Repeal the Bill!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Disagreeing with me makes you a terrorist. Plus, you're brown.

It makes her look like what she is. A terrorist.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

But unless you think that American citizens have the right to stop paying taxes and following the laws at any point in a peaceful manner, the "right to dissolve all bonds with said government" is a right to revolt. How else can such a right be interpreted?

I'm not advocating a revolution at this point. I'm only pointing out that Sofiyya is right to say that such a right is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence is not a Law nor does it bestow any right upon anyone. It is a document wherein the Colonies stated that they believe they have the right to dissolve all bonds with the British Crown. Grievances were stated, actions were threatened and postures were made but Rights were not laid down and laws were not cast.

What I think is that the American People need to sit-up and take more interest in what's happening here or choose to dissolve all bonds with the US Gov't. The latter can be dome through immigration to a country of their choosing.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The Declaration of Independence is not a Law nor does it bestow any right upon anyone. It is a document wherein the Colonies stated that they believe they have the right to dissolve all bonds with the British Crown. Grievances were stated, actions were threatened and postures were made but Rights were not laid down and laws were not cast.

What I think is that the American People need to sit-up and take more interest in what's happening here or choose to dissolve all bonds with the US Gov't. The latter can be dome through immigration to a country of their choosing.

See that's what is wrong here and what I criticize Latin Americans on who come to the United States to escape their governments.

You have to take back your government and your principles or if your government has never had principles, instill them in there via some sort of revolution.

The way the United States was founded was so that each and every state was in essence its own country, where each one had a basic set of guidelines, but everything else was left up to them to make more rules/laws as they felt necessary.

It's quite possible under the constitution to have one state be an open democracy, have another state be pretty socialist, and have another state fit inbetween. That's the beauty of state's rights and their ability to lead their state how they wish so long as it does not violate the US Constitution.

So basically, with the idea of the constitution, if you don't like the way one state is running things, you can go to another and see if that works for you, yet still retain the same rights as are part of the collective. We lose sight in that today by the Federal Government incrementally gaining more and more power over the states and the individuals. It's setting us up for almost certain doom in the future and we are escaping from that limited central government we were founded upon for good reason.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It is a precedent setting document in American history and, perhaps, a template for an American future.

The Declaration of Independence is not a Law nor does it bestow any right upon anyone. It is a document wherein the Colonies stated that they believe they have the right to dissolve all bonds with the British Crown. Grievances were stated, actions were threatened and postures were made but Rights were not laid down and laws were not cast.

What I think is that the American People need to sit-up and take more interest in what's happening here or choose to dissolve all bonds with the US Gov't. The latter can be dome through immigration to a country of their choosing.

[Scott & Lai 12]

The Declaration of Independence is not a Law nor does it bestow any right upon anyone. It is a document wherein the Colonies stated that they believe they have the right to dissolve all bonds with the British Crown. Grievances were stated, actions were threatened and postures were made but Rights were not laid down and laws were not cast.

Rights weren't bestowed or created, existing rights were declared and then acted upon.

[SMR 368]

The Declaration of Independence is not a Law nor does it bestow any right upon anyone. It is a document wherein the Colonies stated that they believe they have the right to dissolve all bonds with the British Crown. Grievances were stated, actions were threatened and postures were made but Rights were not laid down and laws were not cast.

What I think is that the American People need to sit-up and take more interest in what's happening here or choose to dissolve all bonds with the US Gov't. The latter can be dome through immigration to a country of their choosing.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The entire premise of the Declaration of Independence is that when deemed necessary by a group of people, they have a right to declare their separation and create their own government, leaving a previous government. The purpose of the document was, as you say, essentially stating grievances and declaring action. (I don't agree when you say the DoI was threatening action, since no where in the document is Independence talked about in conditional statements. It is a declaration, not a threat.) But the purpose of this declaration was only necessary based on the premise that if such grievances existed, separation would be justified by the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God."

The Declaration of Independence implies various rights as a premise and explicitly declares other rights. These rights are not enforceable under the Constitution and didn't become part of the law of the US. But that is because doing so would be outside of the scope of what a government can do, as seen by the founders. That is, a government cannot ensure the right to revolution. That would defy the very definition of revolution. The Declaration of Independence states a basis for forming a new government and declares rights pertaining thereto.

Whether or not you think that Americans have the right to revolt is a matter of opinion. The point is that the founders clearly did. That is why they did it. The existence of the DoI as a substantiating document confirming their opinion is really only supporting evidence.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Rights weren't bestowed or created, existing rights were declared and then acted upon.

True, the concept of natural rights, or unalienable rights, expressed in the Declaration and carried thru to the Constitution, allow for the right to be free of government oppression and to rebel against it as a community or as an individual. The Constitution is a document of limited, enumerated caretaker rights to the federal government, reserved rights to the states, and natural rights to the individual. The states and the individual have the right to oppose unconstitutional federal intervention.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Peikko 1,575]

Be careful what you wish for, Pandora's box is not easily closed once it has been opened

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Rethuglicans will repeal this bill as much as they've repealed Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act. Ain't gonna happen no matter how much they talk about it today. They ain't gonna tear back open the doughnut hole in Medicare, they ain't gonna kick kids back off of their parent's health insurance coverage, they ain't gonna touch the high-risk pool that will have people with pre-existing conditions covered, they ain't gonna repeal tax brakes on small businesses that cover their employees and they ain't gonna tell people that the prospect of shopping for health insurance along with the Members of Congress isn't going to materialize after all. It's a bunch of hot air and nothing is going to happen to any of these provisions. I'd love to see them campaign on that. Not gonna happen either.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

The Rethuglicans will repeal this bill as much as they've repealed Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act. Ain't gonna happen no matter how much they talk about it today. They ain't gonna tear back open the doughnut hole in Medicare, they ain't gonna kick kids back off of their parent's health insurance coverage, they ain't gonna touch the high-risk pool that will have people with pre-existing conditions covered, they ain't gonna repeal tax brakes on small businesses that cover their employees and they ain't gonna tell people that the prospect of shopping for health insurance along with the Members of Congress isn't going to materialize after all. It's a bunch of hot air and nothing is going to happen to any of these provisions. I'd love to see them campaign on that. Not gonna happen either.

Well they aren't the "Party of No" for nothing. I think if they keep running on this they will not win back as many seats in November than expected.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well they aren't the "Party of No" for nothing. I think if they keep running on this they will not win back as many seats in November than expected.

And even if they win every election in the Senate, they still won't have enough Senators to beat a Presidential veto.

What about when they get a Republican President? No GOP President is going to allow the repeal of the ban on pre-existing or throw 26 year olds off their parents policies. Not going to happen.

This is a done deal. They lost.

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

And even if they win every election in the Senate, they still won't have enough Senators to beat a Presidential veto.

What about when they get a Republican President? No GOP President is going to allow the repeal of the ban on pre-existing or throw 26 year olds off their parents policies. Not going to happen.

This is a done deal. They lost.

Bill Kristol made some comments back in '93 regarding then Clinton's health care proposal, basically stating that it would forever change the political landscape. I'm trying to find the exact comments, but here's something else he said back then:

Back in 1993, when Kristol admitted to just being a Republican strategist, he made a name for himself by writing a strategy memo in which he altered the course of American politics by convincing Republicans not to compromise with the Clinton Administration healthcare plan but to destroy it. "Any Republican urge to negotiate a 'least bad' compromise with the Democrats, and thereby gain momentary public credit for helping the president 'do something,'" he wrote, "if it can be beaten, it unravels other things. We have to beat the Clinton plan period, no ifs, ands or buts."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who on Earth is going to sit there with a straight face and say that because you don't like a few pieces of economic legislation, that it amounts to grounds for revolution?

Could people seriously be any more melodramatic?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No done deal yet. Most of the bill doesn't go into effect until 2014. By then, everything could, and probably will, be very different on the Hill and in the WH.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No done deal yet. Most of the bill doesn't go into effect until 2014. By then, everything could, and probably will, be very different on the Hill and in the WH.

There's enough that goes into effect this year and next. None of that will be repealed. In 2014, when the exchanges are up and running, the American people will have the opportunity to shop for the same coverage that Members of Congress will have (Section 1312). I want to see the Congress that will tell the American people just before that's bound to happen that they can't have the same coverage that members and staff of Congress have. Good Luck with that campaign.