PPACA and Scotus

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.

That was why the Constitution was written because Conferacy was not bloody well working

You left of the bit about or the people since if this is a truly democratic republic eeven the states only have the powers that free citizens are willing to grant them. States Rights Shmates Rights, what about Peoples Rights?

If you're trying to make a point, I'm not following it. Are you denying that the constitution was intended to limit the power of the Federal gov't? Are you suggesting that the Feds can overturn the MA healthcare law without due process?

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The federal government can't seize your weapons, but the City of New York and Mayor Bloomberg can?

The short answer to your question is a simple "yes".

The long answer is that there is a process in place to determine whether or not rights are being violated where two or more parties are in disagreement. Unless the citizens in NY contest the City of NY, the city will continue to act in a way that may be contrary to the Constitution.

[piece-itpete]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,.....

.....

To raise and support Armies,......

.-.-.

Great taste - it's in there

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Pete

[merrylander]

I am suggesting (as do the 18 pages of James Madison's preface to His Notes of the debates of the 1787 Convention) that the real reason for writing the Constitution was quite simply the Confederacy was not working. The Conferate Congress had no compulsion, it was purely voluntary. States that had no access to ports were being taxed by the states through which they had to access the sea, as one example. The period from 1777 up until the Constitution was ratified was quite frankly a bloody farce.

Now you can go and buy your own copy and read the preface because I do not plan on typing out all eighteen pages.

It is/was published by W W Norton ISBN 0-393-30405-1 $14.95 entitled
Notes of debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison.

[piece-itpete]

I agree Rob but the Constitution was written and agreed upon.

If it fails in some way it needs to be amended....

Pete

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I am suggesting (as do the 18 pages of James Madison's preface toHis Notes of the debates of the 1787 Convention) that the real reason for writing the Constitution was quite simply the Confederacy was not working. The Conferate Congress had no compulsion, it was purely voluntary. States that had no access to ports were being taxed by the states through which they had to access the sea, as one example. The period from 1777 up until the Constitution was ratified was quite frankly a bloody farce.

Now you can go and buy your own copy and read the preface because I do not plan on typing out all eighteen pages.

It is/was published by W W Norton ISBN 0-393-30405-1 $14.95 entitled
Notes of debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison.

I don't disagree with any of the above. However, there's still the 10th Ammendment. I think it's there for reasons just like this.

[BlueStreak]

Here, you people need to relax. And it doesn't get any better than this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUJTT...eature=related

BTW, My Bottlehead Crack passed all of its resistance checks just now.

Once the finish on the box dries, I'll install tubes, flip it over and do voltage checks.

Then, you clowns will get to look at the pics............

But, I have to go back to work until Wednesday, so don't expect anything until then.

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't disagree with any of the above. However, there's still the 10th Ammendment. I think it's there for reasons just like this.

I seem to recall that the word "expressly" was stricken from the original wording of the Tenth.

Whatever, I still think that as its citiizens are any nation's greatest natural resource it is sheer foolishness not to care for that resource.

This constant harping on the Constitution as being expressly for the purpose of limiting the federal powers is utter nonsense.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I agree Rob but the Constitution was written and agreed upon.

If it fails in some way it needs to be amended....

Pete

So everytime something that was not very specifically referenced in the Constitution arises, and that the Framers could not possibly have envisaged we must do an ammendment. Ai Dios Mio, Congress gets bloody little done as it is.

[piece-itpete]

This isn't exactly a minor issue! If it takes time, it takes time. Otherwise the Constitution is completely useless, toilet paper.

Dave we're having a nice conversation Did you build the Crack yourself?

Pete