I used "Animal Farm" because it is an example of the 'living constitution' philosophy that some have. Ignore the law (rules), change the laws to fit your needs to keep youself in power. If they are such great ideas, follow the rules. The AGs of several states have it right, the health bill is unconstitutional, unless you believe in the 'living constitution' philosophy.

 

But isn't the Amendment process of the Constitution an example that the document is a living one?

 

Now I know this current move is not an Amendment but I'm speaking in terms of the flexibility of the document itself rather than this specific instance. But if we want specifics that speak to it's "living document" status wouldn't the repeal of slavery and the subsequent Amendments be such a testimony? Those were powers delegated to the states prior to the amendments. When passed, those Amendments changed those powers in that catagory.

What's your point? It's not law. We're discussing a bill that is now law, the Declaration of Independence isn't law.

As they already explained, it's part of what our founding fathers' vision for this country, based on the words they recorded.

There are too many that have little or no understanding of how our government is too work. They know a bit of history and like the 'pigs' in "Animal Farm" they twist the meaning in whatever direction they want it to go and make-up situations to fit their needs.

Then perhaps further study would make things clearer for you. :thumb:

 

 

And before anyone tries to pigeonhole me: I'm not in favor of the bill either.

Life is a right. Everyone has the right to live, however that right is only to the extent of their means. If you can't afford health insurance, not the taxpayers problem. In a utopian society this would all be great, grand, and wonderful, but that's not how the world works. There will always be rich people, poor people, the haves, the have nots, the healthy, the sick, the strong, and the weak. Those that can survive, do, those that can't, don't. The human species is no different from any other animal species on this planet. It's simply survival of the fittest.

I don't believe that it is a violation.

 

I used "Who Moved My Cheese" for the simple reason that some of the mice in the book are an example of people who are resistant to change, refusing to consider expanding their horizons, in anticipation that if they refuse to change, everything will return to the way they are used to.

 

I have supported some changes, but not this unconstitutional bill. I am for tort reform, allowing the selling of insurance across state lines, and finding someway of helping those with long term illneses. While not I'm not a big fan of allowing a parent keeping their children on their plans, I'll accept that one.

 

This bill is unconstutional as it forces people like me to pay for someone else's health care. To me that is taking away my freedoms now that I am forced to help others make a living. I am willing to help others, but that is my decision, not the government. The liberal Dems ignored the call for some basic changes, instead going for this bill that calls for more government control. Which is their true goal.

Life is a right. Everyone has the right to live, however that right is only to the extent of their means. If you can't afford health insurance, not the taxpayers problem. In a utopian society this would all be great, grand, and wonderful, but that's not how the world works. There will always be rich people, poor people, the haves, the have nots, the healthy, the sick, the strong, and the weak. Those that can survive, do, those that can't, don't. The human species is no different from any other animal species on this planet. It's simply survival of the fittest.

 

 

Well said. :thumb:

As they already explained, it's part of what our founding fathers' vision for this country, based on the words they recorded.

I think people are trying to make it mean what they want it to mean. The "right" to insurance is not part of the Declaration of Independence. If it was it would have said - "Life, liberty, insurance and the pursuit of happiness".

Life is a right. Everyone has the right to live, however that right is only to the extent of their means. If you can't afford health insurance, not the taxpayers problem. In a utopian society this would all be great, grand, and wonderful, but that's not how the world works. There will always be rich people, poor people, the haves, the have nots, the healthy, the sick, the strong, and the weak. Those that can survive, do, those that can't, don't. The human species is no different from any other animal species on this planet. It's simply survival of the fittest.

Ding, Ding Ding! We have a winner, and one that understands. :thumb:

Those that can survive, do, those that can't, don't. The human species is no different from any other animal species on this planet. It's simply survival of the fittest.

Then we cease to be human. Out humanity is that which sets us apart from the animals. If you strip us of that most basic attribute, we can no longer consider ourselves the most evolved species, and cannot possibly maitain any shred of a society.

I have supported some changes, but not this unconstitutional bill. I am for tort reform, allowing the selling of insurance across state lines, and finding someway of helping those with long term illneses. While not I'm not a big fan of allowing a parent keeping their children on their plans, I'll accept that one.

 

This bill is unconstutional as it forces people like me to pay for someone else's health care. To me that is taking away my freedoms now that I am forced to help others make a living. I am willing to help others, but that is my decision, not the government. The liberal Dems ignored the call for some basic changes, instead going for this bill that calls for more government control. Which is their true goal.

 

I have some provisional reservations about certain aspects of the bill as well, but I don't find it unconstitutional at all.

 

How is this any more unconstitutional than social aid programs already in place? If the rallying cry is going to be the uncostitutionality of the legislation, then I suggest they take on the whole kit and kaboodle, because this isn't the worst of all the programs we have in place.

Well isn't this interesting....

 

By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

 

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm?csp=hf

 

 

About as interesting as this:

 

50% oppose

38% favor

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rfvr13o8CUiA

But isn't the Amendment process of the Constitution an example that the document is a living one?

 

Now I know this current move is not an Amendment but I'm speaking in terms of the flexibility of the document itself rather than this specific instance. But if we want specifics that speak to it's "living document" status wouldn't the repeal of slavery and the subsequent Amendments be such a testimony? Those were powers delegated to the states prior to the amendments. When passed, those Amendments changed those powers in that catagory.

 

Amendments are a working process of the Constitution. Making up rights, like health care, which is not in the Constitution, is an example of a 'living constitution. Change the basic document by using the process that is given to you, not by making up imaginary rights like they did in "Animal Farm".

I have some provisional reservations about certain aspects of the bill as well, but I don't find it unconstitutional at all.

 

How is this any more unconstitutional than social aid programs already in place? If the rallying cry is going to be the uncostitutionality of the legislation, then I suggest they take on the whole kit and kaboodle, because this isn't the worst of all the programs we have in place.

 

We let the genie out of the bottle years ago and we are paying for it today. Look at all these social programs and they all have huge deficeits. We do not need to add more ill-advised programs to the list, no matter how well intentioned.

It has not had time to be the worst and it has some real competition to be the worst. Even if it only gets to 10th place, it is still a bad bill.

Then we cease to be human. Out humanity is that which sets us apart from the animals. If you strip us of that most basic attribute, we can no longer consider ourselves the most evolved species, and cannot possibly maitain any shred of a society.

 

If I were advocating ceasing to help those in need, you may have a point. One of the great things that make up our humanity is the ability to choose. More often then not, when faced with choices, the human race makes the right choice. By forcing us to pay for this, where is our choice? If I know someone that is sick and struggling, will I turn my back on them? Absolutely not, I'll do whatever I can to help them, but we at least need to have a choice in the matter.

Then we cease to be human. Out humanity is that which sets us apart from the animals. If you strip us of that most basic attribute, we can no longer consider ourselves the most evolved species, and cannot possibly maitain any shred of a society.

Bottom line is it's not our government's role to take care of us, not it's place to see to it that we all get health care insurance. That's something that's our own responsibility.