Alright Constitutional Scholars...

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

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

[Heracles 417]

Seriously though, the model provides an economic stability due to the balancing forces of supply and demand is a sterile one. Humans are humans, once you add them into the mix what should be a nice straight forward equation, ceases to be one. It also presupposes that everyone has equal access to information, has equal intelligence and equal footing on the economic ladder. Would that it were so. Seriously, it would be really lovely if regulation were not required. I can see the downside of it, I really can.

So you admit we are not all equal. Funny how you refuse to accept this when it comes to cultural differences.

[Peikko 1,575]

Seriously though, the model provides an economic stability due to the balancing forces of supply and demand is a sterile one. Humans are humans, once you add them into the mix what should be a nice straight forward equation, ceases to be one. It also presupposes that everyone has equal access to information, has equal intelligence and equal footing on the economic ladder. Would that it were so. Seriously, it would be really lovely if regulation were not required. I can see the downside of it, I really can.

So you admit we are not all equal. Funny how you refuse to accept this when it comes to cultural differences.

Because you try to create cause and effect where none exist BY. It's got nothing to do with being equal or not.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Heracles 417]

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

What the founding fathers intended has been grossly taken out of context and manipulated to suit an individuals or groups own agenda. For example, the first amendment which was clearly about freedom to express political views. Not the current moronic definition of freedom to dance on a pole naked in the street and then claim you are protected by the first amendment.

Context is something people clearly don't comprehend anymore. Which is why your constitution is now failing this country. To think for even a nanosecond that 90% of the ####### that people get away with today and claim they are, and i quote, "protected by the Constitution", is just moronic. People of that time wouldn't even have fathomed 1% of the garbage that people get away.

As a foreigner though, it is funny, well actually quite American, to see that when you compare the constitution to that of other nations and then look at the overall success of those nations, the United States fails. Rather than ratifying the constitution and bringing it into the 21st century, that is, removing all of the ambiguity, you guys prefer to debate whose definition is correct.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Constellation

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

Seriously though, the model provides an economic stability due to the balancing forces of supply and demand is a sterile one. Humans are humans, once you add them into the mix what should be a nice straight forward equation, ceases to be one. It also presupposes that everyone has equal access to information, has equal intelligence and equal footing on the economic ladder. Would that it were so. Seriously, it would be really lovely if regulation were not required. I can see the downside of it, I really can.

So you admit we are not all equal. Funny how you refuse to accept this when it comes to cultural differences.

Because you try to create cause and effect where none exist BY. It's got nothing to do with being equal or not.

Equal doesn't mean treating all situations and people the exact same way.

Putting a wheelchair ramp at a public library is providing equal access.

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

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

What the founding fathers intended has been grossly taken out of context and manipulated to suit an individuals or groups own agenda. For example, the first amendment which was clearly about freedom to express political views. Not the current moronic definition of freedom to dance on a pole naked in the street and then claim you are protected by the first amendment.

Context is something people clearly don't comprehend anymore. Which is why your constitution is now failing this country. To think for even a nanosecond that 90% of the ####### that people get away with today and claim they are, and i quote, "protected by the Constitution", is just moronic. People of that time wouldn't even have fathomed 1% of the garbage that people get away.

As a foreigner though, it is funny, well actually quite American, to see that when you compare the constitution to that of other nations and then look at the overall success of those nations, the United States fails. Rather than ratifying the constitution and bringing it into the 21st century, that is, removing all of the ambiguity, you guys prefer to debate whose definition is correct.

Magna cum-laude

[Heracles 417]

Because you try to create cause and effect where none exist BY. It's got nothing to do with being equal or not.

Whereas you fail to accept that people of various cultures are different and have different motives. You need to look at the History channel and watch a show called Gangland. There was a nice episode on a gang called Zoe Pound in Florida. Can you tell me how many Brits and Aussies are in gangs? Heck, we'll even throw in the Canucks into the number. Yeah, that must not be culture hey.

Actually this proves two points, one of which is related to the constitution. The reason so many gangs have been able to thrive in the US of A is due to the ambiguity of the constitution and the pro do as one pleases clauses protected by the 1st and 5th. Under Australian law, the freedom and will of the people always overrides the rights of a criminal. Further, the laws are ratified accordingly to deal with the era we currently live in and to deal with the current issues facing society. For example: they didn't exactly have a problem with crack cocaine in the 1700.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Constellation

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

MC, it is futile. Don't go Pike on me...please.

[Heracles 417]

I look at it (the laws / the country) from this angle.

America once produced these types: (people who made a difference to humanity)

Now it endorses and accept these types: (peope who take the lives of others)

The latter would probably be bashed on a daily basis by police in Australia. Hence why they don't go there. If that is not an EPIC fail in the laws, I don't know what is.

Under Australian law, the laws would be ratified to crush your MS-13 to MS-0.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Constellation

[rebeccajo 14]

There exists such a check and balance system already; not government-driven, but market-driven. Works for every other industry. Why wouldn't it work for healthcare?

You are kidding me, aren't you?

Do you need to perform a detailed inspection on a new toaster oven before you plug it in to ensure that you will not die of electrocution?

At least a perfunctory one., and stand back for a few seconds...

Which would be... making sure that the cord is connected to the toaster?

Seriously, market-furnished regulation is the most overlooked and underappreciated safety-net in an economy.

Due mostly to the fact that it is not overtly advertised through politial wizardry (i.e. propaganda headlines like: "FDA saves us from armaggeddon")

Matt -

Market furnished regulation is like any other economic principal. Nice on paper but not necessarily workable in the real world. When you are talking about the necessities of life, such as food and good health, if one of the components of the principal is 'out of whack' the results can be catastrophic.

Market furnished regulation only works if you take greed out of the equation. When you have colluded greed (such as we saw last summer with the price of fuel) then the principal completely collapses. Not to mention the fact that you have sort of an odd market principal at play with for-profit health insurers holding the reins over doctors and hospitals. If the hospital is also 'for-profit' then you have another dichotemy.

I don't understand either of your posts. Please define "market furnished regulation"?

I understand the concept of a market.

i understand the concept of regulation imposed from without, by a regulatory agency, in order to provide desired properties in that market. Typically (in financial markets)- a level playing field for all participants, fair access to trading venues and liquidity, orderly controls such as circuit breakers on sharp market moves. Plus things like limits on insider trading, regular audited financial statements, etc. etc.

In non financial markets - we have FDA regulating health and safety of our foods and medicines, EPA regulating quality of air and water, OSHA regulating our workplaces, FAA regulating our air space and commercial aircraft, etc.etc.etc.

All of these are imposed on the market from without. In some cases we do have industries self regulating from within ( e.g. Bar associations, AMA).

I don't understand any of what either of you said in this context of "regulation".

IMO, I took Matt to mean 'survival of the fittest' (sort of) in the marketplace. The concept that the 'best' will rise to the surface.

If I misunderstood that, then my reply makes no sense.........

[GaryC 7]

I look at it (the laws / the country) from this angle.

America once produced these types: (people who made a difference to humanity)

To bad this guy is from Germany.

[GaryC 7]

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

It still isn't the actual law and to make law out of it wasn't the intent of the founding fathers either.

[Heracles 417]

To bad this guy is from Germany.

In both examples they are immigrants.

I guess America had different standards back then.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Constellation

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

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

It still isn't the actual law and to make law out of it wasn't the intent of the founding fathers either.

The entire Constitution is built upon that foundation and that foundation demonstrates the intent of the Founding Fathers. Removing that foundation or pushing it aside when debating over the role of our government is revisionist thinking.

[rebeccajo 14]

I look at it (the laws / the country) from this angle.

America once produced these types: (people who made a difference to humanity)

To bad this guy is from Germany.

I just thought this was interesting:

During 1921 Einstein made his first visit to the United States. His main reason was to raise funds for the planned Hebrew University of Jerusalem. However he received the Barnard Medal during his visit and lectured several times on relativity. He is reported to have commented to the chairman at the lecture he gave in a large hall at Princeton which was overflowing with people:-

"I never realised that so many Americans were interested in tensor analysis."

Einstein received the Nobel Prize in 1921 but not for relativity rather for his 1905 work on the photoelectric effect. In fact he was not present in December 1922 to receive the prize being on a voyage to Japan. Around this time he made many international visits. He had visited Paris earlier in 1922 and during 1923 he visited Palestine. After making his last major scientific discovery on the association of waves with matter in 1924 he made further visits in 1925, this time to South America.

Among further honours which Einstein received were the Copley Medal of the Royal Society in 1925 and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1926.

Niels Bohr and Einstein were to carry on a debate on quantum theory which began at the Solvay Conference in 1927. Planck, Niels Bohr, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrödinger and Dirac were at this conference, in addition to Einstein. Einstein had declined to give a paper at the conference and:-

"... said hardly anything beyond presenting a very simple objection to the probability interpretation .... Then he fellback into silence ... "

Indeed Einstein's life had been hectic and he was to pay the price in 1928 with a physical collapse brought on through overwork. However he made a full recovery despite having to take things easy throughout 1928.

By 1930 he was making international visits again, back to the United States. A third visit to the United States in 1932 was followed by the offer of a post at Princeton. The idea was that Einstein would spend seven months a year in Berlin, five months at Princeton. Einstein accepted and left Germany in December 1932 for the United States. The following month the Nazis came to power in Germany and Einstein was never to return there.

During 1933 Einstein travelled in Europe visiting Oxford, Glasgow, Brussels and Zurich. Offers of academic posts which he had found it so hard to get in 1901, were plentiful. He received offers from Jerusalem, Leiden, Oxford, Madrid and Paris.

What was intended only as a visit became a permanent arrangement by 1935 when he applied and was granted permanent residency in the United States. At Princeton his work attempted to unify the laws of physics. However he was attempting problems of great depth and he wrote:-

"I have locked myself into quite hopeless scientific problems - the more so since, as an elderly man, I have remained estranged from the society here..."

In 1940 Einstein became a citizen of the United States, but chose to retain his Swiss citizenship. He made many contributions to peace during his life. In 1944 he made a contribution to the war effort by hand writing his 1905 paper on special relativity and putting it up for auction. It raised six million dollars, the manuscript today being in the Library of Congress.

To bad this guy is from Germany.

In both examples they are immigrants.

I guess America had different standards back then.

They probably signed their name to a book at Ellis Island.........