• 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!

Mark Critz Defeats Tim Burns in Pennsylvania Special Election for Murtha's Seat

Yes, I have, but it doesn't mean they are right. Just because you take something to trial doesn't mean you will win. Once again, please quote what it is that is unconstitutional in the healthcare bill.

I just did. The health care bill forces people to buy a private product enforced by the government.

What part of that don't you understand?
 
Messiah? Obamunism? No wonder the far-right isn't taken seriously and tossed away like garbage.

you scream far right everytime someone doesn't get down and kisses Obama's butt.

That is what happens when you are a moonbat barking loon lefty
 
So filing a suit is automatic evidence that the government is wrong?

If you hadn't dishonestly cut off the rest of my post, you would have seen the evidence. :roll:
 
you scream far right everytime someone doesn't get down and kisses Obama's butt.

That is what happens when you are a moonbat barking loon lefty

Sorry, but no I don't. In fact I have disagreed with the health care bill. You however use moronic terms that show just how irrelevant you on the far right really are.
 
I just did. The health care bill forces people to buy a private product enforced by the government.

What part of that don't you understand?

You don't read. QUOTE DIRECLY FROM THE HEALTHCARE BILL WHERE IT SAYS THAT.
 
You are the one claiming it is unconstitutional but you have still failed to quote exactly what is unconstitutional. That's like me saying Bush should have been impeached but not saying why.

17 State AG's believe it is unconstitutional and the courts will decide. Now you show me where it is in the Constitution that the govt. can require a private citizen to purchase a personal responsibility item? Healthcare is an individual responsibility and nothing in the Constitution supports the government's efforts to force people to buy insurance. You claim it isn't in the bill which means you haven't even read the bill.
 
Sorry, but no I don't. In fact I have disagreed with the health care bill. You however use moronic terms that show just how irrelevant you on the far right really are.

your childish labels of me are of no concern

you aren't smart enough to determine what is far right
 
17 State AG's believe it is unconstitutional and the courts will decide. Now you show me where it is in the Constitution that the govt. can require a private citizen to purchase a personal responsibility item? Healthcare is an individual responsibility and nothing in the Constitution supports the government's efforts to force people to buy insurance. You claim it isn't in the bill which means you haven't even read the bill.

the left believes that the general welfare clause allows anything and everything that the left wants
 
17 State AG's believe it is unconstitutional and the courts will decide. Now you show me where it is in the Constitution that the govt. can require a private citizen to purchase a personal responsibility item? Healthcare is an individual responsibility and nothing in the Constitution supports the government's efforts to force people to buy insurance. You claim it isn't in the bill which means you haven't even read the bill.

No I haven't read every page, have you? When you quote from the bill where the government forces people to buy insurance, I will say how it is constitutional. You know what, I know you won't do that but I'll just tell you what I'm going to say right now. Section 8 of the constitution says Congress has the ability to provide for the general welfare for the United States. And I consider healthcare part of the general welfare. The necessary and proper clause also reinforces it.
 
Last edited:
No I haven't read every page, have you? When you quote from the bill where the government forces people to buy insurance, I will say how it is constitutional. You know what, I know you won't do that but I'll just tell you what I'm going to say right now. Section 8 of the constitution says Congress has the ability to provide for the general welfare for the United States. And I consider healthcare part of the general welfare.

Of course you believe it is part of the general welfare because as a liberal you know what is best for everyone else. Trouble is most liberals cannot even take care of themselves. The Constitutions says PROMOTE, NOT PROVIDE for Domestic Welfare. Maybe you ought to learn the definition of both words.

Read the bill and then get back to me. You can Google the claim and then come back and apologize. I am not going to waste any further time with kids who are out of their element and are intellectually challenged. Obama has sold you a bill of goods and from what I can see you are going to be dependent on liberalism for a long, long time.
 
Of course you believe it is part of the general welfare because as a liberal you know what is best for everyone else. Trouble is most liberals cannot even take care of themselves. The Constitutions says PROMOTE, NOT PROVIDE for Domestic Welfare. Maybe you ought to learn the definition of both words.

Read the bill and then get back to me. You can Google the claim and then come back and apologize. I am not going to waste any further time with kids who are out of their element and are intellectually challenged. Obama has sold you a bill of goods and from what I can see you are going to be dependent on liberalism for a long, long time.

No it says Provide... You are just showing how uninformed you are. You make personal attacks in hoping to help your arguement, but it doesn't at all. Maybe you should read the constitution, it says provide.
 
No I haven't read every page, have you? When you quote from the bill where the government forces people to buy insurance, I will say how it is constitutional. You know what, I know you won't do that but I'll just tell you what I'm going to say right now. Section 8 of the constitution says Congress has the ability to provide for the general welfare for the United States. And I consider healthcare part of the general welfare. The necessary and proper clause also reinforces it.

LOL-so if congress declares something part of the general welfare that alone makes it constitutional

they did with the Brady bill mandate

they did with guns near schools

both struck down on tenth amendment grounds

guess what-nothing screams "I HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARSHIP LOUDER" than saying the "general welfare clause is a carte blanche for congressional action
 
LOL-so if congress declares something part of the general welfare that alone makes it constitutional

they did with the Brady bill mandate

they did with guns near schools

both struck down on tenth amendment grounds

guess what-nothing screams "I HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARSHIP LOUDER" than saying the "general welfare clause is a carte blanche for congressional action

Yes, I don't like it, but that's the way it is. Don't blame me, I didn't write the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I don't like it, but that's the way it is. Don't blame me, I didn't write the constitution.

and no serious legal scholar buys into your interpretation. Why did the USSC strike down laws based on the tenth amendment when congress obviously believed they were for the general welfare.

the founders never intended that as an empowerment clause

its a myth that the FDR administration created to pass laws that congress did not have the proper power to enact.
 
and no serious legal scholar buys into your interpretation. Why did the USSC strike down laws based on the tenth amendment when congress obviously believed they were for the general welfare.

the founders never intended that as an empowerment clause

its a myth that the FDR administration created to pass laws that congress did not have the proper power to enact.

Just because they didn't intend it to be used as it doesn't mean it isn't plausible. I mean they wrote the 2nd amendment but they didn't intend people to be walking around with machine guns:doh. Also, if healthcare isn't for the general welfare what is?
 
Just because they didn't intend it to be used as it doesn't mean it isn't plausible. I mean they wrote the 2nd amendment but they didn't intend people to be walking around with machine guns:doh. Also, if healthcare isn't for the general welfare what is?

edify me as to what law school you teach for. Machine guns didn't exist back then but then again neither did computers or telephones so you have no first amendment rights concerning stuff you say on a chat board or a phone

Amuse me as to what you think the second amendment says? Individual possession of the standard infantry weapon (a machine gun) is far more plausible as a protected right than a claim that the government has the power to force people to buy insurance etc
 
Just because they didn't intend it to be used as it doesn't mean it isn't plausible. I mean they wrote the 2nd amendment but they didn't intend people to be walking around with machine guns:doh. Also, if healthcare isn't for the general welfare what is?

btw if it was not intended by the founders than it is not constitutional unless by amendment.
 
edify me as to what law school you teach for. Machine guns didn't exist back then but then again neither did computers or telephones so you have no first amendment rights concerning stuff you say on a chat board or a phone

Amuse me as to what you think the second amendment says? Individual possession of the standard infantry weapon (a machine gun) is far more plausible as a protected right than a claim that the government has the power to force people to buy insurance etc

Haha you are taking my point to literally, it was just an example. My point is not every part of the constitution is used as it was intended for. And if you think you need to go to law school to be able to read and understand the constitution you are sadly mistaken.
 
btw if it was not intended by the founders than it is not constitutional unless by amendment.

How do we know what was and wasn't intended by the founders? We don;t have george Washington here to ask whether he thinks people should able to carry around machine guns or not. The constitution doesn't address all of our issues we have today.
 
your childish labels of me are of no concern

you aren't smart enough to determine what is far right

Childish labels? You are the one saying "Messiah" and "Obamunism" Grow up

As for this being unconstitutional, then if the states lose their lawsuits, that means it is constitutional and you are WRONG.

But then that won't stop you on the far-right from whining.
 
No it says Provide... You are just showing how uninformed you are. You make personal attacks in hoping to help your arguement, but it doesn't at all. Maybe you should read the constitution, it says provide.

Is this the way you are in real life or is this an act. If it is the way you really are then I fear for the education system in our country. You need to start with the Preamble to the Constitution and then move forward. You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. You seem to be walking proof of the arrogance of today's youth even when wrong on the issues. You simply cannot admit it.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
Haha you are taking my point to literally, it was just an example. My point is not every part of the constitution is used as it was intended for. And if you think you need to go to law school to be able to read and understand the constitution you are sadly mistaken.

you have made claims that prove to me-someone who has lectured at law schools on the constitution-that your interpretation is lacking grounding in proper scholarship.

the fact is, many people think that "general welfare" means something that authorizes specific congressional power-it does not
 
you have made claims that prove to me-someone who has lectured at law schools on the constitution-that your interpretation is lacking grounding in proper scholarship.

the fact is, many people think that "general welfare" means something that authorizes specific congressional power-it does not

It's isn't a fact, it's open to interpretation. We don't know what all the founders meant when they wrote each little bit of the constitution.
 
Childish labels? You are the one saying "Messiah" and "Obamunism" Grow up

As for this being unconstitutional, then if the states lose their lawsuits, that means it is constitutional and you are WRONG.

But then that won't stop you on the far-right from whining.

yawn-you wouldn't know far right if it bit you on your ass. You spew those terms as a facade to cover up your lack of knowledge
 
It's isn't a fact, it's open to interpretation. We don't know what all the founders meant when they wrote each little bit of the constitution.

yes we do-
 
Back
Top Bottom