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 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 252

Thread: Do you support single-payer health care?

  1. #151
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    or willfully dishonest.
    I prefer: agenda serving
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  2. #152
    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
    Then why include that explanation if it creates ambiguity in the document (and it does)?
    It does not. Your assumption that it does has already been addressed -- you're looking for a way to let the government do something it has not been given the power to do.

    If it was truly intended that the listed powers are the only ones that congress has then shouldn't clarity of that point have been more important than a meaningless explanation?
    I dont find the clairification at all meaningless. W/o the clause, the argument could be made that there is a power to tax, and to spend, but as there is no specification on which said revenue could be spent, there is no argument that revenue could be spent on (x). This illustrates the intended specificity of the granted powers, as if a power to spend on (x) is not there, then revenue cannot be spent on (x). Thus, the clause.

    Note that this is very similar to Hamilton's defense of the elastic clause, in Fed#33

    No, they didn't. It can be argued that the way that section is presented implies that those are the only powers held by congress, but that is not explicitly stated.
    How can it be argued otherwise?
    This gets back to the question as to if you're right, why did they include the other 16 clauses?

    It is no more unsupportable than the argument that the drafters of the constitution would have intended those 16 powers to be the only ones held by congress and not stated so explicitly.
    The statement is explicit. If your powers are listed, then a power not listed is a power that you do not have.

    Who knows Perhaps he did argue against it during the constitutional convention and was overruled. Perhaps that's the reason for the ambiguity; the members of the constitutional convention couldn't agree on how it should be, so they left it open to the interpretation of future generations.
    So, you admit you have no verifiable answer for the question and therefore you cannot explain the clear contradiction in his position. Thus, the question remains a valid criticism of the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument.

    FURTHER, Hamilton himself states, in the discussion regarding the bill of rights, that:

    I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
    This very much illustrates an ackowledgement that the enumerated powers do create a firm limit to the powers of the federal government in that there are no powers given to the government by the Constitution that might abridge the rights of the people. CLEARLY, the power to do "anything that might fall under 'general welfare'" has the potential to abridge any number of rights, and so, if his position is genuine, he holds that said power is not there.

    Your assumption that there is no ambiguity in the constitution is either hopelessly naive or simply ignorant.
    I've made no assumption to that effect; my position is that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-19-09 at 04:33 PM.

  3. #153
    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
    You have repeatedly ignored my pointing out that the Articles of Confederation included a clause that made the enumerated powers all the powers given. This clause was removed for some reason from the Constitution.
    I addressed this when you first mentioned it.

    No, there are more than one way to interpret it. It is ambiguous. One SCOTUS may decide one way and a different SCOTUS may decide a different way. You are trying to have previous decisions overturned.
    No, I am arguing that a court saying so does not make an argument sound. Appeal to authority. You agreed.

    It is.
    Not that you have been able to show.

    But they do. It is the whole strict constructionist vs loose constructionist litmus test. It is personal opinion.
    If that's the case, you should disagree with the entire system.
    Justices are supposed to decide cases based on the mertis of the case and the low, not their personal opinons and political goals.

  4. #154
    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
    I addressed this when you first mentioned it.
    You are right...I forgot. Wow, long thread! I wound my way back to it and herer is what you said:

    The articles of Confederation are irrelevant, especially any given clause taken in space. They did not work for a miltitude of reasons; citing the deletion of one clause from the AoC to the Constitution doesnt mean anything regarding the intent of the Constitution.
    I didn't answer this the first time, but you see it does matter in this case as it is an example of having these powers restricted explicitly in the AoC, but not in the Constitution. This would remove the ambiguity that makes our arguments an appeal to authority.

    No, I am arguing that a court saying so does not make an argument sound. Appeal to authority. You agreed.


    Not that you have been able to show.
    You have not shown that it is not an appeal to authority.


    If that's the case, you should disagree with the entire system.
    Justices are supposed to decide cases based on the mertis of the case and the low, not their personal opinons and political goals.
    Not at all. They do base it on the merits of the case but different justices see different merits. This is why there are a supporting opinion and one or more dissenting opinions. Hell, they call them opinions.

  5. #155
    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
    I didn't answer this the first time, but you see it does matter in this case as it is an example of having these powers restricted explicitly in the AoC, but not in the Constitution. This would remove the ambiguity that makes our arguments an appeal to authority.
    So? The AoC was junked, for any mumner of reasons. One cannot take anything from any part of the AoC being retained or eliminated in the Constitution.

    You have not shown that it is not an appeal to authority.
    Given that you responsed to two of my quotes, I am not sure what this refers to.

    Not at all. They do base it on the merits of the case but different justices see different merits.
    That's fine -- but the merits are not to be judged based on personal agenda. That's supposed to be left at the door.

    That is, unless you;re Ok with racial discrimination cases being decided according to the justice's views on race.

  6. #156
    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?

    You have not shown that your argument is not an appeal to authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That's fine -- but the merits are not to be judged based on personal agenda. That's supposed to be left at the door.
    Then why the conservative litmus test of strict constructionist?

  7. #157
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It does not. Your assumption that it does has already been addressed -- you're looking for a way to let the government do something it has not been given the power to do.
    And your assumption that it does not has been addressed as well, it's either naive, ignorant, or dishonest.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I dont find the clairification at all meaningless. W/o the clause, the argument could be made that there is a power to tax, and to spend, but as there is no specification on which said revenue could be spent, there is no argument that revenue could be spent on (x). This illustrates the intended specificity of the granted powers, as if a power to spend on (x) is not there, then revenue cannot be spent on (x). Thus, the clause.

    Note that this is very similar to Hamilton's defense of the elastic clause, in Fed#33


    How can it be argued otherwise?
    This gets back to the question as to if you're right, why did they include the other 16 clauses?


    The statement is explicit. If your powers are listed, then a power not listed is a power that you do not have.
    I don't think you know what the word explicit means. Had it been explicit, there would have been a clearly worded statement that the 16 powers expressed are the only powers congress can spend revenue on. Since there is no such statement, it is not explicit. A lack of a statement to the contrary is not explicit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So, you admit you have no verifiable answer for the question and therefore you cannot explain the clear contradiction in his position. Thus, the question remains a valid criticism of the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument.

    FURTHER, Hamilton himself states, in the discussion regarding the bill of rights, that:



    This very much illustrates an ackowledgement that the enumerated powers do create a firm limit to the powers of the federal government in that there are no powers given to the government by the Constitution that might abridge the rights of the people. CLEARLY, the power to do "anything that might fall under 'general welfare'" has the potential to abridge any number of rights, and so, if his position is genuine, he holds that said power is not there.
    You're right. I'm not exactly sure why the different stances from him. Where did you pull the quote from him from? I'd be interested in seeing whether reading more of it would explain the differences of opinion.

    Hamilton's inconsistencies aside (assuming they exist, and the quote was not taken out of context), the ambiguity is very much there, and that in and of itself provides enough reason for the SCOTUS to rule on the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I've made no assumption to that effect; my position is that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard.
    Then I should have been more clear. Your position that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard is either hopelessly naive, simply ignorant, or willfully dishonest.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #158
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib
    I didn't answer this the first time, but you see it does matter in this case as it is an example of having these powers restricted explicitly in the AoC, but not in the Constitution. This would remove the ambiguity that makes our arguments an appeal to authority.
    So? The AoC was junked, for any mumner of reasons. One cannot take anything from any part of the AoC being retained or eliminated in the Constitution.
    I am saying is that it's removal added ambiguity that forces both of our arguments to be appeals to authority or rather that it is up to SCOTUS to interpret. Thus we get the strict vs loose constructionist views and a fight for supremacy in the Court ensues.

    Furthermore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that an explicit list of powers was seen as undesired as evidenced by the removal of the phrase "expressly delegated" powers phrase from the AoC. Otherwise they would have restricted it as they were very careful to do this in other places.

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    They did.
    When something says you "shall have the power to..." and lists a number of powers, anything not found in that list is not a power you shall have.
    No, that doesn't follow logically.

    That's why the Tenth Amendment was written, to exclude the argument that the enumerated list was merely the top of the list and that other powers could be created as the future saw fit to allow it.

    No, Congress, by the Tenth Amendment, has no other power outside of those very specific powers listed in Article 1, Section 8.

    And that's why the Constitution has an Amendment process.

    I don't recall any Amendment giving Congress the power to fund public education, operate a national retirement ponzi scheme, or steal the nation's health care industry. Can someone point to it?

  10. #160
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do you support single-payer health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I am saying is that it's removal added ambiguity that forces both of our arguments to be appeals to authority or rather that it is up to SCOTUS to interpret. Thus we get the strict vs loose constructionist views and a fight for supremacy in the Court ensues.

    Furthermore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that an explicit list of powers was seen as undesired as evidenced by the removal of the phrase "expressly delegated" powers phrase from the AoC. Otherwise they would have restricted it as they were very careful to do this in other places.
    If an explicit list of powers was not desired, the Founders would not have included both a specific list of powers AND added the Tenth Amendment.

    Since Congress is not specifically granted the power to steal the nation's health care industry, it doesn't have the lawful power to do so, and all attempts for such are by definition unlawful.

Page 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •