Friday, March 26, 2010

The Southern Avenger - Nullify Obamacare

23 comments:

Chris said...

This guy needs to stop ideologizing and read the constitution. It clearly states, in its preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Promote the general Welfare is pretty damn straight-forward. The opinions of the founders before the constitution was ratified are MERE OPINIONS. The original constitution added the first socialistic institution to the American government - The Post Office. Therefore, those who listen and nod their heads to "The Southern Avenger" are wrong, wrong wrong, wrong, wrong..

Chris said...

People like the SA are fearmongers who pick and choose which parts of the constitution they want to support, while ideologizing people into believing that government-run institutions are somehow anti-American. This sort of fraud should be denied at every corner.

Furlong said...

"The opinions of the founders before the constitution was ratified are MERE OPINIONS."

The opinions of the founders in regard to the document they wrote and signed are more important than your opinion of how you choose to interpret the constitution.

The powers of congress are limited by article 1 section 8, and in no place in article 1 section 8 did the states give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase health care.

The states have an inherit right to nullify the health care legislation.

Chris said...

Yes, I know, dummy, and article 1 section 8 has post offices and roads in it!

Course, nothing is forced by the post office or road building department.

Furlong said...

Noone here is disputing the constitutionality of roads and post offices.

Chris said...

Yes, you are disputing the constitutionality of similar institutions.

Chris said...

And the "lawyered" crap this guy speaks of are the lawyers who respect reason and who have been liberal. It is just another propaganda ploy without purpose, without history, that dances on a magical stage where there is "The American People" (95% of the population) and the evil liberals (5%). Whelp, sorry to burst your bubble, but that outlook is just not true.

Furlong said...

"Yes, you are disputing the constitutionality of similar institutions."

Yep. And if these institutions are to become legal, let the states pass an amendment.

Chris said...

From Article I:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

So, now not only do I find "provide for the general welfare" in the preamble, but it is also a power of Congress. Wow, Josh, stop lying to yourself. Providing for the general welfare is 100% constitutional.

Chris said...

You are just like the Christian conservative I calmly deconstructed in the bar the other night: you don't know the content of the very book you claim to defend. In fact, I would say, based on your rhetoric, that you are diametrically opposed to your own book. The Christian did the same thing. He was tough on the easy issues - abortion, homosexuality - but when it came to actually living the central moral of his book, the Bible, he showered me with "we're just human". "Conservatives are just human". "Catholics are just human".


And in my mind it clicked: You don't - and the Catholic Church doesn't - really, believe in the central moral of the Bible. Instead, they and him believe in giving a tiny amount and living rich.

Horrible.

Furlong said...

"So, now not only do I find "provide for the general welfare" in the preamble, but it is also a power of Congress. "

And if the people who wrote the law shared your definition of "general welfare" then it is assumed the states ratified a constitution that provided unlimited power to the congress. Of course, if that was the case, the constitution would never have been ratified and there would be no need for an amendment process. But, keep lying to yourself Chris, your interpretation is obviously correct.

"You are just like the Christian conservative I calmly deconstructed in the bar the other night"

Your arrogance conveys your ignorance. Too often I hear people like you claim to have conquered an argument with someone they disagree without doing any such thing. You simply end up looking like a prick.

"In fact, I would say, based on your rhetoric, that you are diametrically opposed to your own book."

You'll have to expand on that.

"You don't - and the Catholic Church doesn't - really, believe in the central moral of the Bible."

I never claimed to. And given recent events, its obvious to anyone the Catholic church is far from moral.

"Instead, they and him believe in giving a tiny amount and living rich."

How much do you give?

Christopher Furlong: said...

"And if the people who wrote the law shared your definition of "general welfare""

Many of them did. The did not read the Federalist Papers. They ratified BEFORE it was widely circulated. NOT EVERYONE AGREED WITH THREE MEN, JOSH. There were many delegates.

"then it is assumed the states ratified a constitution that provided unlimited power to the congress."

No, that is stupid. The ability of Congress to pass general welfare bills is highly limited by the checks and balances of The Constitution.

It is lying, pure and simple.

Christopher Furlong: said...

"Your arrogance conveys your ignorance. Too often I hear people like you claim to have conquered an argument with someone they disagree without doing any such thing. You simply end up looking like a prick."

Maybe, but I wasn't rude and he decided to leave the discussion in a rude manner. I guess he had nothing to say.

Furlong said...

"No, that is stupid. The ability of Congress to pass general welfare bills is highly limited by the checks and balances of The Constitution."

What limitations?

Chris said...

Um, the process of voting for bills, the Supreme Court, the President's right to veto, the bicameral Congress.. the list goes on and on. You might not like the decisions that are being made, but that does not give you the right to take a big shit all over the institutions just the result contradicts your totalitarian view of what should be.

Furlong said...

"Um, the process of voting for bills, the Supreme Court, the President's right to veto, the bicameral Congress"

Hmm the Supreme Court is there to determine if legislation is constitutional. If all legislation is for the general welfare (which of course it will always be justified) than the Supreme Court wouldn't really have the power to strike down any law on an objective basis.

The President can veto a bill that doesn't receive 2/3 vote, so I suppose that a check.

When we're talking about the limitations on Congress, you can't claim Congress as a check.

So ya. In your world, by your definition, the Congress can do whatever it wants as long as the president doesn't veto. Lovely.

Chris said...

"Hmm the Supreme Court is there to determine if legislation is constitutional. If all legislation is for the general welfare (which of course it will always be justified) than the Supreme Court wouldn't really have the power to strike down any law on an objective basis."

Not for the general welfare, no. That said, the elective and legislative processes are probably good enough roadblocks. You are just crying because you got beaten in the elections.

"When we're talking about the limitations on Congress, you can't claim Congress as a check."

Sure I can. If the Senate disagrees with the House, a bill is not passed. It happens all the time. That's why we heard about the house bill over and over and over again for about a month..

Furlong said...

"Sure I can. If the Senate disagrees with the House, a bill is not passed. It happens all the time. That's why we heard about the house bill over and over and over again for about a month.."

When I'm arguing that a majority in the congress can pass any law it wishes, based on your definition of "general welfare", a check is not that the law would not pass if there wasn't a majority. A check is supposed to ensure law already passed is legal. And again, from your point of view, the only check on legislation passed by congress is a veto from the president.

Chris said...

"When I'm arguing that a majority in the congress can pass any law it wishes, based on your definition of "general welfare", a check is not that the law would not pass if there wasn't a majority. A check is supposed to ensure law already passed is legal. And again, from your point of view, the only check on legislation passed by congress is a veto from the president."

No, a check and balance system insures that it is really the decision the people wants to make. The Democrats control both houses. Therefore, they hurdled that check. If the Republicans controlled the House, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the Democrat Senate would have been checked by the House. Get your head out of your authoritarian ass and think please. The Electoral College is the first check (the social democratic communists won seats before the McCarthy era, but they were never given points), the second check is the bicameral Congress, the third check is the myriad of House and Senate procedural rules, the fourth check is the president's veto power, the fifth check is the Supreme Court, the sixth check is the next election cycle.. You are just unhappy that you got beaten in the elections. GIVE IT UP.

Chris said...

The only check and balance that would satisfy your type of politics is an anti-democratic, authoritarian constitution.

Furlong said...

"No, a check and balance system insures that it is really the decision the people wants to make. The Democrats control both houses. Therefore, they hurdled that check. If the Republicans controlled the House, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the Democrat Senate would have been checked by the House. Get your head out of your authoritarian ass and think please. The Electoral College is the first check (the social democratic communists won seats before the McCarthy era, but they were never given points), the second check is the bicameral Congress, the third check is the myriad of House and Senate procedural rules, the fourth check is the president's veto power, the fifth check is the Supreme Court, the sixth check is the next election cycle.. You are just unhappy that you got beaten in the elections. GIVE IT UP."

Again, you're missing the point. What check is there preventing Congress from passing illegal or bad legislation? I don't need a whole run down of the checks and balances throughout the whole government, but considering the democrats, republicans, the senate, and the house are mostly controlled by the same special interests, lets focus on Congress as an entity passing legislation. Everyone is already elected, the house voted, the senate voted, it lands on the Presidents desk.

Now, what most people will tell you is that there are two checks, Obama's veto pen (which can be overruled with a senate majority) and the supreme court. Now, Obama can veto a bill for any reason. The supreme court has to evaluate its constitutionality though, and given your definition of "general welfare", any legislation Congress deems to be for the general welfare (which bill wouldn't be?) it passes constitutional muster.

Meaning, the Congress can pass whatever it wants, with no restriction. Yes, the President can veto it, and this is the only check.

The coming election isn't a check on the bad legislation because it doesn't change the law. The law has already been passed. The election is only a check on a politicians performance and judged by his/her constituents.

Now, the founders (both the Hamilton side and the Jefferson side) would find this perspective idiotic. The congress has limited power as outlined in Article 1 Section 8. Because the constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government, to change the contract, to change the law, to change the restrictions on Congress, and amendment needs to be made to that contract and this contract (the constitution) has specifically outlined a process for amendment.

"The only check and balance that would satisfy your type of politics is an anti-democratic, authoritarian constitution."

Yea, I'm not a fan of democracy in that I don't agree that the majority can rule without limit over the minority.

The constitution isn't authoritarian. It was a contractual agreement ratified and agreed to by the people of the states and the federal government. Its only as authoritarian as the contract you're in with your boss to finish your year is authoritarian.

Now, that said, Lysander Spooner, an anarchist(i think) from the 19th century would probably agree that the constitution was authoritarian in that it gave power to the federal government that he didn't delegate to it as an individual. Meaning, he never agree to this contract, therefore it doesn't apply to him. Its an interesting perspective.

Chris said...

"Again, you're missing the point."

I'm not missing the point. The only check and balance that would satisfy your type of politics is an anti-democratic, authoritarian constitution.

No, a check and balance system insures that it is really the decision the people wants to make. The Democrats control both houses. Therefore, they hurdled that check. If the Republicans controlled the House, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the Democrat Senate would have been checked by the House. Get your head out of your authoritarian ass and think please. The Electoral College is the first check (the social democratic communists won seats before the McCarthy era, but they were never given points), the second check is the bicameral Congress, the third check is the myriad of House and Senate procedural rules, the fourth check is the president's veto power, the fifth check is the Supreme Court, the sixth check is the next election cycle.. You are just unhappy that you got beaten in the elections. GIVE IT UP.

"The coming election isn't a check on the bad legislation because it doesn't change the law. The law has already been passed. The election is only a check on a politicians performance and judged by his/her constituents. "

Yes, that is because people of your political stripe can not convince enough of the population to garner a majority to overturn the legislation, you know the people want reform, and you don't have enough support for an amendment. In short, you have lost, and now you are crying about it.

"Yea, I'm not a fan of democracy in that I don't agree that the majority can rule without limit over the minority. "

The constitution is not unlimited:

No, a check and balance system insures that it is really the decision the people wants to make. The Democrats control both houses. Therefore, they hurdled that check. If the Republicans controlled the House, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the Democrat Senate would have been checked by the House. Get your head out of your authoritarian ass and think please. The Electoral College is the first check (the social democratic communists won seats before the McCarthy era, but they were never given points), the second check is the bicameral Congress, the third check is the myriad of House and Senate procedural rules, the fourth check is the president's veto power, the fifth check is the Supreme Court, the sixth check is the next election cycle.. You are just unhappy that you got beaten in the elections. GIVE IT UP.

Chris said...

"The constitution isn't authoritarian. It was a contractual agreement ratified and agreed to by the people of the states and the federal government. Its only as authoritarian as the contract you're in with your boss to finish your year is authoritarian. "

Nope, many states ratified the Constitution BEFORE reading the federalist papers. Moreover, not everyone agreed with that propaganda and that is why the Federalist five had to add the unqualified "general welfare" to the constitution.

"Now, that said, Lysander Spooner, an anarchist(i think) from the 19th century would probably agree that the constitution was authoritarian in that it gave power to the federal government that he didn't delegate to it as an individual. Meaning, he never agree to this contract, therefore it doesn't apply to him. Its an interesting perspective."

No, it is a shitty perspective that assumes a totalitarian solution. Not everyone agreed with the Federalist Papers, Josh. Don't lie to yourself.