Alright Constitutional Scholars...

[almaty 19]

It's like the bible, each man/woman interprets it in a way that suits themselves.

true sister purple, the supreme court throughout this country history has changed opinions on their views of what is meant

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's like the bible, each man/woman interprets it in a way that suits themselves.

true sister purple, the supreme court throughout this country history has changed opinions on their views of what is meant

commie liberals!

[almaty 19]

It's like the bible, each man/woman interprets it in a way that suits themselves.

true sister purple, the supreme court throughout this country history has changed opinions on their views of what is meant

commie liberals!

thank you, kind sir...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's like the bible, each man/woman interprets it in a way that suits themselves.

true sister purple, the supreme court throughout this country history has changed opinions on their views of what is meant

commie liberals!

thank you, kind sir...

Now stand in the corner and prepare to be swatted with a rolled up print of the Constitution.

[Danno 1,228]

It's like the bible, each man/woman interprets it in a way that suits themselves.

There is some truth to that and usually.... without having been read.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's like the bible, each man/woman interprets it in a way that suits themselves.

There is some truth to that and usually.... without having been read.

Danno, do you believe the Bible when read, requires no interpretation?

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not a constitutional scholar - never pretended to be.

Quite honestly, I don't really give a ###### what it says when it relates to things like universal health care. There are some things that society should provide for its citizens, and access to health care is one of those things. One can argue the toss about how that is to be achieved, but whether it is in the constitution or not, it's fundamental to a working, progressive and stable 1st world society.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Quite honestly, I don't really give a ###### what it says when it relates to things like universal health care. There are some things that society should provide for its citizens, and access to health care is one of those things. One can argue the toss about how that is to be achieved, but whether it is in the constitution or not, it's fundamental to a working, progressive and stable 1st world society.

MC, we have some on the Right making the argument that such things like universal health care are not covered in the U.S. Constitution and therefore beyond the scope of the Federal Government. So it's difficult to even have a discussion about health care when they reject it on constitutional grounds alone.

[scandal 951]

I am not a constitutional scholar - never pretended to be.

Nor am I. Everything* I know about the Constitution I learned from Nina Totenberg.

* Ok, not quite EVERYTHING. I've read a few books and bios of the Framers along the way. But seriously, NIna is way-cool in making the proceedings of the Supreme Court understandable to the layperson. I puffy heart Nina.

[mRx 16]

Not a Constitutional scholar or geek, but if the government has been tasked with providing for the peoples' general welfare, I think it's safe to say that they're not commending each other right now over our prosperous condition, nor do I think they ever have. In order to make someone better off, they must first make someone worse off. I don't know why it's so hard to comprehend this. It doesn't matter how many bureaucrats you throw at it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Any port in a storm Colonel. However, stonewalling on this issue will lead inevitably to a massive increase in shanty towns, begging, outbreaks of communicable disease, perhaps even cholera etc. The system is already failing millions and causing financial hardship and nothing has been done to improve things - there is worse to come.

[NickD 202]

"and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,"

With the last administration and the recent formation of over a thousand new governmental agencies, screw liberty, it's far more important that we be safe.

Regarding the Supreme Court, can't even get all nine scholars to agree on anything, the majority of the time, can only get just five to agree, that is only 55.55%, a very weak majority. But yet that interpretation of their opinions becomes law. I feel that should be 100%, but what in the hell do I know, just a layman, not an #### kissing politician.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Any port in a storm Colonel. However, stonewalling on this issue will lead inevitably to a massive increase in shanty towns, begging, outbreaks of communicable disease, perhaps even cholera etc. The system is already failing millions and causing financial hardship and nothing has been done to improve things - there is worse to come.

Moses, is that you?

[scandal 951]

Quite honestly, I don't really give a ###### what it says when it relates to things like universal health care. There are some things that society should provide for its citizens, and access to health care is one of those things. One can argue the toss about how that is to be achieved, but whether it is in the constitution or not, it's fundamental to a working, progressive and stable 1st world society.

MC, we have some on the Right making the argument that such things like universal health care are not covered in the U.S. Constitution and therefore beyond the scope of the Federal Government. So it's difficult to even have a discussion about health care when they reject it on constitutional grounds alone.

I had this out with Gary a while ago. He quoted an article that claimed the SSA (Social Security Act) was unconstitutional because it's not written into the Constitution.

Which is puerile and silly because by that standard, EVERYTHING has to be in the Constitution to be legal, and the only way to make law is to amend the Constitution.

Which we all know is ridiculous. Congress most certainly does have the power to legislate and create new Law. The SSA was passed and stood up to Supreme Court challenge in 1937. Gary et al may not like it, but that does make it the law of the land. So was Medicare in 1965.There's no reason whatsoever that a properly formulated Health care bill in this Congress could not do the same. The debate over health care is a proper political discussion: is it correct, is it cost-effective, how should it be administered, what should the public/private makeup of the system be. That is a reasonable and proper discussion in Congress and the Press and the public at large (even us here on VJ). But to argue that Congress has no Constitutional right to pass such legislation is just absurd.

[Peikko 1,575]

Any port in a storm Colonel. However, stonewalling on this issue will lead inevitably to a massive increase in shanty towns, begging, outbreaks of communicable disease, perhaps even cholera etc. The system is already failing millions and causing financial hardship and nothing has been done to improve things - there is worse to come.

Moses, is that you?

History might not repeat itself item by item, but human beings sure as hell make the same mistakes, over, and over, and over, again. I really think it's time everyone took classes in social history and actually understood what has been achieved in the past, and what has not.