What? No government shutdown threads?

[Matt1970]

I think my position has always been quite clear: I don't really care that much about what the founding fathers thought as I think the meaning of the constitution should be interpreted by the people currently living under it. They were wrong about a lot of things.

Conservatives as a general rule think of it differently and prefer to look to the founders for constitutional meaning. I would think that it is a reasonable assumption that they viewed the law they passed as constitutional. If you think we should look to them as to what is and is not constitutional, that seems important.

The thing is there weren't wrong about much at all. That document still holds up over 200 years later.

 

[kia75]

THIS is what is wrong with America. Gov't lovers like eski and other liberals don't really care about the Founding Fathers thought process and ideas when it comes to the Constitution. I chalk it up to poor parenting and education that we have people like them walking around. My two oldest have had enough history in school to know the basics and I quiz them on it to make sure they really understand. My kids won't grow up to ignore the Constitution and it's intentions...

Ignore the intention of being able to own other people? The intention of not having women vote? To have the Vice President be of a different party then the president?

You speak of the Founding Fathers as a monolithic group but in reality they were conflicted. Some opposed slavery, others were for it. Some wanted a stronger central government, others wanted greater states rights. Heck, a major part of creating a constitution was the compromise between two sides, which is why we have a house and a senate (house for popular, senate for states) as a compromise. There's even a section of the constitution called the 3/5th COMPROMISE!

The Founding Fathers were in disagreements regarding all sorts of things regarding government but the one thing they agreed on was that the constitution was a living document, to be changed and updated as time went on. That's why they added the Bill of rights (originally not part of the constitution), that's why they changed how the VP was elected, why the constitution has been changed numerous times in the past 200 years, and why it will be changed again.

It's clear that you have little understanding of the constitution and what the founding father's intended.

 

[ElFenix]

you're only required to have health insurance in the same mechanism and manner that your'e required to have a mortgage with large interest payments.

<--- childless, mortgageless, f-ed on taxes.

 

[Texashiker]

What parts of the ACA do you think still need to be litigated? Please be specific. You can't say "the whole thing". What provisions?

In response to the British sailing up the Mississippi to invade New Orleans, did the militia led by Andrew Jackson bring their insurance cards or their muskets?

Since health insurance is just as important as an armed militia, surely they brought both?

 

[TerryMathews]

What parts of the ACA do you think still need to be litigated? Please be specific. You can't say "the whole thing". What provisions?

Well, for one you're making this a personal vendetta of mine when it isn't.

That said, it seems to me that not allowing risk based pricing on any factor but tobacco use will probably not stand once challenged.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

One thing about the shutdown: The House Republicans sent an offer over to the Senate to not shut down if the Democrats would give up their Obamacare subsidies. The Democrats in the Senate voted to keep their subsidies..elections have consequences.

Wow...that's sure not going to help Dem Senators up for reelection in 2014. People hate this kind of crap and Republicans will no doubt use this vote as fodder for some very ugly campaign ads.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, for one you're making this a personal vendetta of mine when it isn't.

That said, it seems to me that not allowing risk based pricing on any factor but tobacco use will probably not stand once challenged.

What provision of the constitution would that violate?

 

[kia75]

The thing is there weren't wrong about much at all. That document still holds up over 200 years later.

Are you serious? It didn't even last 2 years. The Constitution was created in 1787, the Bill of Rights were added in 1789. Which is why the founding fathers made it a living document. They saw England and how England's laws hadn't changed to reflect the new and changing world and decided that their constitution would keep up with the times. Which was pretty darn smart of them, because if they couldn't have changed the constitution it would have only lasted 2 years.

They got several things wrong, like how to elect the Vice President, but due to it being a living constitution they were able to fix their mistakes. If we're talking about what the Founding Fathers "intended" then they never intended for right to bear arms (2nd AMENDMENT) or free speech (1st AMENDMENT) or women to vote (19TH AMDENDMENT).

 

[TerryMathews]

Wow...that's sure not going to help Dem Senators up for reelection in 2014. People hate this kind of crap and Republicans will no doubt use this vote as fodder for some very ugly campaign ads.

As they should.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL

Uno

Back in the day little flyers like that were called propaganda. I see that shit still works. Good job!

 

[fskimospy]

Wow...that's sure not going to help Dem Senators up for reelection in 2014. People hate this kind of crap and Republicans will no doubt use this vote as fodder for some very ugly campaign ads.

You realize what a completely pointless and terrible idea that amendment was, right? I mean there's a reason why the Republicans had to send their own staffers out of the room when discussing it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You realize what a completely pointless and terrible idea that amendment was, right? I mean there's a reason why the Republicans had to send their own staffers out of the room when discussing it.

I think it was a brilliant move and they shouldn't compromise an inch. I wonder who's side the public will take? Hmmm.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you serious? It didn't even last 2 years. The Constitution was created in 1787, the Bill of Rights were added in 1789. Which is why the founding fathers made it a living document. They saw England and how England's laws hadn't changed to reflect the new and changing world and decided that their constitution would keep up with the times. Which was pretty darn smart of them, because if they couldn't have changed the constitution it would have only lasted 2 years.

They got several things wrong, like how to elect the Vice President, but due to it being a living constitution they were able to fix their mistakes. If we're talking about what the Founding Fathers "intended" then they never intended for right to bear arms (2nd AMENDMENT) or free speech (1st AMENDMENT) or women to vote (19TH AMDENDMENT).

It is also quite clear that even conservatives hold positions on the constitution that differ substantially from what the founders thought was permissible. The Alien and Sedition Acts, signed into law by one of the founding fathers, would be viewed as tyrannical today.

Clearly Adams didn't view it as unconstitutional, nor did the Congress that passed it, but we would today. At least liberals are honest with themselves about the living constitution.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it was a brilliant move and they shouldn't compromise an inch. I wonder who's side the public will take? Hmmm.

But you recognize that if implemented it would have been horrible public policy, right?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Back in the day little flyers like that were called propaganda. I see that shit still works. Good job!

I think the "LOL" he posted was your first clue that it was a joke. /facepalm

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But you recognize that if implemented it would have been horrible public policy, right?

How so?

 

[Matt1970]

Are you serious? It didn't even last 2 years. The Constitution was created in 1787, the Bill of Rights were added in 1789. Which is why the founding fathers made it a living document. They saw England and how England's laws hadn't changed to reflect the new and changing world and decided that their constitution would keep up with the times. Which was pretty darn smart of them, because if they couldn't have changed the constitution it would have only lasted 2 years.

They got several things wrong, like how to elect the Vice President, but due to it being a living constitution they were able to fix their mistakes. If we're talking about what the Founding Fathers "intended" then they never intended for right to bear arms (2nd AMENDMENT) or free speech (1st AMENDMENT) or women to vote (19TH AMDENDMENT).

You would think at that rate and seeing as how we got so much wrong we would have hundreds of ammendments. There are 27 total. All but 3 of those were proposed over 50 years ago.

 

[dank69]

I guess we will never know.

Correction. I know. You pretend.

 

[Matt1970]

Correction. I know. You pretend.

Well, seeing as how it didn't happen, who is the one pretending?

 

[First]

You would think at that rate and seeing as how we got so much wrong we would have hundreds of ammendments. There are 27 total. All but 3 of those were proposed over 50 years ago.

And...? The Constitution is very much a living document that should be difficult to amend. But it is not perfect, hence the ability to amend it. Any original intent by the founders is only relevant in the context of the era it's taking place in. Which is why originalists i.e. strict constructionists aren't taken seriously by anyone.

 

[dank69]

I think it was a brilliant move and they shouldn't compromise an inch. I wonder who's side the public will take? Hmmm.

Depends on how honestly the issue is framed. GOP likes to frame it as Congress exempting themselves from Obamacare, which is wildly unpopular and also not the truth.

 

[fskimospy]

How so?

Because it would carve out one small, unique group of workers that would have to play by different rules than the entire rest of America.

I'm not sure if you know this, but the amendment was for Congress, but more importantly, for congressional staff. They are already mandated to purchase their health insurance through the exchanges, but the exchanges aren't meant for people who have employer subsidized insurance. So basically everyone who works for Congress now would lose their employer subsidized insurance but since their employer offered insurance overall they wouldn't be eligible for subsidies through the exchange either.

In effect every congressional staffer would take a massive pay cut or lose their insurance for no reason other than to score political points on the other team. What does that lead to? A big exodus of well connected, highly capable people to other political jobs. It undermines the workings of Congress.

Talk about disgusting, huh? Not just disgusting, but long term stupid.

 

[dank69]

Well, seeing as how it didn't happen, who is the one pretending?

You. Pretending that the Republicans were one minor issue away from giving the ACA their full support. Why don't you write that sentence out as if you were making that statement.

 

[Matt1970]

And...? The Constitution is very much a living document that should be difficult to amend. But it is not perfect. Any original intent by the founders is only relevant in the context of the era it's taking place in. Which is why originalists i.e. strict constructionists aren't taken seriously by anyone.

It's quite easy to change if it needs to be. Get 2/3rds of House of Representatives and the Senate or get 2/3rds of the States.

 

[First]

It's quite easy to change if it needs to be. Get 2/3rds of House of Representatives and the Senate or get 2/3rds of the States.

Huh? Is this a rhetorical device I don't understand?