Alright Constitutional Scholars...

[Heracles 417]

Then move back downunder if that is what you want. We do it differently here. Federal governments never last. Name me one that has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...velopment_Index

Have a look at what type of government the majority of countries on the top of the list have. Gary like most here if you don't travel you probably think wow we are doing well. Come to Australia and then come tell me that your average Joe American is doing well or how well the constitution is protecting people. We never had slavery or civil war in Australia.

Democracies with a presidential system of government (aka dirt poor and corrupt)

* Afghanistan

* Argentina

* Belarus

* Bolivia

* Brazil

* Chile

* Colombia

* Costa Rica

* Cyprus

* Dominican Republic

* Ecuador

* El Salvador

* Guatemala

* Haiti

* Honduras

* Indonesia

* Iraq

* Kenya

* Mexico

* Nicaragua

* Nigeria

* Panama

* Peru

* Philippines

* Republic of China

* Seychelles

* South Korea

* Sri Lanka

* Suriname

* Tanzania

* Uganda

* United States

* Uruguay

* Sierra Leone

* Zambia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

Too many countries to list with a federal parliamentary system. Most of which are doing quite well. Well the average Joe rather than a select few being rich.

America broke away from the UK because it didn't want to pay taxes. Nowadays, the average American is are being rapped by the rich, in their own country. Hence, why minimum wage is $6, while in a country like Aus it is $15. Then on top of that you have private groups like the ACLU who are exploiting the constitution and using it to push their ideology into your life. Failure Numero 2. The US legal system.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Constellation

[mRx 16]

Yes, and?

Although, even that isn't a given. People make judgments for other reasons aside from personal gain.

No they don't.

Do so, I post in response to your posts all the while knowing it's going to be futile. I gain nothing

What an intelligent and mature response.

Unfortunately, "People make judgments for other reasons aside from personal gain" cannot be substantiated.

If people know full well that they are going to lose more than they will gain, they will NOT make the exchange. This is a priori.

But whatever... I'm not here to change any minds. Just voice my own. Sorry if that heats your jacuzzi.

[scandal 951]

[quote

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

Then show me where you have resolve in accepting the nature of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in terms of the Congress having the authority to legislate some kind of universal healthcare?

It doesn't. Simple as that.

So let me get this straight. Social Security , Medicare, and any future healthcare bill are unconstitutional.

But the power to regulate flight traffic control is constitutional. Because the FAA is somehow explicitly anticipated in the Constitution, whereas Medicare is not.

Gary, please do share. I want some of what you're smoking.

[GaryC 7]

[quote

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

Then show me where you have resolve in accepting the nature of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in terms of the Congress having the authority to legislate some kind of universal healthcare?

It doesn't. Simple as that.

LOL...Gary, you just demonstrated classic symptoms of extremism.

Then I am in good company.

The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison. It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" (again quoting number 45). The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual.

Edited May 23, 2009 by GaryC

[Heracles 417]

As I said before, I am not dissing it but any system that is not dynamic is doomed for failure. It would be like Chrysler telling Toyota how to make cars and insisting that their way is correct. it's like, you're bankrupt dude.

For people to be arguing about what it does or does not mean, there is too much ambiguity. Instead there should be a referendum where people get to vote on what it should mean. The founding father were not God. They were people who produced a set of rules which worked extremely well for the country back then. It was ground breaking compared to what the UK had. Unfortunately it's ambiguity is now holding the US back and leading to a lot of problems.

Just like the clown senator voting for guns in national parks, while the country is going bankrupt and being exploited by credit cards. How bloody moronic is that?

If this country cannot accept honest criticism, Roman empire here we come. At least those guys had a few hundred years of rule though.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Constellation

[GaryC 7]

[quote

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

Then show me where you have resolve in accepting the nature of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in terms of the Congress having the authority to legislate some kind of universal healthcare?

It doesn't. Simple as that.

So let me get this straight. Social Security , Medicare, and any future healthcare bill are unconstitutional.

But the power to regulate flight traffic control is constitutional. Because the FAA is somehow explicitly anticipated in the Constitution, whereas Medicare is not.

Gary, please do share. I want some of what you're smoking.

If you don't know the difference between interstate comerce and entitilment programs then I would say your the one smoking something.

I am done with this, clearly you have no clue.

[jundp 191]

I reclaim the American colonies back in the name of the Empire.

My God, would you really want us?

We say things like "pants"... and we get all giggly when you ask to smoke a **.

if you acknowledge that the "general welfare" does not include the taxation of productive people for the benefit of unproductive people, your unproductive population may fall back upon the "domestic tranquility" phrase, which implies that a quiescent populace is of benefit to the nation. perhaps domestic tranquility should be your rallying cry.

that is only correct if your assumption is that all people who don't have insurance are unproductive. Which is a fallacy.

Nice try. Try again.

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

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

Too bad the US didn't produce Einstein. Fail.

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

[quote

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

Then show me where you have resolve in accepting the nature of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in terms of the Congress having the authority to legislate some kind of universal healthcare?

It doesn't. Simple as that.

LOL...Gary, you just demonstrated classic symptoms of extremism.

Then I am in good company.

The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison. It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" (again quoting number 45). The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual.

Gary, it does not implicitly restrict Congress from passing legislation such as Social Security or Medicare. You're crazy to believe that somehow, this country has been bamboozled into embracing federal programs that by their very nature are unconstitutional. You are the first Right Winger I've ever heard claim that Social Security is in effect, unconstitutional.

[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)

Too bad the US didn't produce Einstein. Fail.

You obviously mist the subsequent post indicating it was a comparison of immigrants. Then to now.

[Heracles 417]

I just love how people say federalism failed with zero evidence apart from the word of a high school drop out like Limbaugh but disregard the numerous examples in this world where it works and is working. Oh wait, the response to that is leave. Which is when I know someone has nothing to say.

[scandal 951]

[quote

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

Then show me where you have resolve in accepting the nature of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in terms of the Congress having the authority to legislate some kind of universal healthcare?

It doesn't. Simple as that.

So let me get this straight. Social Security , Medicare, and any future healthcare bill are unconstitutional.

But the power to regulate flight traffic control is constitutional. Because the FAA is somehow explicitly anticipated in the Constitution, whereas Medicare is not.

Gary, please do share. I want some of what you're smoking.

If you don't know the difference between interstate comerce and entitilment programs then I would say your the one smoking something.

I am done with this, clearly you have no clue.

The FAA regulates all air traffic in the US. ALL Air travel.

Interstate, like when you fly JFK - O'Hare (New York - Illinois).

And intra-state, like when you fly SFO - LAX (within California).

Federal law - may I point out, constitutional federal law - regulates and governs travel conducted entirely within the state of California. Or any state, for that matter.

G'bye dude. You really didn't understand one word of your high school civics class, did you?

[GaryC 7]

[quote

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

Then show me where you have resolve in accepting the nature of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in terms of the Congress having the authority to legislate some kind of universal healthcare?

It doesn't. Simple as that.

So let me get this straight. Social Security , Medicare, and any future healthcare bill are unconstitutional.

But the power to regulate flight traffic control is constitutional. Because the FAA is somehow explicitly anticipated in the Constitution, whereas Medicare is not.

Gary, please do share. I want some of what you're smoking.

If you don't know the difference between interstate comerce and entitilment programs then I would say your the one smoking something.

I am done with this, clearly you have no clue.

The FAA regulates all air traffic in the US. ALL Air travel.

Interstate, like when you fly JFK - O'Hare (New York - Illinois).

And intra-state, like when you fly SFO - LAX (within California).

Federal law - may I point out, constitutional federal law - regulates and governs travel conducted entirely within the state of California. Or any state, for that matter.

G'bye dude. You really didn't understand one word of your high school civics class, did you?

You abviously fell asleep in your class. I got A's in government class. If you want to push your inane point with the FAA while ignoring the topic then feel free.

[scandal 951]

Gary, it does not implicitly restrict Congress from passing legislation such as Social Security or Medicare. You're crazy to believe that somehow, this country has been bamboozled into embracing federal programs that by their very nature are unconstitutional. You are the first Right Winger I've ever heard claim that Social Security is in effect, unconstitutional.

Indeed, he claims EXACTLY that. And in fairness, Gary even provided a citation a few weeks ago from another fringer who takes the same position. The argument being that the 1937 Helvering vs. Davis Supreme Court case which decided the constitutionality of the Social Security Act was a flawed decision and should not be considered valid. So Gary is not alone in his view. There are others. But they are way out there, far off the mainstream. At least Gary's cited author was able to assemble an argument for his case. Gary.... well, never mind.

[jundp 191]

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

You obviously mist the subsequent post indicating it was a comparison of immigrants. Then to now.

No, I saw it. But you still say "America once produced these types." America did NOT produce Einstein. He wasn't even intending to immigrate to this country. He would have ended up back in Germany had it not been for Nazi control over the country, according to the recent book on Einstein anyway. So I don't see how you can use him as an example. Yes, he left Germany for America and eventually became a US citizen. However, he wasn't produced in any way by our country.

[Heracles 417]

Bigger government has produced wonderful cities like: Vancouver, Melbourne and Sydney. What the heck has smaller government produced here? Dog ugly run down ghettos. How can anyone debate that? City after city in America is now Google streeview is free for use and to compare your typical small government town to the numerous federally /state oriented cities around the world. The results speak for themselves. The images don't lie

In terms of health care and whether government should operate it, the hospital in AUS are newer, bigger and better equipped than many I have seen here. I was critical until I went to a few only to see how crappy and small they are. One wing in a hospital there is larger than an entire hospital here. The hospitals are also equipped for natural disasters. What happens here? Why would a private hospital stock up on equipment or supplies? Not exactly profitable to do so.

Whereas a government run hospital is there to provide the best service for the most affordable price to the tax payer. They don't pick and choose treatments based on Cost Benefit analysis. As I posted the other week, my wife's mammogram was denied and I had to pay over $700 for it. Something that would have cost me zero out of pocket there. And that is with two insurance policies on the highest (best) plan. If we cannot get covered under those plans then when the hell are we covered for. I'd rather have a government review my treatment then some shareholder oriented board, while discussing how one of them should redesign their 9,000sq ft deck, yes deck.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Constellation