Mr. Lincoln initiated the The War of Northern Aggression for one thing only - cash. Mr. Lincoln as historical record maintained that the war was neither to abolish slavery or to preserve it. It was plain and simple the matter of the tax - and tariff - revenues from the southern states. To preserve the Union - and the taxes provided by the states to the federal government by that union of states.

            The hard reality of history is that slavery was recognized by the Constitution - do some reasearch into the "two thirds" people mentioned in it...

            This "Populist" Party article is basically nothing new - the tired debate has been going on since 1787.

            Reply
        • 0%

          star531 year, 1 month ago

          whatever happen to fair and balance news-thats the real Question

          Reply
    • 0%

      GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year, 1 month ago

      When less than half of the people eligible to vote, actually chose the candidates, while the other 60% can't get off their fat arses and vote, one ends up with the idiots we have been electing for more than 50 years.

      I am constantly amazed at the answers to the question of why didn't you vote. From I'm to busy; to so what it doesn't matter. No surprise we end up being forgotten and elect idiots who just laugh and continue to stuff their pockets.

      Unless the people of the United States get off their b*tts and cast a vote for change, even a little change, we the people will just continue down the road that leads to the loss of every right granted by our forefathers and taken away by a corrupt government.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        djn3nunez31 year, 1 month ago

        A choice to not vote is a choice for the same old same old, and the state wins. It promotes the status quo.

        Reply
      • 0%

        tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago

        We could do like some other countries and require people to vote, fining those who don't, but I have always believed that everyone is better off without the votes of those who can't be bothered. They probably don't know enough about the candidates or issues to even vote according to their own consciences.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          keyfitter1 year, 1 month ago

          "They probably don't know enough about the candidates or issues to even vote according to their own consciences."

          Voting means having to choose one crooked moron, over another crooked moron. There hasn't been anyone worth voting for in over 50 years. While everyone is all wrapped up in Republican VS Democrat, our further enslavement to the parasites who really run the whole show is happening.

          Divide and conquer is a really great strategy!.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            onlyonesecret1 year, 1 month ago

            Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.

            Reply
    • 0%

      AmericanIdiot1 year, 1 month ago

      What's wrong with dissillusion and pessimism? Illusions only cloud the mind with fantasies, we are better off without them. Pessimism is the antidote to dopey American optimism, the hallmark of 1950's propaganda.

      The real world is messy and often ugly, and all authority emanates from violence and discrimination.

      Elections won't solve anything. Anyone who thinks so is obviously too old to get it. They may join the Anarchist Revolution after the next debacle, but not before then.

      Go Bush! He is bringing the Revolution closer every day!

      Reformist collaborators are counter-revolutionaries and are the enemies of the people.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        doggammit1 year, 1 month ago

        That's a hard line AI - but in principle, I tend to agree. There is no middle grey in this campaign. The Republicrat duopoly has it all staked out. It also seems that even the third party Libertarian option offers little more than just another shade of mollification. The problem with "Anarchy" is, of course, a matter of definition. Like the terms "leftie and "rightie" it has been smeared and rendered repugnant to the mainstream. It probably needs a new label and a Karl Rove to apply some lipstick. Ideas? How about "A System of Natural Liberty", for starters. Then we could follow it up with "A Theory of Moral Sentiments". Since the original author (Adam Smith) passed away eons ago, I doubt there would be any copyright infringement...

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          AmericanIdiot1 year, 1 month ago

          Welcome back, doggamit! As you can see, not many in favor of my position. Anarchists do not rely on majority numbers, they are a revolutionary vanguard, but of the people, they follow the people. After the revolution, the Anarchists are usually executed, so the new power oligarchy can rule. Our role is to foment dissent and encourage a permanent revolution. A political party is against Anarchist principles. The closest thing permissible would be possibly a syndicate of unions, running the factories and siezing the means of production

          Reply
  • 0%

    mossback1 year, 1 month ago

    The problem with this article is that the title is one story but the text is something else. Returning to the "rule of law under the Constitution" has different meanings for different people. For instance, should the 2nd amendment -- the right to keep and bear arms, be interpreted as freely as we have the 1st Amendment -- freedom of speech? Should we all have the right to carry whatever weapons we want, just as we seem to think we have the right to say whatever we want?

    And would returning to a rule of law under the Constitution mean returning to a time when it was clearly understood that the Constitution only applied to US Citizens and legal residents, all others in the US were subject to our laws, but not all of our protections.

    Be careful what you seek -- you may actually get it. Sure, the author is scared of the new FISA rulings, but his desire to "return" to rule under the Constitution is more dissembling than real.

    Reply

    23 Replies

    • 0%

      populist1 year, 1 month ago

      Actually, you have it backwards - this time is now. The federal government violates rights of non-citizens every single day - loss of habeas corpus and wiretapping, for example.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        populist1 year, 1 month ago

        The fact of the matter is quite simple.

        The Constitution doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to "citizens" (which didn't exist until many years later). It doesn't apply to "foreigners."

        It doesn't apply to people at all! It applies to the federal government.

        The Constitution tells the federal government exactly what it CAN do, and the Bill of Rights tells it what it CAN'T do.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          white-pawn1 year, 1 month ago

          I wish someone would sit down and read both those documents to the current administration.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            disraeli1 year, 1 month ago

            I think that they shredded their copies some time ago.

            Reply
        • 0%

          bigG1 year, 1 month ago

          Correctimundo oh popular one.

          The Constitution gives the government it's rights, clear and simple. And that comes directly from the will of the people. Thusly, "that government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people" so eloquently stated by a former President.

          Reply
    • 0%

      Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

      Yes, the 2nd Amendment too.

      Please tell us how you, or anyone, has read the Constitution to apply only to citizens? Surely it says "no person", and not "no citizen" in the 5th Amendment?

      The 6th Amendment says "all criminal trials", not 'the trials of citizens'.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        markoller1 year, 1 month ago

        Should everyone be allowed to own nuclear weapons in the name of the second amendment? Those with limited resources might consider anthrax spores. After all, the second amendment says arms, not guns.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          injest1 year, 1 month ago

          markoller

          Should everyone be allowed to own nuclear weapons in the name of the second amendment?

          Actually a strict interpretation of the Constitution the answer would be yes.

          Any weapon that has military value is protected.

          This is why a sawed of shotgun is illegal.

          The strange case of United States v. Miller

          By Dr. Michael S. Brown

          web posted August 6, 2001

          The story begins with the National Firearms Act of 1934,

          The Firearms Act levied a prohibitive $200 dollar tax on machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Government officials claimed that these were the weapons of choice for the criminal gangs that evolved during prohibition.

          Like most criminal cases, U.S. v. Miller involved some rather unsavory characters.

          Jack Miller, a bank robber and moonshiner with many enemies, felt the need to carry a sawed off shotgun without paying the tax.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            injest1 year, 1 month ago

            He and his associate, Frank Layton, had the misfortune to be caught transporting it from Oklahoma to Arkansas and were arrested in June of 1938 by federal agents on charges of violating the Firearms Act.

            They were brought before United States District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon in Fort Smith, Arkansas who encouraged them to plead not guilty and appointed an attorney to represent them. He then found in their favor, declaring that the relevant section of the Firearms Act was in violation of the Second Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

            Federal law enforcement authorities were not pleased. Judge Ragon's decision threatened the expansion of federal power, so the case was quickly appealed to the Supreme Court.

            The resulting decision issued in May of 1939 stated that "in the absence of any evidence" the Supreme Court could not say that a sawed off shotgun had any relationship to the militia. The critical point here is the absence of evidence.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              injest1 year, 1 month ago

              The record shows that no arguments were made and no evidence presented on behalf of Jack Miller or the Second Amendment. The Justice Department attorneys were able to present their case without any opposition.

              Miller had no resources to finance his argument against the government's appeal and it is doubtful that he had any interest in defending Constitutional rights. In fact, he died before the decision was rendered. His body was discovered in April of 1939, with multiple .38 caliber bullet wounds. His own .45 pistol lay by his side with four rounds expended.

              Perhaps he had a legitimate need for that shotgun after all.

              Reply
        • 0%

          tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago

          The purpose of this ammendment was to enable the people to overthrow the government by force, if they deemed that necessary, just as the writers and signers of the Constitution and ammendments had done. If our ability to resist our government by force of arms is restricted, then the 2nd ammendment is violated.

          Reply
        • 0%

          Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

          The moron fallback argument?

          Assuming you can manage to mine and refine your own plutonium, yes. I think the government has sufficient authority to control fissionable materials, since they take huge mining and refining operations to acquire.

          Anthrax spores are easy to acquire, very difficult to get into a usable condition.

          When is the government outlawing castor beans? How about peanuts? Maybe you want to outlaw private ownership of all knives over 4"? How about baseball bats?

          See, I'll take your stupid friggin example, and raise you...

          Reply
    • 0%

      sinophil491 year, 1 month ago

      I was not born in this country and I have never studied the Constitution in great detail like many of the bloggers here. However, it does strike me that some parts of the constitution are very anachronistic and have no relation to modern society.

      The 2nd Amendment on the (?unlimited?) right to bear arms was applicable to colonial America. Then the ownership and use of guns ws much like what we regard the automobile or widescreen TV's now. It was part of daily life. It was still part of the food-gathering process for many. There were immense tracts of unexplored land (by whites). Therefore, a gun was just a necessary every day appliance.

      Now we have cities, supermarkets, etc. We do not need guns to shot our food. We have the rule of law and a large law-enforcement bureaucracy.

      I also see no need for the electoral college. When the olden farmers had no time to leave their crops behind to vote, it made sense to have representatives take time off to travel to Washington ..

      Reply

      10 Replies

      • 0%

        sinophil491 year, 1 month ago

        and vote for the leaders. In today's age of computers, faxes, telecommunications, airplanes and freeways, it makes no sense to retain this quaint, but useless process. I have heard of at least 2 elections where the person with the majority of the popular vote lost the election because of the vagaries of the electoral college allowed the loser to get more electoral votes. How can this be called a democracy where the desires of the majority are not obeyed?

        Where I grew up, even w/o computers, etc., it was a simple majority of votes of the entire country. Of course there was fraud, voter manipulation, etc. But the basic principle was simple, clear, and fair. Here there is so much strategy, pliticking, targeted messages, legal manipulations to make the calculus of the electoral votes skew to one side or the other.

        Why do you Americans tolerate this?

        Reply

        8 Replies

        • 0%

          DarkWizard1 year, 1 month ago

          sinophil49,

          I understand your opinion, but you assume too much in that our laws and law enforcement officials have our best interests in mind. America must stay constantly vigilant against threats from within. This includes those sworn to uphold the Constitution and state laws. Our right to bear arms is an insurance policy against a corrupt or corruptible government. Just because we have advancements in technologies and psychology does not necessarily translate into better governance or enlightened government. Of course, this is still simplistic when talking about the actual complexity of the situation.

          "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

          Thomas Jefferson

          Reply

          7 Replies

          • 0%

            markoller1 year, 1 month ago

            DarkWizard,

            Spoken like Timothy McVeigh, and lots of luck trying to outfight a 21st century superpower.

            Reply

            6 Replies

            • 0%

              DarkWizard1 year, 1 month ago

              markoller,

              Interesting. You, many others that come here spew your deceitful lies; have nothing written in your bio. How strange that you would want to come here and be a subversive influence and stay SO anonymous. I'm beginning to see a pattern. The "shills" are loose! Which candidate are you marketing shill? The closer it comes time to voting for a new president the more you "shills" come here and try to divide sane talk and otherwise, a civil exchange of ideas.

              I encourage you to spew more of your filth, so that you may be more easily identified by those of us that actually use our brains.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                markoller1 year, 1 month ago

                My name really is Mark Oller, and I live in Alexandria, Virginia. Why don't you use your real name?

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  DarkWizard1 year, 1 month ago

                  markoller,

                  Freedom of choice. My name is for my family and friends to know. Not everyone on the Internet. But, I do make my bio available and my intentions are known.

                  Reply
            • 0%

              Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

              If barefoot Afghan boys can do it, I can do it!

              Where's your American "can-do" attitude?

              Go Wolverines!

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                AmericanIdiot1 year, 1 month ago

                Red Dawn?

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

                  Good job!

                  Would you like film trivia for $500 next?

                  Reply
      • 0%

        AmericanIdiot1 year, 1 month ago

        Now we have cities, supermarkets, etc. We do not need guns to shot our food. We have the rule of law and a large law-enforcement bureaucracy.

        WE need the Second Ammendment to protect us from the "large law-enforcement beaurocracy."

        I like Chinese culture too, sinophil, but I don't think you guys understand the "rebellious" aspects of American culture. Our nation was born out of crime, murder, and revolution. And that's the way we like it! Death to all tyrants!

        Reply
  • 0%

    jai611 year, 1 month ago

    Unless there is a boston tea party,, we're screwed.

    What ever happened to freedom of choice? There are countless laws that took that one away. The courts,,, they cater to cry babies who want things one way,,their way.

    Reply
  • 0%

    mark-stevens1 year, 1 month ago

    Death to Smochie

    Reply
• 0%

  Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

  Excellent post. Well written article. The return to constitutional rule of law is critical for the very survival of the nation. Why people aren't already up in arms I don't know.

  Reply

  26 Replies

  • 0%

    nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago

    I'm not certain how people who decry the Feds infringing on personal rights and freedom also demand that the same Federal government take over their healthcare.

    Reply

    25 Replies

    • 0%

      GregD1 year, 1 month ago

      I don't want the Feds infringing on my personal rights and freedoms any more than I want them "managing" my healthcare. I'd like to manage my own healthcare with the help of a doctor of my choosing and without having to take out a second mortgage. That so much to ask?

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

        Sorry, your healthcare is determined by a corporation, aka an immortal being, immune to the normal punishments of law, empowered by law to disregard everything but it's own profit.

        An immortal, sociopath, that is what a corporation is: devoid of compassion, mercy, loyalty or shame.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago

          I don't want my heathcare benefits determined by a faceless government bureaucrat. I don't want to see the government able to access the heathcare records of everyone in the country

          I don't even like the employer provided plans. The employer is the customer of the health insurance company - not the employee.

          Reply
      • 0%

        sinophil491 year, 1 month ago

        You can not have it both ways. If you want entire control of your personal care and are able to fund it yourself, then the government should not control health care. BUT then we will not have universal health care coverage in the US.

        If you want universal health care coverage for every person in the US, then there has to be federal govt involvement. No consortium of private health care HMO's, PPO's, and insurance companies could possibly do it.

        I may be at heart a socialist, because I think the second goal is far more important. I want every individual to benefit from the wealth within our country. It is unethical to have anyone here be denied care, simply because of the inequity of distribution of wealth and care availability

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

          Specious reasoning.

          Are you actually saying that the federal government is the only method that a human society can utilize to provide a service?

          Think carefully before you answer. If you dare to answer.

          Reply
    • 0%

      jaspersneed1 year, 1 month ago

      That's both a baseless assumption and a spectacular display of specious reasoning. First of all, there is no necessary connection between the two in anyone's mind. I am myself a perfect example, and I speak for many. Being a Libertarian, I abhor the ceaseless usurpation of our rights and assault on our Constitution by our government. Yet at the same time, I in no way advocate government controlled health-care. Your assumption that my support of the one premise presupposes a desire for the other is ill-conceived and the result of your own prejudice.

      Secondly, in the case of a person who indeed may hold both positions, why should his belief in one cast the pall of hypocrisy -- which is, of course, what you are insinuating -- over his belief in the other? Perhaps he deems universal healthcare to be part of the "common defense" our Constitution entrusts to the federal government, and should thereby be among its enumerated powers. Must such....

      (cont)

      Reply

      19 Replies

      • 0%

        jaspersneed1 year, 1 month ago

        .... a person then also hold, as your faulty logic tries to suggest, that the federal government should therefore not be held accountable to their own laws or forced to operate within the Constitution? Or in the case of a garden-variety liberal in the modern day sense, who doesn't even think about it on that level and has no problem with an outsize federal gov't role in our lives if it's for what he perceives is good cause -- is such an individual obliged to passively watch as the government also dismantles the Bill of Rights with one hand, while seeing his psoriasis gets treated with the other?

        Is that what a Constitutional Republic means to you?

        Reply
      • 0%

        nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago

        I would think that most Libertarians would agree with the article AND be AGAINST a government run healthcare system. At least that is the case with most of the Libertarians that I know. They believe that a government run healthcare system would be a HUGE invasion of privacy

        If someone "deems universal healthcare to be part of the "common defense", they are guilty of stretching the original intent of "common defense" beyond reason.

        In my opinion, that makes them no different than the people in government this article cites.

        Reply

        17 Replies

        • 0%

          jaspersneed1 year, 1 month ago

          "If someone "deems universal healthcare to be part of the "common defense", they are guilty of stretching the original intent of "common defense" beyond reason."

          Yes, that much I also believe, but my point is not to justify the reasoning behind the notion, but that having such a view does not render illegitimate the concomitant demand that government NOT infringe on our Constitutional Liberties. In other words, an incorrect understanding of the Constitution does not then justify exclusion from its protections.

          Reply

          14 Replies

          • 0%

            Eagle_Eye1 year, 1 month ago

            After being on "Medicaid" for several years I can attest to this: It SUCKS!!!! Only because the Doctors that accept it are the worst in the field.

            I do wonder though that if the government handles it and all medical providers were treated equal if it would improve??

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              populist1 year, 1 month ago

              with this government and these corrupt politicians - it'll get better for a short while - to garner support, then it'll get far far worse.

              that's my opinion.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                Eagle_Eye1 year, 1 month ago

                I pray your wrong with your opinion, but as I have seen from past experiences, they may start strong and end up screwed up...

                Reply
            • 0%

              nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago

              There isn't a single Federal healthcare program which works well or within budget

              You have seen for yourself the problems with Medicaid. Take a look at the budget in your state and see how they are spending on Medicaid. In many states that program is taking up a larger share of the state budget year after year. Many states are soon going to get to the point where they can't afford the program without a massive tax hike

              The same goes for Medicare - will run a bigger deficit than Social Security in the coming years, some doctors refusing Medicare patients (the number of doctors in this group is getting bigger) etc.

              The VA certainly isn't a good model.

              I'd rather see the states try to set up universal care - Massachusetts is going this route and California may do the same

              That way we will be able to evaluate which state system is best.

              I shudder to think about Congress setting up a system given their track record with the current government healthcare programs

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                DarkWizard1 year, 1 month ago

                nostalgia,

                I disagree with you that Federal healthcare doesn't work. I have not heard one elected official complain about "their" healthcare package. Therefore, I would say it is only the tax-payers who aren't getting good Federal healthcare services.

                I have never heard of any CEO's or company executives complain about "their" healthcare plan. They only complain about "providing healthcare to their employees.

                Seeing any pattern yet?

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago

                  Federal workers have health care plans through private insurers. In Washington DC you can select from Aetna HealthFund, Aetna Open Access, CareFirst BlueChoice, Kaiser Permanente, M.D. IPA, United HealthCare. None of these are "government" plans - they are private companies.

                  http://www.opm.gov/insure/07/planinfo.asp

                  The actual goverment plans are Medicare, Medicaid (in partnership with the states), the VA system and the S-CHIP program for uninsured children

                  All of the government programs are in trouble and are dysfunctional

                  Reply
          • 0%

            tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago

            Are you guys forgetting "promote the general welfare" or just ignoring it?

            Reply

            6 Replies

            • 0%

              Obaku1 year, 1 month ago

              Yah! Rah!

              The single most abused phrase in that most sodomized of documents.

              Reply
            • 0%

              nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago

              Are you guys forgetting "promote the general welfare" or just ignoring it?

              That phrase has been stretched beyond any reasonable interpretation already

              Read some of the writing by the Founding Fathers then come to your own conclusion about what they meant

              What would be next in your opinion - a 4 bedroom house for everyone? An energy efficient car for everyone?

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago

                It would seem to me that good health care is the most fundamental way anyone could promote the general welfare. Even more than facilitating commerce or education.

                I am a Virginian, Sir. I can guarantee you that nearly all of us have read more of the founding fathers' works by the fourth grade than most Americans ever do.

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  tkyrchncs1 year, 1 month ago

                  The state of medicine at the time of the founders should also be considered in anything they might have had to say about it. Having a doctor's care was an iffy proposition at best, in that it didn't extend general life expectancy or quality significantly. That is not the case now.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago

                  Then you will recall the following:

                  James Madison stated that the "general welfare" clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand "to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare."

                  Writing about the "general welfare" clause in 1791, Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was "that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."

                  Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the "general welfare" by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals would enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as expressed in the Declaration of Independence

                  Reply
              • 0%

                DarkWizard1 year, 1 month ago

                nostalgia,

                Do you mean the same kinds of conclusions that our government officials have come to about what the Constitution means? It should work both ways.

                Reply
          • 0%

            nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago

            Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the "general welfare" by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence

            Writing about the "general welfare" clause in 1791, Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators