• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

TacticalEvilDan said:
I also don't think the Founders intended corporations that exist perpetually, fiat currency, gun registration laws, nuclear weapons, "force projection," a "war on" whatever, the PATRIOT act, or for basic health care to be so expensive you have to pay someone to pay for it for you, but hey.

That's the world we live in.
Click to expand...

And these are arguments in favor of Obamacare?

You just roll over now?
 
No, I just think an argument about the Constitutionality of "Obamacare" is superflous at this point because there are all sorts of things the government does which are unConstitutional which we take for granted.

As such, I prefer to argue the issue on its own merits, rather than on the basis of Constitutionality.
 
OxymoronP said:
Reserved to the States, or the people who are represented by the federal Congress.
Click to expand...

LOL...I see. So powers not specifically granted to Congress are only reserved to the States only if the States act on those powers? Otherwise, the power is just granted to the national government? :confused:

And the people again who are represented by the Congress.
Click to expand...

You're rendering the 10th Amendment completely meaningless. So you really believe that the 10th is nothing but a vehicle to grant power to the national government that was never intended to be granted to the national government? :confused:

Your citizenship wont be revoked for not getting insured. You will simply pay your share of the taxes to compensate for the cost of treating you anyways.
Click to expand...

As citizens we are required to purchase a good/service or we face sanction by the government. Is that not a condition of citizenship?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, I just think an argument about the Constitutionality of "Obamacare" is superflous at this point because there are all sorts of things the government does which are unConstitutional which we take for granted.

As such, I prefer to argue the issue on its own merits, rather than on the basis of Constitutionality.
Click to expand...

Oh, so we're ready to simply say that whatever the national government does it is constitutional?

You are, indeed, simply rolling over.

And, btw, the constitutionality of any legislative action is, you know, a merit of the legsialtion.
 
Conservative Sword said:
You're rendering the 10th Amendment completely meaningless. So you really believe that the 10th is nothing but a vehicle to grant power to the national government that was never intended to be granted to the national government? :confused:
Click to expand...

That would be exactly how the commerce clause has been abused, so why not the 10th Amendment? :lol:

Conservative Sword said:
As citizens we are required to purchase a good/service or we face sanction by the government. Is that not a condition of citizenship?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of circumstances like that already. Give me a break.

ETA: And since "sanction" will never result in loss of citizenship, no, it is not a condition of citizenship.
 
The funny thing is, if Congress made health insurance a prerequisite for maintaining / obtaining citizenship, their Constitutional authority to do so would be unquestionable. :lol:
 
Are citizens not required to purchase health care insurance? How is that not a condition of citizenship? Your citizenship triggers an obligation to do something. Citizenship stipluates this obligation, no? Maybe we should refer to the definitions of "condition"?

•a state at a particular time; "a condition (or state) of disrepair"; "the current status of the arms negotiations"
•an assumption on which rests the validity or effect of something else
•a mode of being or form of existence of a person or thing; "the human condition"
•establish a conditioned response
•circumstance: information that should be kept in mind when making a decision; "another consideration is the time it would take"
•discipline: develop (children's) behavior by instruction and practice; especially to teach self-control; "Parents must discipline their children"; "Is this dog trained?"
•the state of (good) health (especially in the phrases `in condition' or `in shape' or `out of condition' or `out of shape')
•stipulate: specify as a condition or requirement in a contract or agreement; make an express demand or provision in an agreement; "The will stipulates that she can live in the house for the rest of her life"; "The contract stipulates the dates of the payments"
•an illness, disease, or other medical problem; "a heart condition"; "a skin condition"
•put into a better state; "he conditions old cars"
•apply conditioner to in order to make smooth and shiny; "I condition my hair after washing it"
•the procedure that is varied in order to estimate a variable's effect by comparison with a control condition
 
Conservative Sword said:
Oh, so we're ready to simply say that whatever the national government does it is constitutional?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I said.

Conservative Sword said:
You are, indeed, simply rolling over.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm doing.

Conservative Sword said:
And, btw, the constitutionality of any legislative action is, you know, a merit of the legsialtion.
Click to expand...

I agree, but there is so much federal law which is unconstitutional that you either need to have more than that to make a serious argument against "Obamacare," or you need to be rattling your sabre about all that other stuff just as loudly.

As a nation, we don't do that. Even the politically active don't do that.
 
By the way, you've ignored the point about how, even if Congress did make health care a requirement for maintaining or obtaining citizenship, they'd be within their rights to do so.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
By the way, you've ignored the point about how, even if Congress did make health care a requirement for maintaining or obtaining citizenship, they'd be within their rights to do so.
Click to expand...

Congress has not. So why debate it? If you want to argue with strawmen, be my guest.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, that's not what I said.

No, that's not what I'm doing.
Click to expand...

It is precisely what you're doing. The constitutionality of legislation or government action is a first principle. There's no:

I agree, but there is so much federal law which is unconstitutional that you either need to have more than that to make a serious argument against "Obamacare," or you need to be rattling your sabre about all that other stuff just as loudly.

As a nation, we don't do that. Even the politically active don't do that.
Click to expand...

Your perception that I or anyone is not being loud enough about x, y, or z is not an argument in favor of the constitutionality and legitimacy of Obamacare.
 
Conservative Sword said:
Congress has not. So why debate it? If you want to argue with strawmen, be my guest.
Click to expand...

As quoted earlier in the thread:

Section. 8.

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;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
Click to expand...

Um, yeah, they do.

That said, they haven't made health care a requirement for citizenship. I'm just telling you that if they did, you wouldn't have a constitutional leg to stand on.
 
Conservative Sword said:
It is precisely what you're doing.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just sticking to arguing the relevant facts. If we were going to confine the government only to what it is constitutionally authorized to do, it would be microscopic compared to its current size. Since it won't permit itself to be pared down in that fashion, the point about what is constitutional and what isn't, in and of itself, is moot.

Conservative Sword said:
Your perception that I or anyone is not being loud enough about x, y, or z is not an argument in favor of the constitutionality and legitimacy of Obamacare.
Click to expand...

You're right.

I'm saying the constitutionality of "Obamacare" is a moot point.
 
When I said that "Congress has not," I was clearly responding to your comment, "even if Congress did make health care a requirement for maintaining or obtaining citizenship".

But you just responded as if I was arguing that the national government can enact laws affecting naturalization.

Like I already said, be my guest if you want to argue strawmen.

BTW - you are aware what naturalization is, right? And how that is distinguished from citizenship as a right of birth or blood, right?

So, even if you wanted to play with your strawman argument re: Congress enacting legislation that revokes citizenship for failing to purchase health care insurance...the power to establish a unform naturalization process would not constitutionalize such legislation. Just sayin'...
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, I'm just sticking to arguing the relevant facts.
Click to expand...

Which facts? You're whining that there's so much else that is unconstitutional that it is no longer reasonable to argue against the constitutionality of any legislative action.

If we were going to confine the government only to what it is constitutionally authorized to do, it would be microscopic compared to its current size. Since it won't permit itself to be pared down in that fashion, the point about what is constitutional and what isn't, in and of itself, is moot.
Click to expand...

Aaaand, like I said, you've rolled over on what is constitutiuonal or not. But you keep saying this, yet deny that you've rolled over. :doh

You're right.

I'm saying the constitutionality of "Obamacare" is a moot point.
Click to expand...

:roll:

I cannot reason out of you what has not been reasoned in.
 
Conservative Sword said:
When I said that "Congress has not," I was clearly responding to your comment, "even if Congress did make health care a requirement for maintaining or obtaining citizenship".

But you just responded as if I was arguing that the national government can enact laws affecting naturalization.

Like I already said, be my guest if you want to argue strawmen.
Click to expand...

Oh, boy, here we go.

You were arguing rather vehemently that Congress has made health care a requirement for citizenship. As such, when you simply said "Congress has not" in response to:

TacticalEvilDan said:
By the way, you've ignored the point about how, even if Congress did make health care a requirement for maintaining or obtaining citizenship, they'd be within their rights to do so.
Click to expand...

I thought "Congress has not" meant "Congress has not the authority."

I wasn't aware you had done a complete 180 on a dime, my bad.

Conservative Sword said:
BTW - you are aware what naturalization is, right? And how that is distinguished from citizenship as a right of birth or blood, right?
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware. The authority to regulate naturalization includes the authority to redefine what it means to be a natural-born citizen.

The only place in the Constitution where a difference is recognized between a natural-born citizen and someone who becomes a citizen after birth is with respect to eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.

Conservative Sword said:
So, even if you wanted to play with your strawman argument re: Congress enacting legislation that revokes citizenship for failing to purchase health care insurance
Click to expand...

Um, you were the one arguing that Congress had made health insurance a condition of citizenship, not me.

Conservative Sword said:
...the power to establish a unform naturalization process would not constitutionalize such legislation. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

Yeah, actually, it would.

Just sayin'.
 
Conservative Sword said:
Which facts?
Click to expand...

The fact that the Congresscritter in question didn't say he doesn't care about the Constitution. The fact that his encounter with those people was obviously set-up. The fact that the video edited out what came before that headed exchange. The fact that they were more interested in badgering him into saying something dumb than they were in actually talking to him.

Conservative Sword said:
You're whining that there's so much else that is unconstitutional that it is no longer reasonable to argue against the constitutionality of any legislative action.
Click to expand...

Don't make this personal by taking shots at me. My point is justified. If we're going to restrain the government to its constitutionally defined role, then let's do it with everything, rather than using it as a weak-ass argument against regulation of health care and health insurance.

Conservative Sword said:
Aaaand, like I said, you've rolled over on what is constitutiuonal or not. But you keep saying this, yet deny that you've rolled over. :doh
Click to expand...

No.

I don't care.

There's a difference.

Conservative Sword said:
:roll:

I cannot reason out of you what has not been reasoned in.
Click to expand...

You're not reasoning, that's part of the problem. You're just doing what the people in that video did. You're more interested in trapping me than you are in talking to me.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Oh, boy, here we go.

You were arguing rather vehemently that Congress has made health care a requirement for citizenship. As such, when you simply said "Congress has not" in response to:
Click to expand...

No, I said "a condition of citizenship." I even elaborated to mean that Obamacare requires citizens to purchase insurance. I further elaborated what I meant by condition. There should've been no confusion.

I thought "Congress has not" meant "Congress has not the authority."
Click to expand...

Then you've been disabused of such a misinterpretation.

I wasn't aware you had done a complete 180 on a dime, my bad.
Click to expand...

I didn't. You misinterpreted me, even after I clarified my point.

I'm fully aware. The authority to regulate naturalization includes the authority to redefine what it means to be a natural-born citizen.
Click to expand...

It does?

The only place in the Constitution where a difference is recognized between a natural-born citizen and someone who becomes a citizen after birth is with respect to eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
Click to expand...

The US law on citizenship by birth incorporates two traditional legal principles:

--ius soli ("right of the soil"), under which citizenship results from being born in the US, and

--ius sanguinis ("right of the blood"), under which citizenship results from having an American parent or parents.

Please explain how this is no different from the naturalization process...please?

Um, you were the one arguing that Congress had made health insurance a condition of citizenship, not me.
Click to expand...

And I clarified, twice, what I meant. You were sufficiently made aware that I was not arguing that citizenship would be revoked. There should've been no confusion on that point. Any confusion that did exist was deliberate.

Yeah, actually, it would.

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Please, by all means, explain, how the authority to establish a uniform naturalization process authorizes the national government to revoke citizenship for not purchasing a private good/service...make it interesting at least.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The fact that the Congresscritter in question didn't say he doesn't care about the Constitution. The fact that his encounter with those people was obviously set-up. The fact that the video edited out what came before that headed exchange. The fact that they were more interested in badgering him into saying something dumb than they were in actually talking to him.
Click to expand...

You might have been talking about, but I wasn't. Continue with your bad self.

Don't make this personal by taking shots at me. My point is justified. If we're going to restrain the government to its constitutionally defined role, then let's do it with everything, rather than using it as a weak-ass argument against regulation of health care and health insurance.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing this point. I am saying that your perception that I don't is not an argument about anything at all.

No.

I don't care.

There's a difference.
Click to expand...

You keep telling yourself that...

You're not reasoning, that's part of the problem. You're just doing what the people in that video did. You're more interested in trapping me than you are in talking to me.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh...do you always invent your opponent's motivation so you can argue with them or with yourself?
 
Conservative Sword said:
No, I said "a condition of citizenship." I even elaborated to mean that Obamacare requires citizens to purchase insurance. I further elaborated what I meant by condition. There should've been no confusion.
Click to expand...

A requirement of citizenship and a condition of citizenship are the same thing. You're just mincing words.

Conservative Sword said:
It does?
Click to expand...

Upon what basis do you argue that it doesn't?

Conservative Sword said:
The US law on citizenship by birth incorporates two traditional legal principles:

--ius soli ("right of the soil"), under which citizenship results from being born in the US, and

--ius sanguinis ("right of the blood"), under which citizenship results from having an American parent or parents.

Please explain how this is no different from the naturalization process...please?
Click to expand...

The fact that this is federal law and has not been ruled unconstitutional proves my point, that Congress has the right to define (and as such, redefine) what it means to be a natural-born citizen.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
A requirement of citizenship and a condition of citizenship are the same thing. You're just mincing words.
Click to expand...

Mincing words...I sufficiently qualified what I meant.

Upon what basis do you argue that it doesn't?
Click to expand...

I'm not. I was asking you to explain your comment.

The fact that this is federal law and has not been ruled unconstitutional proves my point, that Congress has the right to define (and as such, redefine) what it means to be a natural-born citizen.
Click to expand...

Lets not go down this road. US law in this area germinated from ancient legal concepts. It's nothing at all similar to enacting Obamacare...
 
Conservative Sword said:
Mincing words...I sufficiently qualified what I meant.
Click to expand...

No, you were splitting hairs.

Conservative Sword said:
I'm not. I was asking you to explain your comment.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're not arguing that it doesn't, then I guess we have nothing to argue about. :lol:

Conservative Sword said:
Lets not go down this road. US law in this area germinated from ancient legal concepts. It's nothing at all similar to enacting Obamacare...
Click to expand...

Either they had the authority to write that law, or they did not.

If they did, I'm right.

If they didn't, you're right.

Simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom