The Constitutional Question of Healthcare Debated and Modeled

Jan 2007
945
0
The question boils down to this:

Do you believe that Barack Obama and the supporters of health-care reform have a legitimate argument about the current system failing to uphold the liberty of the people?



I believe that he does have a legitimate argument, or at the very least, the majority of the people believe that he has a legitimate argument. The current system does not uphold the liberty of the people at large.



If its his solution that you disagree with, that is where the debate should lie; that is, what solution will be optimal. But that's a manifestation question, that involves numbers and costs, not abstract charges of unconstitutionality.
 
Jan 2007
945
0
[quote name='nonsqtr' date='15 August 2009 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1250343813' post='5503']

Precisely. Ten years, is about how long it takes for some bozo to come around saying we should just wave our hands over the contract and magically allow it to metamorphosize into "something else".



I hear and understand your point of view. It is not unusual, I've heard it before. And, I totally and wholeheartedly disagree with it. You want to change the contract? FINE. Let me vote on it. If you don't do that, you can take your changes and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, 'cause I ain't adhering to anything I didn't agree to.



I have taken an oath to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States, and I am very careful with my allegiances - it is only one of THREE sworn oaths I have ever taken in my lifetime.



Do NOT try to change that contract without my approval, I won't allow you to do that. If you do, I'll come after you. I'll make it my personal business to see that you're never elected to public office, and if you are I"ll make it my personal business to se that you're removed as quickly as possible.



Dude - these are my Freedoms and Rights you're talking about, and they are very precious to me. I will fight to protect them.



You change that contract, you let me vote on it. Very simple equation, right?



Do you have a problem with that? You don't WANT to let me vote on it, is that what you're saying?

[/quote]



No to the bolded point.

It takes about 10 years for those who benefit by the current system to rise to the top, and to consolidate their power at the top dictating the rate of change from the top.

Tyranny does not confine itself to either preventing change or creating pure change; it lives and flourishes in both. Tyranny lives in both the 0% change and the 100% change.



Since I am not in government, It doesn't matter whether I see it necessary to vote on the written expansion of liberty. I'd prefer that it get put to a vote, but in the event is not, it could be justified by understanding the meaning of the existing constitution in a new light and does not absolutely require a new vote.



The supreme court ultimately will decide if it needs a new vote or not.
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,709
Vertiform City
[quote name='The_Bear' date='15 August 2009 - 09:44 AM' timestamp='1250343856' post='5504']

The question boils down to this:

Do you believe that Barack Obama and the supporters of health-care reform have a legitimate argument about the current system failing to uphold the liberty of the people?



I believe that he does have a legitimate argument, or at the very least, the majority of the people believe that he has a legitimate argument. The current system does not uphold the liberty of the people at large.



If its his solution that you disagree with, that is where the debate should lie; that is, what solution will be optimal. But that's a manifestation question, that involves numbers and costs, not abstract charges of unconstitutionality.

[/quote]



I can see how that opinion could arise. Many of our politicians are akin to bureaucrats - they care more about the numbers than the principles.



Look - I understand the practical nature of things.



I am making one very simple point: if you wish to change the contract, that's FINE with me, as long as you let me vote on it.



Try to change it without my blessing, and I'll find a way to stick a red hot poker up your *ss (no offense, but I want to very clear on how seriously I take this issue).



NO - that contract, forms the basis for our EXPECTATIONS of government - there are literally MILLIONS of people in this country, who live by that contract AS WRITTEN.



And you're saying you want to change it BEHIND THEIR BACKS? That is NOT acceptable, friend. Not at all. That's not the way we do business here in these United States. That may be fine for some piss-ant third world country, but it's not at all fine for the United States of America.



I DEMAND that my politicians adhere to the contract, and I will ENFORCE that if necessary. I hope it isn't necessary for "me" to do that, because if it is, you'll have a lot more to worry about than just me - "I" will be the least of your problems.



Do NOT change that contract without my permission. That is not acceptable.



Look - pretty soon, you will come to understand the gravity of this issue. Hopefully, that will be through civil debate and discourse just like we're having now. That would be my preferred method too.



But if our government makes that IMPOSSIBLE by continuing to ignore the situation that's developed around it, then we have other ways too. Tar and feathers, stocks.... hiding behind trees and slitting the throats of King George's tax collectors, like we did in the Revolution - do you realize, that there is a history of terrorism in this country going back to the year 1727?



I mean, look - I'm trying very hard to communicate reasonably on this very difficult issue. All I'm trying to tell you is, that the consequences of ignoring this, can be quite dramatic. I'm not going to be the one out there doing stupid sh*t like blowing up government buildings, that's not my style. My skills are elsewhere - information, mathematics, logistics, that kind of thing.



The equation is very simple: changes to the contract require a vote. That's all there is to it!
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,709
Vertiform City
[quote name='The_Bear' date='15 August 2009 - 09:50 AM' timestamp='1250344215' post='5507']

No to the bolded point.

It takes about 10 years for those who benefit by the current system to rise to the top, and to consolidate their power at the top dictating the rate of change from the top.

Tyranny does not confine itself to either preventing change or creating pure change; it lives and flourishes in both. Tyranny lives in both the 0% change and the 100% change.



Since I am not in government, It doesn't matter whether I see it necessary to vote on the written expansion of liberty. I'd prefer that it get put to a vote, but in the event is not, it could be justified by understanding the meaning of the existing constitution in a new light and does not absolutely require a new vote.



The supreme court ultimately will decide if it needs a new vote or not.

[/quote]



You are unfamiliar with the history of Constitutional Amendments in this country?



Please answer my question:



Do you have a problem with me VOTING on the changes you want to make to the contract?
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,709
Vertiform City
[quote name='The_Bear' date='15 August 2009 - 09:50 AM' timestamp='1250344215' post='5507']



The supreme court ultimately will decide if it needs a new vote or not.

[/quote]



No. A careful reading of the Constitution will show you that this is a false statement.



The conditions for a new vote, are ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT!



And that, my friend, is the whole point!



We can't just have the Supreme Court stepping in and saying "Ti-To", that won't work.



Look - this is an excellent discussion, and I would like very much to get on the same page about this.



If you'll allow me, I'll give you an example from the corporate world.



I used to be a "process guy" - which means, I would go into failing corporations and show them how to improve things by changing their PROCESSES. I was usually the most unpopular guy, because I had to tell people they should CHANGE the way they were doing their jobs. Even as they were meeting their performance quotas and getting bonuses because of it.



Now - there is a WAY that works, when you're doing that kinda thing. You can't just go up to people and try to be an enforcer, they'll just tell you to go to hell. And, you can try the sweet-talk-and-bribery routine, but that only works on a very small subset of people (most of the people I was dealing with were pretty smart, all things considered) -



What you have to do, is SHOW them - you have to give 'em something "up front", and gradually migrate them over to your side.



And that is precisely what today's politicians feel they "don't have time for". They're very busy people. THey don't even have time to read the bills they're signing!



See, but, instead of trying to insulate themselves and "protect" themselves from "too much work" in that regard, what oughta be happening is they should be REACHING OUT to us for help! But they're not! And it's 'cause they don't trust us, and they see us as a lot of uneducated fools (and capricious, whimsical fools). THAT, is a problem!



There are some people out here - me, for instance - who could save our Senators a LOT of time and expense, with little bits of technology - make their jobs a LOT easier - but, they are entrenched, they're used to doing business a certain way, and there's plenty of ego that says "you don't know what I do for 12 hours a day", when in reality, EVERYONE AND THEIR BROTHER knows what those people are doing. They take a dump, and it's all over the internet 20 seconds later!



See, so, it seems to me that our government has painted itself into an "adversarial" corner, from which they better get out QUICK, otherwise they're gonna be in big trouble at some point. And it is precisely over little, stupid issues like this - they don't want to let us VOTE on contractual changes 'cause it's too much of a pain in the *ss and it takes too long.



But - look what they get in exchange - they don't have to deal with terrorists and tar and feathers and all that - and, pretty soon, that's gonna start looking like a bigger and bigger deal.



Bear, I can't tell you my life's experience in a short post, but I've seen all this stuff before, in all kinds of contexts - and I am CERTAIN I understand the dynamics in this equation. This "leaderless resistance" is going to coalesce pretty soon, and then the people in Weaselton really WILL have something to worry about.



If they're smart, they're gonna catch a heads-up NOW, and guide this thing away from where it's going.



And a very GOOD way to do that, would be to recognize some of the errors of the past, instead of trying to deny them and rationalize them and sweep them under the carpet.
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,709
Vertiform City
The point being, that we're supposed to be on the same team, right?



Our elected representatives, are preciesely that - REPRESENTATIVES.



They're not f'in monarchs, or bosses, or even middle managers.



They are our REPRESENTATIVES, they are there to represent US, not themselves, and not the special-interests-du-jour.



If they're going to make adversaries out of their constituents, it seems to me that's not a very smart career move.



You will see, Bear. This issue will become more prominent shortly. We're seeing a LOT of bad stuff right now, and everyone's finding out about it, it's not being lost on people. Many people are "just now" waking up to it, but some have seen it for a long time.



I believe in a living breathing DEMOCRATIC process, relative to law-making and all that, surely that is "ongoing" as you say. But the contract, is the contract. You try to change that, and all bets are off.



What would you do, if you signed a contract yesterday, and then today someone gave you a copy of it that was DIFFERENT, and said, "here's your copy"? What would you do? You'd SUE THE SH*T OUT OF 'EM, right? That would be FRAUD, according to the laws in all 50 States.



The only way someone can get away with that, is if you AGREE to it when you sign the contract - so, if the contract says that, and you sign it, then they can do stuff like that. But OUR contract doesn't say that. In fact, it says quite the opposite! It says, the federal government only has THESE powers, and the rest are reserved for the States and the People.



If fedgov tries to exceed SCOPE, that is a usurpation of power, which is TYRANNY.



I expect and demand that my elected representatives will FULFILL THEIR SWORN OATHS OF OFFICE, which is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States AS WRITTEN. That's the only Constitution there is, is the one on that piece of paper. There's no other.
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,709
Vertiform City
[quote name='The_Bear' date='15 August 2009 - 09:44 AM' timestamp='1250343856' post='5504']

The question boils down to this:

Do you believe that Barack Obama and the supporters of health-care reform have a legitimate argument about the current system failing to uphold the liberty of the people?



I believe that he does have a legitimate argument, or at the very least, the majority of the people believe that he has a legitimate argument. The current system does not uphold the liberty of the people at large.



If its his solution that you disagree with, that is where the debate should lie; that is, what solution will be optimal. But that's a manifestation question, that involves numbers and costs, not abstract charges of unconstitutionality.

[/quote]



I had to think about this one some more. There's some very interesting logic in this piece. The "boils down to" part, especially -



"The liberty of the People" - hm... I completely and entirely fail to see how someone's INDIVIDUAL state of health has any impact whatsoever on the Liberty of the People. You're talking about two completely different things - the General Welfare in one case, and Individual Welfare in the other.



The contract states: Individual Welfare is out of scope. That is reserved for the States and the People.



What you're saying here, is exactly what I'm accusing you of: you're trying to change the contract behind my back!



If you believe what you're saying, you're putting a "because" into that equation - the current HEALTHCARE system does not support the Liberty of the People. And that, is a very VERY strange concept. I never considered that individual health was a matter of national security (I mean, except, they try to keep the President healthy, that kind of thing) -



And see, you and I and others, may disagree on this point, which is precisely why it requires a vote!



"I" do not want to be the one to decide on behalf of millions of people, how they should manage their healthcare.



However I will be glad to be one voice among many, chipping in my opinion -



And, what we're really talking about here, is SHIFTING the healthcare implementation from the States to the federal government - and any way you slice it, that means the Federal Government requires additional Powers. Additional Powers, are a matter of CONSTITUTIONAL SCOPE. Therefore, the People and the States should have a say.



THE PEOPLE should decide, whether their Liberty is being affected - because who is it, who defines what that Liberty is?



Where does ALL GOVERNMENT POWER come from?



It comes from one - and ONLY one - place: We the People.
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,709
Vertiform City
'Kay, so, that was a long "aside" -



But, I'd like to return to Conservative15's original question: is the healthcare thing un-Constiutional?



And, I would like to put a fine point on the answer.



The answer is, that it's OUT OF SCOPE.



It's not "un"-Constiutional in the same sense that an Ex Post Facto law is EXPLICITLY un-Constitutional.



It's only OUT OF SCOPE, which means it requires a vote of the States and the People.



Would you agree with this fine point, Conservative15?
 
Jan 2007
945
0
[quote name='nonsqtr' date='15 August 2009 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1250344915' post='5509']

I can see how that opinion could arise. Many of our politicians are akin to bureaucrats - they care more about the numbers than the principles.



Look - I understand the practical nature of things.



I am making one very simple point: if you wish to change the contract, that's FINE with me, as long as you let me vote on it.
...

The equation is very simple: changes to the contract require a vote. That's all there is to it!

[/quote]



It is already within the contract, you just need to broaden your mind.

The constitution is a tool to realize specific goals. Those goals are connected draw their spiritual nature from the declaration of independence, which is a long document that answers the question 'Why should America be a free nation'? It provides the glue to the unity that is America; it enclothes the genuine spirit of the revolution, protects it, and manifests it in undeniable text.



Let us first analyze the declaration of independence:





We hold these truths to be self-evident,



The following truths are true and do not need to be proven - they are available for any who keep an open mind. They are not the dominion of any one group or sect.



that all men are created equal,



The truths contained in this passage are self evident for all who keep an open mind and are not the dominion of any one group or sect because every person, regardless of their status or upbringing or history, is equal to every other person out there. The only qualification is that they are posses humanity within them, and if they do, they are encompassed within 'humanity' and are equal to all others.





that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,




With the equality in terms of humanity that is located within them, that is in their equal state as human beings, there are certain intrinsic parts to this equal status that if violated constitute such an egregious violation that to violate them is to violate humanity itself. There are certain things that must be present, otherwise they are denied their entry into the spiritual nature of 'humanity'.





that among these are Life




If people do not have life, then they only have death. Life forms the basis of the ability for people to recognize their humanity, because humanity is only recognized in life and not death. Keep in mind that this nebulous idea known as the 'social contract' is not a contract with the divine and the after life - it is a contract that is devoid of all mention of the after life, and is only really concerned with this world.



, Liberty




If life posses the barest entry into this world, then it is liberty that gives people the tools to do different things in order to fulfill their humanity. Life provides the entry into this world; without life, all politics, all action, all thought, all speech, in whatever form it takes, is impossible.

However, fully aware that each person is equal in terms of rights and unique in terms of position in life, in that I can only do things that I can do whereas I cannot do things that you do. For instance, if we share a bottle of the same water for drinking, I am going to physically drink different water than you, even if it may come from the same over-arching source. It is in this sense that liberty comes into play; liberty says that I have the ability to freely do things separately of you. This idea is intrinsic to the equality and humanity of all encompassed within 'all men'.



and the pursuit of Happiness. —




With the basic entry into this world in life, and the basic tool to act as your own person in liberty, also intrinsic to your status as part of humanity or 'all men' is your pursuit of happiness. Happiness is roughly the idea that you can have unity in your life, and desire nought else to get you to this happiness; a truly happy person does not seek to change any more, because they are already at the ideal point in their life where absolutely nothing troubles them or causes them hurt.







That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,




Starting from the premise that is self evident in the basic spiritual nature of 'All Men' in this world, in that All Men are equally entered into 'humanity' and given the tools to act in their own way and pursue happiness and true unity in their own way, there is the realization that these things need to be 'secured' into the material world.

The 'rights' which form the object of the declaration of independence, are entirely spiritual in nature, in that these posses no body. They require a body to enter into this reality. That body is termed 'the government' - for it is the government that 'secures' these rights, much like a home secures a family, or a gun secures a person. Keep in mind this point; it does not say what form the government ought to take, just that it must 'secure', or really, provide a body to 'house' the rights.



deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,



Finally, this 'government', is really a construction of the people, and not of the church, institutions, or anything other than the aforementioned people.



Now, what about health-care?



It is contained within the basic life clause.

Proof 1: Without 'life' you cannot have liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Proof 2a: There is no mother, who when seeing a child bleeding or hurt, will say 'That child doesn't deserve to be helped'.

Proof 2b: If someone is hurt, and recognizes they are hurt, they will seek help

Proof 3: As putting a cast on is to healing a broken leg, getting heart surgery is to healing an ailing heart.



I could go on, but those are the basic and more powerful ones.





Now understanding the Constitution:





We the People of the United States,




Once again this idea of universal equality - that everyone who is a person is part of this 'government' designed to establish the rights.



in Order to form a more perfect Union,



In order to promote a more unified nation. A perfectly unified nation would not be able to progress any further, as such, would be in a state of 'happiness'. Essentially, this is the pursuit of happiness clause but expanded to the national level.





establish Justice,




In pursuit of this state of happiness, there are those individuals along the way that would derail this pursuit for even a single person, and must be not allowed to do so.





insure domestic tranquility




On a larger scale, not just at an individual level, there are groups of people that would disrupt this drive towards happiness or a more perfect union. They must not be allowed to do so.



promote the general welfare



Beyond simply just smoothing tensions among groups and establishing justice for individuals, the government must also work to promote the happiness of groups and individuals.

This illuminates a point - creating a perfect union is to make sure that no individual or group is able to stop progress or the drive, as well as to promote the progress or drive. To stop the bad and to promote the good.





and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity




All of these good things are for the founders as well as all of their descendants.



do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



Give these powers a unifying point - a name, called the 'Constitution'.





It is a more specific phrase than the declaration of independence, but is really the declaration of independence fleshed out into terms that the 'government' can easily understand and look to. Once again, the government is not institutions, but anything that gives rights a body to live in.




Now as to a specific enumerated power:





Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress




The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, - we see that it can raise money.

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare - to provide for the happiness of the general people.



Happiness cannot come except through liberty. Liberty cannot come except through life. To many, life cannot come except through healthcare, which cannot be for many unless it is cheaper and reformed from its current system.



On last note: even though you may disagree with Obama and the democrats, in that the proposed and beliefs driving it forward do not increase the security of these rights, I will argue that they do; that the current system is stale, secures rights for only a select groups of well off people, and stratifies society into those who have 'rights' and those who do not.



Additionally: in its essence, everything that provides a 'body' for rights is considered part of the government. This includes private property. This includes political hotwire. This includes you, me, think for myself, sparta, your mom, the new york state bureaucracy, joe the plumber. A house is only good if it provides for a family; a place of business, while it may be accommodating, is meant for trading and monetary support, not for spiritual support.
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,709
Vertiform City
[quote name='The_Bear' date='15 August 2009 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1250360030' post='5570']

It is already within the contract, you just need to broaden your mind.

[/quote]



HORSESHIT! (no offense)...






10th Amendment:



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.




See, I'm not really interested in judicial philosophy.



I am interested in WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS.



And it says, plain as day, that Powers not delegated (which are enumerated), are RESERVED.



Once again, you are deflecting and waving your hands over the issue.



And, you have yet to answer my question.



--> WHY do you have a problem with me VOTING ON CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT?



I want you to STICK to the f'in contract, and let me VOTE whenever you make a change to it.



That's what the contract says you have to do, and that is EXACTLY what I want you to do.



What part of that is so hard to understand?