The constitution? who cares....

[alienlovechild 75]

I'm simply asking who would take the stance of "giving people health care serves the greater good, so to hell with the constitution" or take the side of myself and paul as expressed by him in a much more eloquant manner than I ever could. This is a question purely of values and not of facts or judicial precedence.

The law could be stuck down as unconstitutional and be rewritten to pass judicial muster. The idea people would just ignore the law which is supposedly labeled as helping people simply doesn't make sense. We could say that executing all hardcore criminals would help most people by ridding us of the worse elements of our society but it woudln't be constitutional simply because a law passed allowing for mass executions.

[Nyte 1]

Don't be a sap, the Supreme Court is but one branch of government,(no more, no less) if you want to garner Infallibility to the Supreme court you go right ahead, black robes are not all that impressive to me.... especially when one considers some who have worn them.

It has nothing to do with being a "sap" and everything to do with respecting the system that our country has. Again, while I may not agree with many of the decisions handed down by various courts, I respect the rule of law.

I simply do not wear a tin foil hat on my head. I leave that to the individuals in another place who discuss air travel.

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

It has nothing to do with being a "sap" and everything to do with respecting the system that our country has. Again, while I may not agree with many of the decisions handed down by various courts, I respect the rule of law.

I simply do not wear a tin foil hat on my head. I leave that to the individuals in another place who discuss air travel.

[Danno 1,228]

It has nothing to do with being a "sap" and everything to do with respecting the system that our country has. Again, while I may not agree with many of the decisions handed down by various courts, I respect the rule of law.

Yeah, we all respect the rule of law... but thats not what we are talking about here.... we are talking about you taking "their interpretation" of the law and your embracing it as final.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before and in fact often times, if you had just one different person out of nine, the judgment would have been different aS well.

Not sure why you feel you need to reassure everyone so often that you aren't wearing a tinfoil hat...... especially since no one has suggested you are but feel free to wear one if you like ... or not.

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

Yeah, we all respect the rule of law...

Threatening Democrats who voted in favor of the HCR bill is not respecting the rule of law. It's pure thuggery.

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

And why does the Left do it so much?

I condemn any threats of violence as a political means - that is the foundation of terrorism. You should be doing the same, but unfortunately you endorse it. Shame on you.

[Nyte 1]

Yeah, we all respect the rule of law... but thats not what we are talking about here.... we are talking about you taking "their interpretation" of the law and your embracing it as final.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before and in fact often times, if you had just one different person out of nine, the judgment would have been different aS well.

Not sure why you feel you need to reassure everyone so often that you aren't wearing a tinfoil hat...... especially since no one has suggested you are but feel free to wear one if you like ... or not.

I see what you were saying. I misinterpreted the point the OP was trying to make. In any event, the point I was attempting to make was that I will accept the decisions of the SCOTUS until they decide to change their ruling.

As for the tinfoil thing, I'm not sure I make such a comment often?

[Dan T 8]

Don't be a sap, the Supreme Court is but one branch of government,(no more, no less) if you want to garner Infallibility to the Supreme court you go right ahead, black robes are not all that impressive to me.... especially when one considers some who have worn them.

Again this gets into the issue of term limits on justices and misses what I was trying to dig at with this thread. The supreme court, the president, and congress have all been guilty of over steping the bounderies set by the constitution at some point in our history. No political party exempted. It was my understanding that the original election system was set up to discourage political parties from forming in the first place(someone feel free to correct me if i am mistaken). What I am attempting to uncover is if people value preserving the constitution over an acheivement of some "communal good" when the 2 pricipals come into conflict.

Through analysis I see that you do indeed value preserving the constitution, however, and I am on your side of that.

[mRx 16]

The Constitution's vague and easily equivocated by political leaders to fit their respective agendas.

IMO, the Constitution is basically carte blanche to whomever is elected.

[SMR 368]

Related question:

If this law is found to be constitutional but also paves the way for the government regulation of essentially anything on the basis that everything has an effect on commerce and the government can regulate commerce, will you still support it?

[Dan T 8]

Related question:

If this law is found to be constitutional but also paves the way for the government regulation of essentially anything on the basis that everything has an effect on commerce and the government can regulate commerce, will you still support it?

i think the scotus ruling a few years back that said a hypothetical law which outlaws marijuana(no law exists to date) would overide any existing state laws that make it legal under the guise of regulating commerce would be a good example of how the constitution can be manipulated.

i also fully believe that this health deform bill was passed primarly as a further wedge into regulating our daily lives and that it was sold like snake oil under the guise of fixing a broken health care system. this thing reeeeeeks of ezakial emmanuelle and his ilk

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I see plenty of threads about the whether or not this health care bill is constitutional. It occured to me though that the question that should be asked is do you really give a darn if the constitution is shreded in order to "extend health insurance to 30 million people that don't currently have it". Im not looking for an argument on whether this bill acheives that goal, or if that number is even an accurate account of people who want coverage but can't get it. I'm asking hypothetically if this bill, or portions of it, were found to be unconstitutional how many of you would say screw it, it helps a lot of people, sure shred the constitution I don't really care about a 230+ year piece of paper.

If it is unconstitutional, then end it.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

you hit the nail on the head with your interpretation of the question and I happen to agree with your stance 100%. who are the source of those quotes btw, Ive heard them both numerous times but no credit ever given

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

-Gerald Ford

Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)

[Lorenzoid 12]

You kinda missed the point of the question though. Im starting with a given that the bill was found to be unconstitutional, the means by which this decision is reached are irrelavant to this discussion. I'm simply asking who would take the stance of "giving people health care serves the greater good, so to hell with the constitution" or take the side of myself and paul as expressed by him in a much more eloquant manner than I ever could. This is a question purely of values and not of facts or judicial precedence.

The Supreme Court has made plenty of decisions that I personally feel are bad, but I am proud to say that I honor and respect every one of them. I have long believed that the greatest difference between the U.S. and other countries is the respect--even reverence--for the institution of the Supreme Court that permeates our society. There is no police force associated with the Supreme Court that enforces their rulings, yet every one of them has been honored by the other branches of government as far as I know. If you take a look at the early history of the Supreme Court, you will see how it was due in no small part to the Supreme Court and its relationship with other branches of government that the U.S. came to be the envy of much of the world. The U.S. could have failed miserably as a country in the first years of its existence--or at least taken a very different path--had the Supreme Court not been given the respect it has. It has done us well for a couple of centuries, and it's not time now for people to start flouting the Constitution or the Supreme Court because they think they know better. Really, if there is such an uprising over a Supreme Court decision, there is a process for amending the Constitution.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Post containing a pejorative label has been removed. It is unnecessary and unacceptable to insult a class of people by using derogatory terms, as well as a violation of TOS.