Vote

phospher wrote: Even sophisticated constitutional scholars who spend their entire careers studying Law, cannot agree on the interpretation of the Constition. Certainly this is not because it is well written.

I have to take offense at your bashing of the constition. I believe the authors where inspired and it remains as relevent today as the day it was written. The constitution is all based on individual rights (God created us all egual, so much for seperation of church and state.) So no one should have power over another for no one is superior. The authors saw government as neccesary but also as a source of power likely to be corrupted so they aimed to limit its size and scope. The document does not say much about what government can do, mostly what it cannot. The authors had the forsight to leave it adaptable but also warned that any changes should not be taken lightly. They also had the forsight to have the power split equally between the three legislative branches as a form of checks and balances. All pretty bright ideas and forward thinking for their time, or today. As far as scholars interpreting the constition, I can read the document and get its intentions. Scholars tend to know and think to much. They look for and ad thhings that where never there. It is hard to eliminate personal bias, as my writtings prove, most interprtos have their own biases and agendas and interpret the constition to fit. Every pay attention to majority and dessenting opinions of the supreme court. Ther are not always right answers but the cherry picked judges in the majority get to win. I would say the original document is sound along with most of the amendments, but it has been warped by years of interprettaions.

I would ask if this document is so bad who has a good one? and why did we become the richest and most powerful nation in only 210 or so years if we are operating on such poorly written guidelines.

Thanks Dave!

Ah, yes you are an attorney if I recall correctly?? I disagree with your take on it if the "document is sound" how can it be interepreted differently? Well written docs should be easy and concise. And, I would further say that there are a LOT of constitional attorneys who would disagree with you too. Again, if it was well written this wouldn't be.

As far as how we became the most powerful and rich nation. I think that might have something to do with imperialism and forcefully taking over land etc. We figured out how to turn oil into gas, cars, electricty, gold, and a bunch of other stuff we sold to the world. Are we really rich or is our money borrowed? I don't really know how rich we are....

folboteur wrote: [If it's any consolation prize, I also told my friend that your name is the most accurate. :-) Rob.

Hmmm, "Ouch" and "Good one" all at the same time. The screen name refers to my boat mechanics knowlege at the time I joined the site. If it had been a political site it would have been "Head of the Class" or maybe "Always Right".

My wife says when she met me she knew I was Mr. right, It was not untill we got married she found out my first name is Always.

Has anyone ever read the book entitled "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand? Published in 1957. It remains a best seller.
It is a fiction, but gives an insightful look at the powerful force of free enterprise. And how excessive government/political interference stifles the creative, job producing, economy building and prosperity producing efforts of entrepreneurial individuals.
I highly recommend it.

jimsport93 wrote: Has anyone ever read the book entitled "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand? Published in 1957.

Second only to invoking Hitler, references to "Atlas Shrugged" usually mark the end of civil discourse in a political discussion.   I have read Atlas Shrugged, and all the way through the 1,000 plus pages I had this niggling feeling that something just wasn't right.

The premise is of a "self-made" superman, who has everything he has as a result of of personal effort, brains, skill, etc. Rand glosses over any question of how her hero acquired his Steel mine, or any other of his possessions. She completely ignores, however, the thing that JoeInNY pointed out in yesterday's 11:59a.m. post -- much of what a person is able to achieve is enabled by the society in which they live. The laws an regulations that make it possible to grow and be educated largely unmolested, not as a slave, in prosperity rather than slums or "company-towns."

Rand fosters this "I got mine all by myself so I owe nothing to nobody, F*** you and leave me alone" mentality that is negligent/naive/forgetful at best and sociopathic at worst.

Bottom line, try to argue the points rather than appeal to a book for justifications for your beliefs. (Goes for the Bahble Thumpers, too.) :-)

Hansel wrote: OverMyHead wrote: But taking money from someone else to pay anothers medical insurance directly conflicts with their ability to pursue happiness. so health care is not a right. Who is "their"? Whose ability to pursue happiness are we focusing on here? Your's or everybody else's? By your logic above, the converse must also be true. Thus holding on to your money to not pay for my medical insurance directly conflicts with my ability to pursue happiness. So you have no right to your money. So which one is right?

You missed the fine print. Happiness is not quarenteed, who could ever do that? But the pursuit is. Taking from another messes with their pusuit.

OverMyHead wrote: Quarenteed life liberty and the persuit of happiness. These are rights and by definition one right cannot superceed or conflict with another.

Well, no.. If your pursuit of happiness ruins someone else's pursuit of life, there is a situation requiring the "community" come to together to deal with the conflict. We do this in courts and laws and society, every day.

OverMyHead wrote: So we are guarenteed life. No one can take it from us. so murder is illegal. Some say the guarentee of life should guarentee health care. But taking money from someone else to pay anothers medical insurance directly conflicts with their liberty and ability to pursue happiness, so health care is not a right.

Reading this logical chain, I had a flashback to Monty Python's "Holy Grail," the witch scene.

BTW, who posted that Democrats don't have jobs. That was a brilliant start to the discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI

OverMyHead wrote: Hansel wrote: OverMyHead wrote: But taking money from someone else to pay anothers medical insurance directly conflicts with their ability to pursue happiness. so health care is not a right. Who is "their"? Whose ability to pursue happiness are we focusing on here? Your's or everybody else's? By your logic above, the converse must also be true. Thus holding on to your money to not pay for my medical insurance directly conflicts with my ability to pursue happiness. So you have no right to your money. So which one is right? You missed the fine print. Happiness is not quarenteed, who could ever do that? But the pursuit is. Taking from another messes with their pusuit.

I hate to get into this, and note that I edited the initial post to clarify my argument.

It seems to me that you are more closely identifying money with the pursuit of happiness than any other thing. I think there are lots of other things that make up the pursuit of happiness. Such as being healthy. Therefore, doesn't it make sense that universal health care is just as constitutional as anything?

Does not being happy require so much more than money?

Well it's about time we get some different view points around here. Can't wait to hear from Skicat.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your replies.

Many rights can and do conflict with one another all the time. Let's face it; we all pay money to help other people pursue happiness every day. Yes, at some point you have to draw the line, but I don't think it is out there to say health care should be a priority of the government. In fact, I would argue that it is more in keeping with the ideal of the pursuit of happiness for government to do everything it can to see that the basic needs of all of it's citizens are met. In the 21st Century, that means accessible health care to everybody, IMHO.

Debating with Phil and now his buddy is like wrestling with a pig in the mud...

This thread started by encouraging people to go out and vote. As far as Republicans go, Maine will be a good state to watch to see how they do because they took the governor, house and senate for the first time since 1962. But unlike Obama who promised more than he could possibly deliver, they have only promised a friendier business envoirment and smaller government.

Hansel wrote: Hi Dave, Thanks for your replies. Many rights can and do conflict with one another all the time. Let's face it; we all pay money to help other people pursue happiness every day. Yes, at some point you have to draw the line, but I don't think it is out there to say health care should be a priority of the government. In fact, I would argue that it is more in keeping with the ideal of the pursuit of happiness for government to do everything it can to see that the basic needs of all of it's citizens are met. In the 21st Century, that means accessible health care to everybody, IMHO.

Sorry to skip out so suddenly. I went to volunteer at my daughters school. I know I am a greedy republican and schools are government funded, but I like helping them meet their goals with out passing another referendom. I waited tables at a spaghette dinner for 3 hours. Very nice and appreciative customers. I enjoyed it.

I didnt mind Phil and friend, I get tired of preaching to the choir.


IMHO the problem is everyone thinks that what is their humble opinion should be or is in ths constitution. Health care , medicare, social security are all inventions of the last 3/4 century. This country went over 150 years without them. Charity and social programs were privatly funded or provided by churches or in many cases neighboors saw the need and picked up the slack.Some people even took personal responsibility for themselves. The idea that this stuff was in the constition is crazy. Like I said, lawyers have twisted and streched it to say things never even referenced.

How many here have read the entire constitution? Declaration of Independance? Bible? I set out to read them all a few years back and am proud to say I completed them. I am amazed at how few people I ask have done even one of them. I am also amazed these founding documents are not taught in our schools, we do teach how to use condoms and read books about alternative families, I am sure they are just to busy for the constitution.

they were a road map to guide for the time, imagine if they wernt written? but again, crude for todays standards, but it was a basis and the start of what we know as the government.
i just see a dead stalemate for the next 2 years, the thing i do see not happening is the spending which I believe is crucial in any economy inside of our walls. Joe pretty much hit the nail on the head though.

folboteur wrote: OverMyHead wrote: Quarenteed life liberty and the persuit of happiness. These are rights and by definition one right cannot superceed or conflict with another. Well, no.. If your pursuit of happiness ruins someone else's pursuit of life, there is a situation requiring the "community" come to together to deal with the conflict. We do this in courts and laws and society, every day. [

I found a PDF of the constitution this morning and searched the word community, it came up empty!