• Answers
  • Web
Answer 4 out of 4
 
11 helpful answers
A:

Bruce, Those articles do not give them the right to legislate what is good for us. The articles were vague, thus the Amendments. The 4th amendment assures us of the right to be secure in our persons, possessions, papers, and properties from any intrusion or interference by the government. It includes but is not limited to improper, or illegal search, and siezure. This is in "A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States" by Hon. Joseph Story, Justice of the Supreme Court 1811-1845, with a forward by Hon Edwin Meese III former Supreme Court Justice. It is a 400 page+ textbook. The Articles you mentioned are in the original document before the amendments were written to explain the rights, and limitations of the Government. Once ratified they became law. It is in the explanation of the 4th amendment that leads one to interpret the right to be secure in your person, property, papers, possessions from government interference as prohibiting them from attempting to control us as "subjects". FREE, so to speak. This is why I said in my original question that it "Appears to give." The clause concerning illegal, or improper search, and siezure is to prevent them from building a criminal case against a citizen without probable cause, and proper evidence. The founding fathers sacrificed, and suffered to give us a system that was free of the intrusion, and control that they were living under. You appear to believe that we will be better off if they have the power to tell you what you need to be happy. How does freedom fit into that? Where do you think that will lead, or end. Look at the corruption that exists on both sides now. Can't you see that both sides have been playing us. They have become both sides of a dirty coin. Barack Obama is being driven by the same entities that drove every president since LBJ except Reagan, and he was shot. As long as they can keep the people divided they can get away with almost anything. I fully realize that the "previous administration had it's problems with corruption, and I am fully aware, and thoroughly pissed about the damage that corporate greed has done to this country. BUT...we can't change what was. We CAN change what is. Bitching about what WAS is pure folly, and bound to keep you from fixing what is. What we are up against now will require total focus, and dedication. It will not be pretty, and will not be achieved by bellicose rants, and half loaded guns. We have a Government to reclaim "For the People, By the People, so it truly can be "Of the People", instead of "Of the 535, By the 535, for the 535." The grip of the "Inside the Beltway" crowd of self-serving career politicians that speak out of the side of their mouth with their hand out to the citizenry. I personally want ALL illegals out of this country. This situation is a joint venture between corrupt corporate ceo's, and corrupt career politicians to import a labor, and merchant force that will not complain about corruption. Both Parties are complicit in this. Many of the Pakistanis here are still active Pak Military. I have been told by many of them that this is so. There was a raid on a Pakistani business owner's house in N.E. Arkansas three months ago that netted $50,000,000 worth of military hardware. Much of it American. That doesn't happen without some level of Government complicity. There is MUCH going on here that you apparently aren't aware of. This is not your fault. Our society is shaped, and steered by the TV. Lots of bells, whistles, bright colors, shiny cars, and the like. That's how we get a president as well. This President was elected with money from questionable sources, i.e. ACORN, which by the way was started, and funded by the Bush Administration, the SEIU, a socialist run Union, and people like George Soros...A man that has admitted he intends to "Break Us". My dad used to say "Listen to what's being said, not the words that are being used." Pay attention to the real issues. Here's one to keep up on. The Geneva Accord coming up soon. If Obama signs on to the Global Warming Scam...and it IS a scam, then we will all be paying a penalty tax to a European World Government for CO2 emissions. He will put  us under a WORLD GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY!!! Aren't your Taxes high enough now? I implore you to take a more rounded look at what's happening. I believe your desire to do good, and trust the Government stems from true concern, but you are misguided. It's not the system that needs changing...just the people managing it. RE-ELECT NO-ONE!!

Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer

7 Comments About This Answer Add a comment

 
the bruce

Keerdawg,

That was better than your other 7 paragraphs, closing with your going to come for me.

Just a few points:

I have the original constitution with all the amendments and my answers were correct in there entirety. Perhaps you should rephrase your question.

The facts are these:

  • We have the government that we have, greed and corruption and all.
  • We have the Private sector that we have, greed and corruption and all.

Would I like to see sweeping changes in both, yes I would. But that is not going to happen.

What is going to happen, as it has happened through out our history, is the pendulum will swing back and forth and we will continue to react only when it swings to far to one side or the other.

So, get a grip and think about what you want to say. Then say it. Vote at the ballot box, vote with your money (where and what you spend it on) and stop threatening people.

the bruce

 

 
kerrdawg

Bruce, my question was worded exactly as I wanted, and you still haven't answered it. The articles you used say nothing about the authority, only the procedure that the branches must use. As far as the facts you put forth...thank you professor obvious. At least you got those two right. If you really wanted to see changes you would not exibit such a defeatist attitude. Perhaps the Captain was right about liberals. Is it a fear of defeat, or just too much trouble to fight for what's right? It is precisely people like you that give the corruption in Business,AND Government free rein. Everybody would like to SEE changes. That doesn't make them change. It takes effort, dedication, and sacrifice to change things. If you are going to wait until all that is left is RE-ACTION then you are complicit in the suffering of everyone else up to that point. I have a firm grip. Much firmer than any person that is afraid to get involved. I also said what I wanted, exactly as I wanted. You are the one with the slippery grip. If you believe the government should be allowed to mandate health insurance, then surely you won't mind if they mandate earthquake insurance for residents of Alabama, or blizzard insurance for the residents of Florida, maybe hurricane insurance for Arizona, flood insurance for Nevada. It won't matter that these things never happen there. Under the auspices of this healthcare plan you would have to pay for it anyway to cover those that do live there, but can't afford it. If you choose not to participate in the program your taxes will go up as a penalty for not buying their insurance. This will be to cover the people you elected not to pay for, plus enough to cover any fines, and fees. Is this OK with you?  By the way...who are you...a reactionary liberal non participant who is afraid of face to face confrontation to lecture me about how to make a difference? The threat I made is to anyone that will participate in, or stand by and watch as our freedom, rights, and soveriegnty are taken from us. Especially by Marxists, Muslims, and Socialists. Your President is all three. If you are one of those you can change the expression from threat to promise. And you still haven't answered my initial question. Typical Liberal.

 
the bruce

Keerdawg,

The text outlined in Article 1, section 1, is procedural in nature and it also established base authority.

Article 1, section 8, established the areas of legislative authority. Now I know old English can be difficult to interpret for some, but the language is clear enough. The congress can legislate for the common welfare of the nation.

Health care is clearly in realm of the common welfare of the nation and as such, answers your question without dispute, except for your continual effort to explain it away.

My only conclusion for your attempts to say that Article 1, sections 1 & 8 do not authorize the house to legislate health care reform is that the words health care reform are not in the constitution.

If that is your assertion, say it, so we can all understand your intellectual limitations and account for them in our responses to your questions.

Tell me what a defeatist attitude as interpreted by you about my positions have to do with your question. It seems that part of your comment is off point.

Regarding your other comments in your rather rambling statement:

My preferences regarding mandates is:

I would prefer they were not necessary, however, the precedent has already been set and is operational in most areas governing our national society.

We already have mandated insurances, mandated taxes and a myriad of laws (which are mandates) that govern virtually every action we take as a society and impact us directly as individuals.

I see very little difference between Health care mandates and automobile insurance mandates.

But apparently, you do.

Please explain what you see as the differences in those two mandates and if you can, expand on others. Preferably in 50 words or less.

Oh, do try to stay on point as I would prefer not to have to organize your thoughts in a coherent fashion in order to generate a reasonable response.

the bruce

 

 
kerrdawg

Well the,

Apparently you do have a comprehension problem. My comparison between health, and other mandatory out of pocket insurance programs was to point out that there is no difference. My point was to show that once they mandate one, then it's only a matter of time before they mandate another insurance, then another. My contention is that none of them are Constitutional. All rights given to Congress are to serve the public good, not personal health, and safety. To believe otherwise is to leave us open to their mandating solar screen to protect yourself from UV, and being forced to buy it from them, or some other silly personal safety issue. A line must be drawn. You are listening to words, and not the meaning. Their purpose is to legislate laws that keep all States uniform in trade, and human rights, and outline States Rights, and Responsibilities to the Federal Government. The very reason we have a Constitution is to limit government control over us as individuals. Everyone understands that insurance is beneficial, and important, so are seat belts, and helmets, but it is not the Government's job to make it law. If you want health insurance, get a job, and buy it. If you can't or won't, then be ready to live with the consequences of your decisions. If health care is made law the insurance companies will not go broke. On the contrary. They will be able to increase their rates to build an elite client base, and everyone else would be relegated to overburdened, understaffed, sub-standard facilities. If it is not law, the market could control cost. They would have to maintain a more reasonable rate to keep a client base...as long as the interstate trade law (Federal) was repealed. It is not up to me, or anyone else to pay for you. Maybe you want to pay for health care for prostitutes, and abortions, Drug dealers, and Illegal aliens but any sensible person that has worked for what they have do not. You are the one that has a problem staying on point. Possibly because of the liberal glaze over your eyes. I asked a simple question looking for a specific issue. Healthcare is only the means. The end is intrusion into our personal business. I re-assert that there is NO place in our Constitution, Amendments, or the bill of rights that gives Congress that power. Again I will say...That represents the type of Government power that we revolted against, leading to the Declaration of Independence, then the Constitution. You need to get out more...see a little of the real world. Try China, or maybe any of the Former Soviet States. You'll love it there.

     I do thank you for giving me your opinion. It has stoked my desire to find a qualified authority for my answer. You are entertaining despite your liberal slant. You are obviously more intelligent and informed than others of your ilk even if a bit misguided. I think there is hope for you yet. Unless you are forty or over.

 
Capt. Conservative (thinks this answer is Helpful)
  • We have the government that we have, greed and corruption and all.
  • We have the Private sector that we have, greed and corruption and all.

Ahhh ... There is protection from "Greed & Corruption" in the private sector.

Who Protects "US" from the Government ????

 
the bruce

Keerdawg,

Interesting, so your long drawn out diatribe is to establish that the government should not be doing what it is doing.

Yet you started this whole question with your statement that the constitution does not give the government the right to do these things, which, in fact, it does. But that does not seem to satisfy your argument as your point has many other positions, left to the imagination.

Well, I see your ability to build a case is very strange indeed. Perhaps you should take some time and process what you are trying to say, before you say it.

It helps others understand more clearly your positions.

the bruce 

 
the bruce

Capt. Conservative,

Your kidding, right.

the bruce

 
Comment About This Answer (or add your own answer)

Feed - Subscribe to changes to this Q&A Blog
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Answers
  • Web
Copyright © 2006-2010, Yedda Inc. and respective copyright owners