Obama verses the Amish

Originally posted by generalissimo
The US is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, yes, but obamacare isn't violating people's rights so whats the problem?

[b]Point to me in the Constitution where Congress has this power?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_I

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be ves ...[text shortened]... States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"[/b]

Your interpretation of "general welfare" runs counter to what Jefferson and Madison had in mind.

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

Read all the quotes by Jefferson in the link if you need clarification.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/103339

Madison, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

I think this is a good article that describes Madison's point of view well.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html

As you can see, the courts think differently. Make up your own mind on what interpretation you want to follow. To me, it makes sense to follow what the founding fathers said.

Originally posted by Beyer
Your interpretation of "general welfare" runs counter to what Jefferson and Madison had in mind.

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exe ...[text shortened]... ion you want to follow. To me, it makes sense to follow what the founding fathers said.

Nice post, thanks for the links Beyer.

Originally posted by Beyer
Your interpretation of "general welfare" runs counter to what Jefferson and Madison had in mind.

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exe ...[text shortened]... ion you want to follow. To me, it makes sense to follow what the founding fathers said.

Why are you so obsessed about what jefferson or madison had in mind? sure, they had some good ideas but they were really creatures of their time, they're not infallible and their ideas are centuries-old.

You should try looking forwards, not backwards, at least for once.

You don't need to follow every single word of theirs in order to have a relatively small government, you can change what needs to be changed while maintaining the general ideals behind the US constitution.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Why are you so obsessed about what jefferson or madison had in mind? sure, they had some good ideas but they were really creatures of their time, they're not infallible and their ideas are centuries-old.

You should try looking forwards, not backwards, at least for once.

You don't need to follow every single word of theirs in order to have a relat ...[text shortened]... ange what needs to be changed while maintaining the general ideals behind the US constitution.

Saying the founding fathers are "creatures of their time, not infallible, and their ideas are centuries-old" does absolutely nothing to discredit my position. Furthermore, saying such a thing makes me believe you ascribe to a political philosophy of relativism. Personally, I like my freedom free, my justice fair, and my property mine, thanks.

You should try looking forwards, not backwards, at least for once.

There's a reason I look backwards. Our government is (supposed to be) constrained by the Constitution. We're not supposed to derive any and every meaning we can possibly extract from the words of the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution grants government a limited amount of powers. Jefferson writes, "Is confidence or discretion, or is strict limit, the principle of our Constitution?"

You don't need to follow every single word of theirs in order to have a relatively small government, you can change what needs to be changed while maintaining the general ideals behind the US constitution.

You know what? They have these things called amendments. It's like the founding fathers considered themselves fallible or something. So, I'm thinking, instead of expanding the government's power through dubious interpretation, why not use amendments? If it's really needed, it'll be passed. And if not? Well, maybe Big Brother can do without it.

Originally posted by whodey
http://politics4all.com/users/mikedavis/blog/5939-amish-families-exempt-from-insurance-mandate-in-obamacre

Federal health care reform will require most Northern New Yorkers -- but not all, it turns out -- to carry health insurance or risk a fine.

Hundreds of Amish families in the region are likely to be free from that requirement.

The Amish, as well ...[text shortened]... there are Christians that object to monies from the taxes collected going to abortions?

Good grief.

Originally posted by Beyer
Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

To me, it makes sense to follow what the founding fathers said.

It makes sense to follow what someone said in 1791? Before they knew the world was round, humans were evolved from monkeys and bananas were rabid, dog eating vegetables???

Originally posted by shavixmir
It makes sense to follow what someone said in 1791? Before they knew the world was round, humans were evolved from monkeys and bananas were rabid, dog eating vegetables???

There have been some exceedingly bad ideas since then shav, good ideas don't have a use by date.

Originally posted by Beyer
Your interpretation of "general welfare" runs counter to what Jefferson and Madison had in mind.

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exe ion you want to follow. To me, it makes sense to follow what the founding fathers said.

The majority of the Founding Fathers rejected Jefferson's view that the Bank was unconstitutional, not merely the Courts. The First Congress passed the Bank bill despite his objections. Why should Jefferson's minority view be considered "what the Founding Fathers said"?

EDIT: For those who wish to read the argument that prevailed among the Founding Fathers in 1791, here's Hamilton's response to Jefferson: http://american_almanac.tripod.com/forbank.htm

This passage is particulary relevant:

It leaves, therefore, a criterion of what is constitutional and of what is
not so. This criterion is the END to which the measure relates as a MEAN.
If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and
if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by
a particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come
within the compass of the national authority.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The majority of the Founding Fathers rejected Jefferson's view that the Bank was unconstitutional, not merely the Courts. The First Congress passed the Bank bill despite his objections. Why should Jefferson's minority view be considered "what the Founding Fathers said"?

EDIT: For those who wish to read the argument that prevailed among the Founding Fa ...[text shortened]... stitution, it may safely be deemed to come
within the compass of the national authority.

When I refer to the "Founding Fathers", I'm talking about people who had a significant impact on the Constitution: George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Three of them were Republicans (Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin), the other three were Federalists. So, Personally, I wouldn't consider Jefferson's view in the minority.

But you raise an important point that there were differing views among the Founding Fathers. I obviously hold Madison and Jefferson in high esteem, based on my political philosophy.... I need to rethink my position more clearly. Thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by Beyer
Saying the founding fathers are "creatures of their time, not infallible, and their ideas are centuries-old" does absolutely nothing to discredit my position. Furthermore, saying such a thing makes me believe you ascribe to a political philosophy of relativism. Personally, I like my freedom free, my justice fair, and my property mine, thanks.

[b]You should ...[text shortened]... ally needed, it'll be passed. And if not? Well, maybe Big Brother can do without it.

Saying the founding fathers are "creatures of their time, not infallible, and their ideas are centuries-old" does absolutely nothing to discredit my position

Actually it does, considering your posts give the impression you believe the founding fathers could do no wrong.

Furthermore, saying such a thing makes me believe you ascribe to a political philosophy of relativism

I don't particularly subscribe to relativism, but Im sure it is applicable in certain situations.

Personally, I like my freedom free, my justice fair, and my property mine, thanks.

So do I. I just don't think it is realistic to live the same way people used to live 300 years ago, circumstances change and you have to have a system of government that keeps up with these changes, without sacrificing the values and ideals of the people it represents and its constitution upholds.

There's a reason I look backwards. Our government is (supposed to be) constrained by the Constitution

So you're saying that obamacare is unconstitutional? or perhaps that obama isn't here to fulfill but to destroy the laws?

Instead, the Constitution grants government a limited amount of powers. Jefferson writes, "Is confidence or discretion, or is strict limit, the principle of our Constitution?"

Im aware of this.

You know what? They have these things called amendments. It's like the founding fathers considered themselves fallible or something. So, I'm thinking, instead of expanding the government's power through dubious interpretation, why not use amendments? If it's really needed, it'll be passed. And if not? Well, maybe Big Brother can do without it.

what dubious interpretation? Isn't "general welfare" clear enough?

Do you think the constitution should be amended every time a bill is passed?

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]Saying the founding fathers are "creatures of their time, not infallible, and their ideas are centuries-old" does absolutely nothing to discredit my position

Actually it does, considering your posts give the impression you believe the founding fathers could do no wrong.

Furthermore, saying such a thing makes me believe you ascribe to a

Do you think the constitution should be amended every time a bill is passed?

Ok, don't take this wrong way, but you came to some far reaching conclusions about my text that weren't anything near what I was trying to convey.... and you don't see a problem with people in power interpreting "general welfare"? Read my posts again as they already answer the questions you ask. Also, I don't think you understand the Jefferson quote if you're asking if "general welfare" is clear enough.

Originally posted by Beyer
When I refer to the "Founding Fathers", I'm talking about people who had a significant impact on the Constitution: George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Three of them were Republicans (Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin), the other three were Federalists. So, Personally, I wouldn't consider Jef ...[text shortened]... tical philosophy.... I need to rethink my position more clearly. Thanks for the discussion.

The debate about the Bank was a seminal one in US history. Though the majority of the First Congress and later the Supreme Court in McCullough v. Maryland rejected the Jeffersonian arguments. it remained an intellectually respectable position. In fact, Andrew Jackson vetoed the re-chartering of the Bank of the United States citing the same argument.

On the merits, I think Hamilton, Washington, Marshall, etc. were correct; "strict constructionism" of Congressional powers was not intended nor in keeping with the goals of the Constitution. A reasonable argument can be made to the contrary. But it's disingenuous to claim that the Founding Fathers had one position on this matter.

Originally posted by Beyer
Ok, don't take this wrong way, but you came to some far reaching conclusions about my text that weren't anything near what I was trying to convey.... and you don't see a problem with people in power interpreting "general welfare"? Read my posts again as they already answer the questions you ask. Also, I don't think you understand the Jefferson quote if you're asking if "general welfare" is clear enough.

Ok, don't take this wrong way, but you came to some far reaching conclusions about my text that weren't anything near what I was trying to convey

ok, now you lost me.

Please can you answer these questions?

1. How is exactly obamacare taking away your freedom or your rights?
2. How is exactly obama ignoring the constitution?
3. Are you suggesting the constitution should be amended every time a bill is passed?

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]Ok, don't take this wrong way, but you came to some far reaching conclusions about my text that weren't anything near what I was trying to convey

ok, now you lost me.

Please can you answer these questions?

1. How is exactly obamacare taking away your freedom or your rights?
2. How is exactly obama ignoring the constitution?
3. Are you suggesting the constitution should be amended every time a bill is passed?[/b]

1. It forces me to buy health insurance. Here's something I found while searching:

“We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce,” the attorney general added. “If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.”

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/health_care_reform_unconstitutional/

2. I wouldn't say ignoring, but bending the Constitution to fit his agenda. Obviously, this depends on how you think the Constitution should be interpreted. You already know my opinion on this.

3. I'm suggesting that if a bill is not constitutional, then it cannot be passed.

Originally posted by Beyer
1. It forces me to buy health insurance. Here's something I found while searching:

“We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce,” the attorney general added. “If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just be ...[text shortened]... on this.

3. I'm suggesting that if a bill is not constitutional, then it cannot be passed.

1. It forces me to buy health insurance

I believe this has already been refuted.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129200&page=2

Originally posted by sh76
""We "have to" buy auto insurance (if we want to drive).

Doctors "have to" buy malpractice insurance if they want to practice,

etc.

So, we'll all "have to" buy health insurance if we don't want to pay an extra tax.

IF any challenge could succeed, I'd say it would be a challenge based on the argument that the law contains provisions that are outside the scope of federal power under the commerce clause of the Constitution. But even that would be a long shot.""

2. I wouldn't say ignoring, but bending the Constitution to fit his agenda. Obviously, this depends on how you think the Constitution should be interpreted. You already know my opinion on this

Well, that doesn't mean he is acting unconstitutionally, "bending" and "violating" are not the same thing. Furthermore, it could be said that all presidents enlarge the govt's role to more than it was meant to be, to a certain extent, wouldn't you say that for example the patriot act was a essentially an expansion of the govt's power? Im not saying obama is entitled to do whatever he wants because bush did it too, but you have to accept that sometimes certain measures have to be taken to counter a particular problem, it isn't always a slippery slope.

3. I'm suggesting that if a bill is not constitutional, then it cannot be passed.

Agreed. But this bill doesn't fall into this category.