hugo

What I tell them is that is what amendments are for. The founding fathers put in a process to legally change the Constitution when a large majority wanted it changed.

Quote: I don't think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don't study the Constitution itself. Robert Bork I would like to come back to this. If you study the arguments during the Constitutional convention and the ratifying process. If you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers it is impossible not to conclude that the federal welfare state is grossly unconstitutional and that judicial opinions have perverted the Constitution into a document the authors would not recognize. Sadly, the anti-federalists ended up being right, From article by "Brutus", most likely Robert Yates, during the ratification process: Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.

It took the Protestant Reformation and the following Enlightenment to pacify the Christian world. Islam has not had its enlightenment. A respect for individual liberty is a neccesary condition of a civilized nation.

The fact is healthcare sources are limited and "free" healthcare must be rationed; as it is in every country with socialized medicine. The reason we have had healthcare costs rising much higher than the rate of inflation is partially due to the aging population, but mainly due to government subsidizing healthcare at a faster rate than it is rationing it. This can not go on forever. A simple look at the mounting unfunded liabilities of existing government healthcare programs will tell you that. Right now I see the most likely way government will ration is by taxing unhealthy items (sodas, red meat, etc) and by lowering the payments to medical facilities to the point that many will stop providing the procedure. This will cause the same waiting lists you find in nations that practice socialized medicine. Thus reducing costs when people either die or seek a private option. Tort reform will eventually become a neccessity, but it will come, only after, a more conservative government is elected to reign back the huge healthcare deficits which make our SS and national deficit look mild in comparison. The Dems won't leave their trial lawyers hurting. High taxes on alcohol is almost a given.

The problem with the responsibility argument is the left argues we (the taxpayers)are responxible to insure the less fortunate receive healthcare. It is individual reponsibility that should be the backside of individual liberty. If I am responsible for your healthvare costs I do not want you riding a motorcycle or eating a greasy cheeseburger. The notion we have a collective responsibility is leading us down the road to serfdom.

Robert Bork

Why we need a constitution: “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill “In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority” Edmund Burke “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” John Fitzgerald Kennedy “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

Of course, there are those who argue the Hamiltonian, as opposed to Madison/ Jefferson, view of the Constitution allows for greater expansion of federal powers: Quotes from Hammy: In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will. No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute. If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws. It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the state governments will in all possible contingencies afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. If the Constitution is adopted the Union will be in fact and in theory an association of States of a Confederacy

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791. "Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. Sadly, if I refuse to pay SS and Medicaid taxes a man with a gun will eventually show up at my door.

Our founding fathers went to war over a lot less. Why are we a nation of morons? Might have something to do with our kids being educated by a left wing teachers union.

Also read Federalist Paper #41 The Federalist #41

If I ever stooped to doing innately enjoyable activities: Take me ,,,,,, out to the ballgame to the pub for beer and a burger a museum to Barnes and Noble to read books without paying for them(!) to the Frio River in the Texas Hill Country. La Salsas Mexican Restaurant, food is mediocre (I usually just drink there), the people are great and the margaritas are good and cheap.

I only go to places where I can commit good deeds and acts of charity. I do not go anywhere where I myself find the activity innately enjoyable. It is only when I see the joy of others that I can be truly happy. I'm a saint. I also have an enormous penis.

While most of Obamacare has gone down the tubes we must remember we are one heartbeat away from the oligarchs reading a right to healthcare in the Constitution.

The religion of peace strikes again.

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can Barry Goldwater 1964 Can you imagine any candidate, other than Ron Paul, running on that platform today. Another Barry quote: "And here we encounter the seeds of government disaster and collapse -- the kind that wrecked ancient Rome and every other civilization that allowed a sociopolitical monster called the welfare state to exist."

Ditto. Cell phones are for when your car breaks down.

I think merc said it best, "That old bastard should be beaten to death with a wet noodle."

Is Bud kosher?

Read it again, snaf.

The man has already been convicted, just not extradited. The question of guilt has already been determined.

Have a great one!

"The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as, war peace negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties on the people". - James Madison in the Federalist Papes "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." – James Madison\ Our whole federal welfare state, medicaid, medicare, social security, et all, is unconstitutional under any rational interpretation of the Constitution.

American Idea by Walter E. Williams Americans are harder workers, more philanthropic, individualistic, self-reliant, anti-government than people in most other countries. We?ve turned what was an 18th-century Third World nation into the freest and most prosperous nation in mankind?s entire history. Throughout our history, United States has been a magnet for immigrants around the world. What accounts for what some have called American exceptionalism? We Americans, as human beings, are no different from any other people, including Germans, Russians, Chinese, Africans and other people who have produced tyrannical regimes such as those of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Idi Amin. As such we are just as capable of committing acts of gross evil that have been a part of mankind throughout his history. We?ve not been a perfect nation but we?ve never approached the level of hideousness seen in other nations. That?s despite the fact that our population consists of people who have for centuries been trying to slaughter one another in their home countries, whether it?s between the French and Germans, English and Irish, Japanese and Chinese, or Palestinians and Jews, Igbos and the Hausa of Nigeria. Thrown into the American mosaic are religions that have been in conflict for centuries such as Catholic and Protestant, and Christian and Muslim. The question is: Why is the United States an exception and will it remain so? At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today?s Americans. Some of the founders? distrust is seen in our Constitution?s language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution?s separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution. The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution? That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they?re Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not. What Congress does have is the brute force to enforce compliance with their unconstitutional acts. You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the enumerated activities therein. Every American is duty bound to pay his share. Congress has neither constitution nor moral authority to take the earnings of one American for the benefit of another American. What do you think will happen to you if don?t comply, say with Congress' demand that part of your earnings be taken to bail out a failing business? You?ll see all the brute force that you want to see and if you resist too much, death is not off the table. We are losing what?s made our country great. Instead of moving toward greater liberty, we?re moving toward greater government control of our lives.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyPqr97qVYk]YouTube - Dumb People Doing Funny Stuff[/ame]