• 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!

House majority votes in favor Health Care Bill

The piece I posted clearly identifies the experts, bro.
Except, as has been pointed out, none of them have any expertise in what we are talking about, which is why they are irrelevant, and their opinions are not credible.
 
I'm not sure that selling insurance makes one an expert on the Constitution.
Cute, but we are talking about the bill, not the constitution, try to keep up.

Anywho, I know the constitution very well, have studied it for school, college, and personal reasons for years, and the last century or so it has been violated, but of course, when people don't understand it and want to pout until they get their way, why should a little thing like the supreme law of the land, it's founding charter, and all basis for further law and policy get in the way.......right?
 
Cute, but we are talking about the bill, not the constitution, try to keep up.

Anywho, I know the constitution very well, have studied it for school, college, and personal reasons for years, and the last century or so it has been violated, but of course, when people don't understand it and want to pout until they get their way, why should a little thing like the supreme law of the land, it's founding charter, and all basis for further law and policy get in the way.......right?

But then again, it's about interpretation. So you're only as much of an "expert" on the Constitution as your opinions will allow you to be...
 
But then again, it's about interpretation.
Not really. There are instances where leeway exists, but words mean things. For instance, there is no valid argument for gun control, and no real arguments against ".....shall not be infringed", as well, the ninth and tenth amendments explicitly state that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and lay down the very specific process for states to relegate more powers to the federal.

At this point, politicians are using policy, and not proper procedure to get around very specific wording to keep the federal in check, the only interpretation is what should we call this willfull ignorance of the founding document, I like treason myself, but it doesn't fit the constitutional definition. Fraud maybe?

There are some points that the constitution may have interpretations, like how far a right extends, or how much of a certain power the fed should have, but the actual amendments themselves are rock solid.
 
Not really.

Wait a minute...What kind of Constitutional expert are you?!

Enjoy a dancing Barack.

Obama_hurr.gif
 
Wait a minute...What kind of Constitutional expert are you?!

Enjoy a dancing Barack.

Obama_hurr.gif
Seriously, read the whole of what I said. I explicitly said that much of the "interpretation" is not allowed as is done now, since it is not done by the correct processes. The interpretation argument is dangerous, in that it allows people to say, "the constitution means anything I want it to" which is a truly dumbassed way to think, or dishonest, words mean things.
 
Seriously, read the whole of what I said. I explicitly said that much of the "interpretation" is not allowed as is done now, since it is not done by the correct processes. The interpretation argument is dangerous, in that it allows people to say, "the constitution means anything I want it to" which is a truly dumbassed way to think, or dishonest, words mean things.

I think you might have just called the Founding Fathers dumb-asses.
 
I know the constitution very well...and the last century or so it has been violated, but of course
What rules and principles of construction do you follow to fairly and objectively ascertain the will of lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution, which one must do in order to determine what violates it?
 
What rule or principle should be applied to determine how the words in the Constitution should be generally understood?

The judicial branch has that authority, sadly, too many judges do not take their oath seriously, just as most politicians do not. They are all more concerned with ideology, just look at the 9th circuit for any proof you need, this system has a cancer, and it is spreading.
 
I think you might have just called the Founding Fathers dumb-asses.
I'm calling modern politicians scum. They willfully misrepresent the "interpretation" process of the constitution and we the citizenry are compliant, which is not good. Instead of amending the constitution(which was made intentionally difficult) our idiots, sorry, politicians pass resolutions and policies that directly conflict with states' rights, which are addressed by the ninth and tenth amendments.
 
I'm calling modern politicians scum. They willfully misrepresent the "interpretation" process of the constitution and we the citizenry are compliant, which is not good. Instead of amending the constitution(which was made intentionally difficult) our idiots, sorry, politicians pass resolutions and policies that directly conflict with states' rights, which are addressed by the ninth and tenth amendments.

I think that goes back to what a politician is supposed to do. One of the reasons Palin is looks so nice to so many people, is because she isn't a politician. For this reason, I'm rather sure she won't get President. She will have to become a politician to run for it, and will therefore lose her supporter base.

But getting back to the main topic, politicians are supposed to be coniving, slimy greaseballs. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be politicians.
 
I'm calling modern politicians scum. They willfully misrepresent the "interpretation" process of the constitution and we the citizenry are compliant, which is not good. Instead of amending the constitution(which was made intentionally difficult) our idiots, sorry, politicians pass resolutions and policies that directly conflict with states' rights, which are addressed by the ninth and tenth amendments.

But alas, Such is life.
 
What process did the lawmakers believe should be followed to interpret the Constitution?
The document itself, not that difficult of a concept. The ONLY way the federal has power over the states under the last two Bill of Rights amendments is explicitly stated, a strong majority of the house/senate must pass the amendment with a strong majority of the states voting positive. Anything short of that IS unconstitutional.
 
I think that goes back to what a politician is supposed to do. One of the reasons Palin is looks so nice to so many people, is because she isn't a politician. For this reason, I'm rather sure she won't get President. She will have to become a politician to run for it, and will therefore lose her supporter base.

But getting back to the main topic, politicians are supposed to be coniving, slimy greaseballs. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be politicians.

But alas, Such is life.
For the record, I agree with both of you, and this is a truly sad thing is it not? We need to start holding politicians responsible for these things, at least to the point of making sure that this kind of "representative" is sent on to different work.
 
For the record, I agree with both of you, and this is a truly sad thing is it not? We need to start holding politicians responsible for these things, at least to the point of making sure that this kind of "representative" is sent on to different work.

That's why I like Sen. Richard Burr from NC. If i still lived in NC, he'd have my vote again next election.
 
Just wait til you look at the Senator's laundry list of crimes.


I do love ol' Tax Evasion Rangel!
I can't start on this one, if I said what I really think about Rangel, Jefferson, Pelosi, Folley, etc. I would be insta-banned. LOL!
 
I can't start on this one, if I said what I really think about Rangel, Jefferson, Pelosi, Folley, etc. I would be insta-banned. LOL!

Make a new thread. Invite me to it. Let's discuss all the shortcomings of our Reps and Senators. :D let's get a kind of working list going.
 
Back
Top Bottom