View Poll Results: Do you support single-payer health care?

Voters
109. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    50 45.87%
  • No

    53 48.62%
  • Maybe, if

    6 5.50%
Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 252

Thread: Do you support single-payer health care?

  1. #121
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    You're more than welcome to your opinion on the issue of course, but don't pretend that it's anything more than an opinion.
    Rather that stating the obvious., why don't you try to explain how my opinion is in error.

  2. #122
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    actually it seems it does grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare...
    at least under the Hamiltonian view:
    Thus, my final point, that you did not address:

    If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

    If you believe this interpretation is correct, then explain the inclusion of the other 16 clauses in the article, as the interpretation you describe eliminates the need for same.

    This is why the Hamiltonian view fails and the Madisonian view prevails.

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the land of steers and queers
    Last Seen
    06-03-10 @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,563

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If you believe this interpretation is correct, then explain the inclusion of the other 16 clauses in the article, as the interpretation you describe eliminates the need for same.
    The law makers were intentionally ambiguous, grasshopper. You could solve the problem if you knew what the well established common law rules for resolving ambiguity in a Constitution were in the late 1700.
    Last edited by Whip Comes Down; 11-19-09 at 12:05 PM.

  4. #124
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Unfortunately SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.
    Indeed. But then, anyone can argue 'because I said so', and if they have the power to make it stick, it does.

    That des not, however, mean their argument is sound.

    I would have them address the issue I just raised, and I would be interested in their response.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-19-09 at 12:17 PM.

  5. #125
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whip Comes Down View Post
    The law makers were intentionally ambiguous, grasshopper. You could solve the problem if you knew what the well established common law rules for resolving ambiguity in a Constitution were in the late 1700.
    I do, peanut - and they do nothing to support the noted interpretation.

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Thus, my final point, that you did not address:

    If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

    If you believe this interpretation is correct, then explain the inclusion of the other 16 clauses in the article, as the interpretation you describe eliminates the need for same.

    This is why the Hamiltonian view fails and the Madisonian view prevails.
    Those 16 clauses were explicit examples of the kinds of powers extended by the constitution. They were not exhaustive, however. The Articles of Confederation limited Congress to "expressly delegated" powers. This was removed in the Constitution.

    Thus the Hamiltonian view is the dominant view and prevails.

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the land of steers and queers
    Last Seen
    06-03-10 @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,563

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I do, peanut - and they do nothing to support the noted interpretation.
    I was testing you, boo.

    The rules don't provide a way to resolve a case where a law provides a broad grant of authority over a particular subject matter, and then turns around and provides a list of specific powers, suggesting that the broad grant was just for amusement.

    At the time the constitution was made, the population of the U. S. was divided on the question of whether the government should have limited authority or unlimited powers. The lawmakers wrote both views into the Powers of Congress section of the Constitution, so that the issue would be settled by the political process. The limited government view prevailed at first. However, when the unlimited view came to be the prevailing view, it could also be supported by the ambiguous provisions regarding the Powers of Congress.

  8. #128
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Those 16 clauses were explicit examples of the kinds of powers extended by the constitution. They were not exhaustive, however.
    This is unsupportable, both by the discussion at the time, and because of the aregument I presented -- if what you posit is true, then none of those clauses are necessary and are a wasted of time, space and effort.

    So, why did the founders put them there?
    And then, given the argument regarding the bill of rights that gave birth to the 9th amendment, why were they ratified?

    Essentially, if you support the Hamiltonian view and the court decisions that us it, you're arguing that Congress can do whatever it wants, so long as it does so under the guise of what, upon its own determination, relates to the 'general welfare' or 'common defense', and, further, the fact that there are actual, specified powers, means nothing, put there for decoration.

    Thus the Hamiltonian view is the dominant view and prevails.
    The Hamiltonian view 'prevails' only pursuant to an appeal to authority.

  9. #129
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whip Comes Down View Post
    I was testing you, boo.
    The rules don't provide a way to resolve a case where a law provides a broad grant of authority over a particular subject matter, and then turns around and provides a list of specific powers...
    There was no broad grant of power; there was a specific grant among other specific grants.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is unsupportable, both by the discussion at the time, and because of the aregument I presented -- if what you posit is true, then none of those clauses are necessary and are a wasted of time, space and effort.
    But it is supported by my other comment, that got lost:
    The Articles of Confederation limited Congress to "expressly delegated" powers. This was removed in the Constitution.
    Explain that.

    I'll agree to 1) The explicit clauses are unnecessary under the Hamilton view, except as perhaps the starter laws, as the government first forms. It does provide a way to have unlimited government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So, why did the founders put them there?
    And then, given the argument regarding the bill of rights that gave birth to the 9th amendment, why were they ratified?
    I don't know what the 9th amendment has to do with this - it is dealing with explicit and implicit rights, not powers. Please explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Essentially, if you support the Hamiltonian view and the court decisions that us it, you're arguing that Congress can do whatever it wants, so long as it does so under the guise of what, upon its own determination, relates to the 'general welfare' or 'common defense', and, further, the fact that there are actual, specified powers, means nothing, put there for decoration.
    I'll agree again 2) that this interpretation provides unlimited power. It had best be used responsibly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The Hamiltonian view 'prevails' only pursuant to an appeal to authority.
    Once again 3) I agree. A SCOTUS of the right view could overturn a lot of legislation, but I think that each piece of legislation would have to be brought independently, no?

Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •