Published: Friday, Nov. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Re: Twin Lights"Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't know
about this thing called the Federalist Papers . . ."Too bad the
Federalist Papers are simply opinions written by some people. They are not
representative of all the Founding Father's opinions. Other Founding
Fathers had different opinions. Too bad they are not official governement
documents either. Re: Mountanman"@ Roland. You
should consider moving to Cuba, N. Korea or Iran. They have lots of government
intervention! Just think how very happy you could be there with the government
controlling your life!"Why would Roland move to any of those
countries? He already lives in Utah, which does very well with their government
intervention controlling citizens' lives.
@red state pride12:20 p.m. Nov. 15, 2013@ Open minded Mormon-
how is it what Walmart does treasonous? [The FoundingFathers slapped
huge tariffs on foreign made goods -- they were smart enough to realize it was
the only way to stay a free and independant Nation.]My comment was
directed at Roland who...prefers (single payer)Of course they all want
single payer. [as do I - that explains us contributing to that 59%
who don't want Obamacare.]At least Conservatives are honest
about what they want and don't try to backdoor everything- [You
mean like when Sen. Mike Lee said he'd shutdwon the Government, and then he
said he didn't?]If you knew anything about 1776 you'd
know...[Benjamin Franklin went to England repreesenting the British
citizens in the Amwerican Colonies. He was berated, mocked, and ridiculed by the
"Lords" in Parliment, as being subhuman, told they were not British at
all. Franklin later wrote - "I went in as loyal citizen of Great Britan, I
went out an American." He returned and signed the Declartion of
Independance.]- unlike you I like free choice.[So, you now
support pro-choice, marijuana, and gay marriage?]
Truthseeker,I think it's kinda bogus to compare Governments and
Corporations as if they are the same (in your list of employers). Government
employers and corporate employers are obviously not an apple-apple comparison.
If it were... you could easily say the US Government was the biggest
employer.The DOD and the Red Army don't belong in the same list
as McDonalds and Walmart. Do you really think the Red Army or the DOD report
all their spending like a corporation on the stock exchange? Not hardly.If you combined all healthcare companies, clinics, hospitals, doctors,
nurses, etc, and all the insurance companies in the United States, and grouped
them into one big corporation (which is what the British health service is)...
It would be pretty big. I don't know if DOD or Red Army big... but
it's big.This may be fun to bicker about which is the biggest
employer... but it really has nothing to do with the topic.Regardless of whether the British health service is #3 or not... is it really
the role of a Constitutional Republic (like the US Government) to be running a
humungous Healthcare Company?
Don Olsen said in his letter:"The U.S. Constitution ... does not
grant the federal government the right to deal in the lives of
individuals."Get real Don.I avoided being DRAFTED
into the U S Army in 1973 by JOINING the U S Army Reserve. I, as an individual,
decided to have a little say in my life and fate. Being 1-A, and 22 years of
age at the time, my "federal government" had plans for my next 2 years.
I call that "deal"ing "in the lives of individuals".What do you think Don? Did the draft "deal in the lives of
Correction:The year was 1963. Sort of pre-Vietnam. Almost all of
my drill instructors had already been there as of the spring of 1964 at Fort
Ord, California. B-2-3.
Cavetroll,Sorry. I guess my sarcasm light was not on.My
point was that folks wax on and on and ON about the Constitution or the
Federalist Papers like they just discovered them in a box somewhere and are the
first to read them.The truth is there are folks on both sides of
nearly every issue who are quite familiar with these documents. That
familiarity does not provide us with a neat resolution to the issues we grapple
with.But, I do think the Federalist Papers are helpful for
understanding the founders' original intent. Not that that should be our
only guide, but it is helpful.Better?
@open minded mormon I'm pro-choice as long as the unborn baby also
gets a choice whether to live or die. I believe the decisions you present me
with should be left up to states and not forced down the throats of everyone in
a nation of 300 million people. I am personally opposed to legalized marijuana
but I think the citizens of the different states should decide that for
themselves. I have no problem with CO and Wa legalizing marijuana use. I am
personally opposed to gay marriage but if the people of Vermont for example
wants gay marriage more power to them. But as a good liberal you can't
tolerate people who don't think like you. You and your kind want to force
everyone into the same lousy health care system and to force everyone to accept
unlimited abortions, gay marriage etc It's true that those who preach
tolerance the loudest are always the most intolerant.
@Red State PrideSpeaking to you as one of the liberals you mentioned, let
me point out that gay marriage and marijuana are very different issues than
"forcing everyone into the same lousy healthcare system" What is your
solution to having the highest cost of coverage in the world? Every single
person in this country will eventually utilize the healthcare system, and
healthcare is expensive, and an unexpected illness could cost you thousands to
millions of dollars, ie, a broken leg treated at the ER without insurance is
going to be 5 grand, if you get severely burned or a flesh eating disease or
need a transplant you can rack up millions of dollars in medical expenses in a
couple months. And without insurance everyone else gets stuck with the bill. How
do you deal with this problem without everyone being covered? Whether it's
a free market solution like the ACA, a single payer, ie Medicare for all, or
universal healthcare(like the NHS in England) If you don't like those
options what do you do beside means testing before covering patients? Because
the old system isn't working for anyone.
"promote the general welfare""Your fear of Federal
intervention is unwarranted."Remember when a fire was used to
demonize a group of people (the communists) and the resultant fascist state that
arose. Words like these were used. Do I think we are headed the same
direction? Not sure, but I do see a dependent class that will accept anything
in exchange for a loaf of bread (Obama phone?). The conditions are being set
for the same kind of movement that gave rise to one of the most brutal regimes
in history. I pray that we are not headed in that direction but the
potentials are there.The solution is to maintain the idea of
negative rights for the government. John Roberts encroached on that fine line
with his ruling on the ACA. Sad.Now we have a president modifying
the law of the land without congressional approval (anybody remember the
"enabling act of 1933"?)I am not a revolutionary...I just
remember my history.
Therefore, health care should be a federal (inter-state) affair, available to
and paid for by all regardless of location, and free of interference from
states, employers or churches.
Let's see. The ACA was passed by the House and Senate. It was signed into
law by the President. Its constitutionality was challenged, and reviewed by the
Supreme Court. It was found constitution, in a decision written by the Chief
Justice. So, yeah, it's Constitutional, entirely and completely. Now, can we talk about something interesting?
@Mike in Cedar City: "... Aren't you forgetting about the preamble to
the constitution that authorizes the Federal Government to 'promote the
general welfare?'"Therein lies the problem. Obamacare is
'specific' welfare. 'General' welfare covers things like
assuring clean air/water (EPA), secure banks (FDIC), safe air travel (FAA),
regulated communications (FCC), secure borders (DHS), etc.@Roland
Kayser: "Average health care spending (insurance plus out of pocket costs)
per person was $8,508 in the U.S. in 2011...."The US is high
because of affluence. Americans have more money to spend on healthcare compared
to, say, New Zealand Maoris.@2 bits: "How is Obama improving
these figures?"Easy... he will decide who gets care...
especially when it comes to the elderly who've passed useful time of life
(called death panels). We know because Obama has already told these folks to...
'go home and pain a painkiller.' This will save billions since
oldsters require substantially more care.@Irony Guy: "A good
argument can be made that health care is interstate commerce and thus falls
under the purview of Congress."Congress is to
'regulate' not 'own' commerce. And only
@E Sam:"The ACA was passed by the House and Senate."... With absolutely zero, nil, nada Republican support or vote."Its constitutionality was challenged, and reviewed by the Supreme Court.
It was found constitution..."The court ruled only that the
'penalty' could be assessed and collected under constitutional taxing
authority as a 'tax.' The court held that the law could not be upheld
under the Commerce Clause, which was the government's primary argument in
its support. The court said, 'The Federal Government does not have the
power to order people to buy health insurance.'"Now, can we
talk about something interesting?"Yeah, let's talk about
immigration law... which Obama has not only completely ignored enforcement but
violated it by giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
@Samson01, Raising the Reichstag fire in the context of current
American politics requires considerable substantiation, not vague accusatory
whispers and comments about remembering history. I remember history too, and
more importantly I remember the context of that history. I get that people
feel strongly about the current administration. But if you're going to put
that sort of parallel out there, back it up.
When we say that we have too many governments, we are not just talking about the
federal, state, county and every neighborhood has a government, we also must
include religion, race, sex, school and business and also mom and dad. We need many different governments because we need to be controlled in
so many ways. Ideally we would divide the controlling influence between the
governments allowing each to control a specific area of our lives. Trouble is,
when we give someone the right to control our life, they often use that control
to glom onto our wealth. The real trouble comes when several of the governments
want to control the same areas of activity. We should have a
national referendum to change our Constitution to eliminate the excessive
governments and give us a plan for living in our century and not that of 200
years ago. The existing governments will never allow themselves
to be eliminated voluntarily, so it must be done by the people, hopefully by
vote but if necessary, by any means available. As alluded to in the
Declaration of Independence. Do you want to be an American or
governed by some other entity?
Truthseeker. The largest, organizations in the world are religions.
They control more money, more people and more land than any other government or
business operation. And they are dictatorial in their government.
Re:Res NovaeI am glad you are not ignorant to the events I was
alluding to. So...I assume you read the rest of my post as well.
The events I refer to indicate a pattern. I was expressing my fears that some
of the elements exist in our country today. Unfortunatley a four post limit at
200 words at a time do not do justice to any topic.I am assuming by
the tone of your response that you disagree with me? You said "But if
you're going to put that sort of parallel out there, back it up."I did give two examples of where I felt there were parallel events that
suggested steps outside of the bounds of the proper role of our leaders. I
could name many more. Do you disagree that our president has operated outside
the bounds of his appointed role? I hope that you will not cite the actions of
Bush because I believe that he stepped outside the bounds of his role as well.
We need to bring each branch of government back into their appropriate roles to
preserve our constitution. There have been many precedences set recently that
@Samson01, No, the give and take of branches of government has been
a feature throughout American history. The Reichstag fire has nothing in common
with that history. There is nothing like it in American history, except in the
minds of those who think the CIA killed Kennedy and the World Trade Center was
part of a Bush plot. You certainly have offered up nothing comparable to it.
Perspective is necessary. Finding fascism in the acts of our
leaders is a serious charge requiring substantiation. Invoking the spectre of
the Third Reich is irresponsible and inimical to the civil discourse our nation
Samson1,Please look up Godwin's Law.
You are right, 2Bits, it is not the words General Welfare that are in the
Preamble that are the point, it is the words General Welfare that is in Article
I, section 8 that is the issue: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; "".
. . provide for the common defense and general Welfare. . . "Now
we just have to define what "general Welfare" means. And how do you
think we do that? That's right, through SCOTUS. A procedure that is laid
out in the Constitution.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments