Will we be viewed as racist...

Aaron, if you are going to quote me, quote using my words, not yours.

Aaron wrote:Or are you aware that such an amendment has been proposed at least 3 times and has went nowhere!!!

Lots of amendments are proposed every year- sometimes amendments are proposed both for and against the same social issue- and most go "nowhere". They are introduced as a part of simple political posturing. So what's your point?

Thanks for the advice Ziggy. I will be careful. He does know a great deal about history Rightfully so it was made very difficult to amend the constitution. Like many laws that are passed they then must pass constitutional muster. I'm sure any universal health care legislation which passed would be challenged then it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. I don't believe that it would be found unconstitutional. If so Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and many other programs would have been found to be so and they have not been. The court has not always been held by liberals and even now it leans to the right. Some of those programs would have been declared unconstitutional by now if they were.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So if democrats want universal health care, why not amend the constitution, as Jefferson suggested, and make it a constitutional right?

So if Republicans don't want income redistribution (aka "welfare") why not amend the Constitution to disallow it?

Universal Health Care is not unconstitutional. When / if it ever is, we can look at it again in that light.

Next you will want to disprove a negative. At any rate, as income redistribution (aka "welfare") is not an enumerated responsibility given to Congress, it becomes an issue for the states via the 10th amendment, thus the federal government shouldn't be involved at all.

They've already disallpowed it on the federal level, so to speak.

My bad Frank. What I meant to say was my conclusions are spot on. I don't know why the change didn't hold. HMMM

Aaron wrote:Next you will want to disprove a negative. At any rate, as income redistribution (aka "welfare") is not an enumerated responsibility given to Congress, it becomes an issue for the states via the 10th amendment, thus the federal government shouldn't be involved at all.

They've already disallpowed it on the federal level, so to speak.

No they haven't, not according to the appointed arbiters of the law and of the Constitution- the Courts.

And last I looked, the Court of Aaron was just a kangaroo court.

lindaredtail wrote:Thanks for the advice Ziggy. I will be careful. He does know a great deal about history Rightfully so it was made very difficult to amend the constitution. Like many laws that are passed they then must pass constitutional muster. I'm sure any universal health care legislation which passed would be challenged then it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. I don't believe that it would be found unconstitutional. If so Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and many other programs would have been found to be so and they have not been. The court has not always been held by liberals and even now it leans to the right. Some of those programs would have been declared unconstitutional by now if they were.

They were. Then FDR proposed his Court Packing Bill, increasing the number of justices to the Supremen Court by 6 to gurantee passage of his new deal policies. Just because those 9 caved doesn't make those programs constitutional.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Next you will want to disprove a negative. At any rate, as income redistribution (aka "welfare") is not an enumerated responsibility given to Congress, it becomes an issue for the states via the 10th amendment, thus the federal government shouldn't be involved at all.

They've already disallpowed it on the federal level, so to speak.

No they haven't, not according to the appointed arbiters of the law and of the Constitution- the Courts.

Show me the Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States of America declared welfare constitutional.

How do you justify the things that you just said. When did the Supreme Court only have three justices? Never as far as I know. Some cases are heard by appeals courts of three justices. But then many times the cases are then heard by the full court. And what Supreme Court decisions declared any of those things unconstitutional. (welfare, social security, medicaid, medicare) Especially considering that they are all still operative government programs that doesn't seem likely. Unconstitutionality usually means a program is terminated.

Aaron wrote:Then FDR proposed his Court Packing Bill, increasing the number of justices to the Supremen Court by 6 to gurantee passage of his new deal policies. Just because those 9 caved doesn't make those programs constitutional.

So are we to disregard the ruling in which "those 9 caved"? Has not there been ample opportunity in the past 70 years to revisit those matters? Or maybe, just maybe, constitutional have scholars realized that it took "those 9" a while to get it right.

You see, even if "those 9" were absolutely bribed with a 100 miillion dollars each to change their minds, it is still the "law of the land" until that Court later declares otherwise. And to my knowledge they have not been reversed. Why wouldn't now, with the Scalia-Roberts Court, be a good time to re-visit all that, if it's all so wrong?

I agree with you Ziggy. Why have they not been reversed. There is an understanding that came up at confirmation hearings about what is called settled law. In other words cases that have been heard more than once (sometimes many times) and have been decided in a particular way repeatedly are considered settled law. Those cases are rarely overturned by the court. I have enjoyed this very much and I will be back tomorrow. I'm going to watch the news. There have been tornadoes in the Midwest tonight and I would like to see what is happening. They are many effected and they are still searching for survivors.

lindaredtail wrote:How do you justify the things that you just said. When did the Supreme Court only have three justices? Never as far as I know. Some cases are heard by appeals courts of three justices. But then many times the cases are then heard by the full court. And what Supreme Court decisions declared any of those things unconstitutional. (welfare, social security, medicaid, medicare) Especially considering that they are all still operative government programs that doesn't seem likely. Unconstitutionality usually means a program is terminated.

Open the link Linda and learn. I never said the Supreme Court only had 3 members. I said FDR proposed a bill to increase the number of justices from 9 to 15. The bill would have allowed him to add a new judge for each one over the age of 70 and one half, which was 6 justices in 1936. He did this after 6 of his new deal socialist programs had been declared unconstitutional in 1935 and early 36, including the precedessor to Social Security, the Railroad Retirement Act.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Next you will want to disprove a negative. At any rate, as income redistribution (aka "welfare") is not an enumerated responsibility given to Congress, it becomes an issue for the states via the 10th amendment, thus the federal government shouldn't be involved at all.

They've already disallpowed it on the federal level, so to speak.

No they haven't, not according to the appointed arbiters of the law and of the Constitution- the Courts.

Show me the Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States of America declared welfare constitutional.

OK.

Although it struck down the Act, the Court dealt positively with taxation and the expenditure of funds to advance the general welfare as specified in Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution. The Court stated that the issue “presents the great and the controlling question in the case.” After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

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

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Then FDR proposed his Court Packing Bill, increasing the number of justices to the Supremen Court by 6 to gurantee passage of his new deal policies. Just because those 9 caved doesn't make those programs constitutional.

So are we to disregard the ruling in which "those 9 caved"? Has not there been ample opportunity in the past 70 years to revisit those matters? Or maybe, just maybe, constitutional have scholars realized that it took "those 9" a while to get it right.

You see, even if "those 9" were absolutely bribed with a 100 miillion dollars each to change their minds, it is still the "law of the land" until that Court later declares otherwise. And to my knowledge they have not been reversed. Why wouldn't now, with the Scalia-Roberts Court, be a good time to re-visit all that, if it's all so wrong?

Those 9 used the governments written brief as their written decision in Steward Machine Company v Davis. FDR was going to win no matter what and they caved and within 4 years only two remained form the original supreme court FDR inherited.

And if McCain wins in November and appoints 2 or more Alito's and Robert's and that court would find socialist programs unconstitutional, how much would the right be crying over 'activist judges legislating from the bench?

Hell, look at all the lying and crying the left does now when someone proposes fixing Social Security. You’re already telling seniors the right is trying to steal their money now. I can’t even begin to imagine how bad it would be if those programs were challenged and defeated as they should be.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Next you will want to disprove a negative. At any rate, as income redistribution (aka "welfare") is not an enumerated responsibility given to Congress, it becomes an issue for the states via the 10th amendment, thus the federal government shouldn't be involved at all.

They've already disallpowed it on the federal level, so to speak.

No they haven't, not according to the appointed arbiters of the law and of the Constitution- the Courts.

Show me the Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States of America declared welfare constitutional.

OK.

Although it struck down the Act, the Court dealt positively with taxation and the expenditure of funds to advance the general welfare as specified in Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution. The Court stated that the issue “presents the great and the controlling question in the case.” After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

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

limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

To the general welfare of the United States, not restrictive to a specific group of citizens, which is what I have been saying all along. The general Welfare clause is only for the good of ALL citizens, not just a few. That is why, in 1935, the United States Supreme Court unanimously (that means all 9 justices) declared the NRA as unconstitutional in the court case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US, on the grounds that it violated the Constitution's separation of powers. What they were saying is that Congress was overstepping their boundries by attempting to legislate with the purse stings.

This is one of the defeats that lead FDR to propose his court packing bill.

lindaredtail wrote:Yes Stephanie I would like to read some of Dr. Paul's writings. I know that he has many strong supporters and I hope he and them (you) do not let McCain off the hook easily. I felt so badly when I saw what Hillary was saying and then came to WV. I am from MA.originally so I know about RI. I lived there for some years. (small world) I know that WV are good people and I enjoyed traveling there. I didn't get to know a lot but liked what I did. I found it reprehensible that she would say "white blue collars voters won't vote for him" just before she came to WV. That seems very calculating to me. She knows the demographics (of that I am sure) that she has a lead there, that there are few African-Americans. She is using WV to prove a point in what is a really dishonorable fashion. It just gives me a chill where she is taking us to. Backwards. Not forwards. I wish sometimes that the superdelegates would just make her drop out. I agree with the points you made. Obliterating Iran comes from her connection to the Coe group which is also unnerving. I hope that WVirginians will really look at things. See what she is doing. I think if they did the good people of WV would not vote for her on Tuesday.

You know, Linda, almost everything you've said here today rings OK with me- almost too OK. But you keep returning to the theme indicated by your final 3 sentences above, which I have bolded. Somehow that rings hollow to me. It is 3 days until the primary election. Do people "really look" at things again in only three days- unless bombarded with repeated negative adds designed to reinforce their doubts? Something here seems to be beyond what appears on the surface. I don't know quite what it is. But I'll be thinking about it. In the meantime, maybe our intuitive friend Shermangeneral can help bring it into focus.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Then FDR proposed his Court Packing Bill, increasing the number of justices to the Supremen Court by 6 to gurantee passage of his new deal policies. Just because those 9 caved doesn't make those programs constitutional.

Has not there been ample opportunity in the past 70 years to revisit those matters? Or maybe, just maybe, constitutional have scholars realized that it took "those 9" a while to get it right.

How about that by 1940, 7 of those 9 were gone and by the time a Republican got around to appointing justices, we were on the cusp of civil rights and as it is with most issues that have the potential to come before the Supreme Court, timing is as much a factor as anything else.

The only time these 9 truly got it right was when they voted 9-0 to overturn unconstitutional congressional legislative social programs 6 times before FDR's threats and their caving.

In reality, today's court is the likely the first that will actually take cases addressing these types of issues and look at how the left is reacting to them.

Aaron I'm only back for a second. You know a great deal of the facts of history but lets try to understand history. You are saying that if the court switches two more members those programs might be declared unconstitutional. But the truth is that for quite a few years now the court has had a 5-4 right leaning majority. Before it included Rehnquist and O'Conner. It only takes a majority of 5 to overturn something. Yet they haven't overturned any of those programs in all of these years. Why is that? You state one case. But there are many. None of these programs have been declared unconstitutional. Why? Maybe because they are not.You can't have your cake and eat it to. On one hand you are arguing the stick to the literal interpretation argument. Then you argue the other hand that a different court might decide differently. I thought what you were saying is only legalities not politics or social philosophies should decide cases. Now which is it. The truth is is that the literal argument is just the sheep's clothing. That literal argument is used to cloak a small government philosophy which really has nothing to do with Constitutional law and the proper application of it. It is as much an activist agenda on the right as it is on the left. I have not one doubt of it. Left leaners want justices who will uphold what they believe in. Right leaners want justices who will uphold what they believe in. There is no noble intent of we're the ones upholding the Constitution like the literalists want us to believe. It just simply is not so. And you can argue that point until the cows come home and I will not believe it. There is no noble intent. The intent is political social and religiously oriented. small government, lack of social programs and the supposed moral values issues. I say supposed because that too is a matter of opinion. I see poverty, global warming, continual warfare, ect as just as important moral value issues as others see abortion, stem cell research ect. I won't let you hide behind the conception that only the literalists take it to a higher standard because you do not.

Ziggy do you think that I am being false? Because I am not. I do believe that people can really look at things in just 3 days. You can change your mind in a split second. All it takes sometimes is one thing that touches you. There really is nothing beyond the surface. I came here to engage people in dialogue and I hope that I have done that. I have not denied that I came here with a theme and a hope that people would relook at things. What is hollow? I've enjoyed this. I am not paid or anything and was not encouraged by anyone to come here if that is what you think. But on what grounds do you think that? Aaron has also been repeating his principles over and over. And so wasn't ShermanGeneral.

Well I can't put my finger on it, Linda.

Let me think on you overnight, OK. No, wait. That doesn't sound right.

Let me think on Aaron overnight, Ok? No wait, that's even worse.

Oh hell; I'm tired. And I'm going to bed.

I think you need to do some research on how the Supreme Court hears cases. It's not a matter of a justice believing a wrong must be righted or a previous courts decision must be overturned. It is a very long and lengthy procedure and the simple fact is, that while there are justices that might want to address specific issues, minus a case that makes it through the appellate process and comes before the supreme court for review AND is granted certiorari, there is really very little justices can do.

Why do you think FDR was hell-bent on getting his agenda passed during his second term? He knew his window of opportunity was very slim and very limited, thus his plans for the court packing bill in spite the fact that most democrats came out against the measure as too extreme, even for those times.

You and Frank seem to be hung up with the notion that just because socialist programs have not been addressed in the past 70 years that every court since then agrees with FDR. That is simply not the case.

ziggy wrote:Well I can't put my finger on it, Linda.

Let me think on you overnight, OK. No, wait. That doesn't sound right.

Let me think on Aaron overnight, Ok? No wait, that's even worse.

Oh hell; I'm tired. And I'm going to bed.

I would prefer that you stick to thinking about Stephanie all night. Maybe that combined with a little blue pill will make Mrs. Frank smile tonight!!!

Good night Ziggy. Go ahead and sleep on your thoughts. I don't have a problem with that. You seem like a very interesting person. I am an estremely forthright one. (gets me in trouble sometimes) I have a lot of knowledge on a lot of different subjects (been studying for the Jeopardy test for a few years.) I also have a degree in Psychology and a minor in religion. I have a severely disabled daughter who I am her sole care provider. I study a lot of things and try to understand different points of view. I believe strongly that America needs to return to moderation and reason from extremism and zealotry.

Good night Aaron.

lindaredtail wrote:Good night Ziggy. Go ahead and sleep on your thoughts. I don't have a problem with that. You seem like a very interesting person. I am an estremely forthright one. (gets me in trouble sometimes) I have a lot of knowledge on a lot of different subjects (been studying for the Jeopardy test for a few years.) I also have a degree in Psychology and a minor in religion. I have a severely disabled daughter who I am her sole care provider. I study a lot of things and try to understand different points of view. I believe strongly that America needs to return to moderation and reason from extremism and zealotry.

I disagree greatly, linda. I think that America has been moderate and "reasonable" to her own detriment. Meanwhile our children kill each other in the inner cities and our test scores are abysmal, despite ever increased spending. Parents cannot discipline their children and the children grow up with no boundaries until the police set them.

It is high time for people who are zealous for their children, for God, for their neighbors, and for their communities to reject the milquetoast, limp-wristed, passive agressive ways of the soccer dad/soccer mom and take a stand for what they believe in. It is this lack of extremism and zealotry that makes our children and neighbors unwilling to commit themselves to a cause bigger than they are.

If I may quote John Stuart Mill:

“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

BTW, I speak as someone who believes the war in Iraq was greatly misguided (although I do not subscribe to the mantra that "Bush lied, people died," but rather believe Bush to be a doofus.

Let me suggest that people "disagree" with the war yet are willing to make precious few personal sacrifices for "the cause." I fear that anti-war sentiment in the US is far more driven by popularity and an illusion of safety than it is by honest pacifism.