Freedom and "Freedom"

[GAC]

GAC- Relax.

I used the slavery example to make a point-

If we amend the Constitution, then that Amendment is law. Period. We do not need to look back at what someone thought in 1789.

And I wasn't arguing that point. Where there are Amendments, then that is law. Where there is not, don't you then need to go back and possibly look at original intent? Especially when it comes to the limitations on government?

I did not go off on a tangent, I asked you a question.

Which again was answered in previous posts by the quotes of some of those framers. Pretty obvious.

[Hoosier Red]

"Where there are Amendments, then that is law. Where there is not, don't you then need to go back and possibly look at original intent? Especially when it comes to the limitations on government?"

Yes and no, if framers wanted their intentions explicitly followed, they would have explicitly stated laws and clauses in the Constitution. They knew how powerful the document was, if they were concerned with future generations explicitly following their intentions, they would have written it differently.

As it was, they wanted to leave future generations the opportunity to interpret as they saw fit.

[Dom Heffner]

This is what Madison thought about original intent- seems he wanted us to not look at the intent but the text of the document itself:

"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Insitutions, & as a source parhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses."

James Madison is my favorite founder, no doubt, but his request here is a bit lacking, admittedly. Where words lead to ambiguity, intent could only be helpful.

I bought a new book dealing with this issue- I'll report back once I finish reading.

[GAC]

I think it is Constitutional for Congress to vote that you have to have health care.

How is it Constitutional? 

Sorry, I do. By not having it, you are driving the price up for everybody else. People without insurance use the emergency room as their doctor, and it makes it more expensive for everybody else as well.

Everybody should have health insurance- or we could go another route with actually having medical professionals take a pay cut, but I don't see anybody clamoring for that idea, so we are stuck with paying an insurance company to cover when we get sick.

While all the above you state is true, that does not justify the government invading and basically seizing a sector of the private sector, and then mandating one to have health care or they will take punitive action (including imprisonment) against you.

Using your line of reasoning above, or even the excuse "We're trying to do what is best and morally right for all", gives the government unchecked power and justification in almost every situation they deem fit to apply it to. It sets a dangerous precedence IMO.

Yes, health care needs to be reformed. And yes, the health insurance industry, as well as other areas of the health industry, need to be regulated, and in many areas mandates need to be set forth that place the welfare of the citizenry over that of the health insurance industry, just like the government does with other areas of the private sector, to insure access and affordability to all. And to even help those who can't afford it. And again, it can be done without the government seizing control.

Dom - we can site many examples where the government provides regulation and oversight, and even strict oversight, over various sections of the private sector to protect the public. I go to work every day in the automotive industry that is heavily regulated by the federal government where they set laws and rules that establish standards in such areas as employment, wages & benefits, and safety. They can't discriminate when it come to employment, they set minimum standards on wages and overtime, they establish strict safety guidelines when it comes to the workplace environment, and also standards the cars have to meet that they sell to the public. And it sure does seem to work without having to take over Honda. Yet it can't with health insurance?

IMO - the only reason the private health industry is getting away with what they do is because of  a corrupt government (politicians) that allows itself to be bought by the lobbyists that keep that oversight and regulation from becoming a reality.

I don't understand that the only resolution or answer to a problem or situation today seems to be a government takeover, as if the government will do a better or superior job? I guess that's why those trustee reports on Medicare and SSI tell us we are heading for the cliff because of gross government mismanagement and malfeasance by these same politicians that want to take over our health care.   

The American people want the government to intervene and fix health care; but not take it over.     

[Rojo]

I don't understand that the only resolution or answer to a problem or situation today seems to be a government takeover, as if the government will do a better or superior job? I guess that's why those trustee reports on Medicare and SSI tell us we are heading for the cliff because of gross government mismanagement and malfeasance by these same politicians that want to take over our health care.

Social Security's fine. It's imminent bankruptcy is just a right-wing bulls*** talking point.

Medicare's in danger because our current system is incredibly inflationary.

Nobody thinks that nationalization is always the answer.  On the other hand many think it's NEVER the answer -- so sure they are of the infallibilty of laissez-faire capitalism.

As a share of GDP, the US Government spends the same as Canada and Britain on healthcare yet only covers a fraction.  Wouldn't you rather spend roughly the same, cover everyone and not have to spend your hard earned money on premiums?  Check with Beck. I'll wait. 

[Falls City Beer]

The idea of a government takeover of medicine is a joke.  It's right-wing shorthand for something that will never happen.  The Obama administration wants to expand the power of insurance and pharma.  There's nothing "government-takeover" about it.  The Republican opposition to it has nothing to do with fear of government expansion and has everything to do with not getting a bigger slice of pharma and insurance campaign cash.  Their opposition is principle-less, it's purely cash-envy.

[GAC]

Social Security's fine. It's imminent bankruptcy is just a right-wing bulls*** talking point.

Yes, and those trustees whose job is to monitor those programs, and who prepared the reports that show them facing insolvency and very dire circumstances, are all rightwingers.   

[GAC]

This is what Madison thought about original intent- seems he wanted us to not look at the intent but the text of the document itself

But can the text of the document also reveal (betray) their original intent? I'm really not so much concerned about always trying to discover the Framer's original intent, as I am of the intent of those who want to keep reinterpreting it.   

Yes and no, if framers wanted their intentions explicitly followed, they would have explicitly stated laws and clauses in the Constitution. As it was, they wanted to leave future generations the opportunity to interpret as they saw fit.

And they did. For instance.... the first three Articles, and subsequent sections, establishes the three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary). It not only defines, but establishes the rules and guidelines for each, as well as what powers they are endued with, as well as limitations. Separation power, checks and balances.

And you're saying that is simply a matter of "interpretation", and the each successive generation can interpret it as they see fit?  

If each generation gets to re-write our Constitution based on the challenges they face, then which generation is in charge in any given point in our society?  My generation, or my father’s generation?  Which generation’s interpretation is to determine how our society is to be governed?

Madison also stated... "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

And the SC has the final word as far as any interpretation goes, and yes, there are two "camps" that argue on the methodology of interpretation. For  example...http://uanews.org/node/28202

I'm not a "strict Constitutionalist" in the sense that everything has to screened through the Constitution, simply because there are many matters that aren't even covered in the Constitution, and I've already acknowledged that societies change and evolve when it comes to various attitudes and behaviors. But that does not mean that the entire document is some ambiguous piece of paper, carrying very little weight, setting forth no sound or immutable principles, and is simply subject to the whims of each successive generation to reinterpret it as they see fit. And in that sense I agree with Scalia in the article...

Scalia, who emphasized that judges must be “consistent” in their decisions, was staunch in his argument that the Constitution must always be interpreted in ways that the nation’s founders would have had they been faced with the challenges of the times. Though Scalia said “there are enormous amounts of stuff that is constitutional and stupid,” in the context of interpreting the law, the act must be done “with some objective appeal, not based on how I subjectively feel.”

The risk, Scalia said, is that reinterpreting the Constitution with every shifting era further removes the nation from the standards originally set by the original authors, resulting in a constitutional document carrying a footnote that indicated the justices would decide what they saw fit.....“Do not believe that you have to modify the Constitution in order to change; to keep up to date,” Scalia said. “You can change as fast as you like through the legislature – pass a law.” This, he said, enables the Constitution to remain flexible, not rigidly defined.

[GAC]

It's Constitutional and a perfectly crappy idea.  Broadly the right wants the private market left alone

And that's nothing but a big, fat lie. We want the government to do what it exists and is empowered to do by the people it is suppose to represent... provide oversight and regulation (that authoritative arm with muscle) that protects it's citizenry, and insures that the practices and behavior of the private sector promotes the general welfare and benefit of the society as a whole. So it's not some exaggerated (by the far left) - "anything goes, keep your hands off".

I've stated before that a free market, capitalistic system is far from perfect, and that left unchecked it would result in "abuses" in various segments of that private sector that basically led us to where we are today. It's like trusting a habitual criminal to straighten up and fly straight, but putting nothing behind it. And of course to some the private sector is totally to blame and can never be trusted. Those "segments" did, got away with, what they were allowed to do by a government that refused to act on it's responsibilities because of politicians who were more concerned about their power and who was greasing their palms.       

[Dom Heffner]

GAC, there is a difference between what is Constitutional and what is theoretically a bad idea. Yes, it is Constitutional for the House to write legislation, vote on it, have the Senate take a turn and vote on it and then have the President sign it. If anything, they are working the Constitution as they should.

You can argue that it is a bad idea all you want, but voting and passing legislation in Congress is wholly Constitutional. If you get 200 odd House members and 50 senators and the President, youve passed the checks and balances test, unless the Supreme Court overrules you....

To sit here 200 plus years later and wonder what James Madison would have thought about health insurance is a bad idea, and it is why original intent, while sounding like a great idea, is a dangerous road in many cases. Not all, but in many it is.

Your point about government directing health care is wholly within bounds- the problem is that if government does not change it, then who? Us? Please elaborate, then, what we should do. Boycott? Nope. Demand? Nope. What then? As indiviudals we are powerless.

If anything government serves as a protectant of the people in situations exactly like this. Where we cannot do anything, the government can.

That is pretty idealistic, and believe me, this bill is not the answer and I know that. Rojo and FCB have made some pretty good points as to the reasons why.

But Congress does have the power to pass crappy legislation, they do. Look at the Iraq war.