Well, we know for a fact that that same minor issue as you call it kept the Senate from passing the final CR last night.
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.
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.
I hope you're not going to be the one teaching them. You've shown time and again on here that your understanding of the Constitution is quite poor. I chalk it up to poor parenting and education.
Says the guy who doesn't care about the originator's intentions. lol, you people are delusional.
I think the "LOL" he posted was your first clue that it was a joke. /facepalm
Oh, a deflection! What's wrong Matt? You don't want to state, for the record, that you believe the Republicans would have backed PPACA if the mandate went into effect one year later?Well, we know for a fact that that same minor issue as you call it kept the Senate from passing the final CR last night.
Oh, a deflection! What's wrong Matt? You don't want to state, for the record, that you believe the Republicans would have backed PPACA if the mandate went into effect one year later?
When are the riots going to start?
I demand riots!!!!
No, they probably would not have backed it, just like the general public does not back it. However we know it's pointless to take that position after last night. We know for a fact that taking that position does not fly with Democrats. Opposing the whole thing doesn't work, opposing just one part of it doesn't work. The Dems have made it mighty clear, agree to all of it or the government shuts down.
You're clueless. The constitutionality of the ACA has already been upheld by SCOTUS. That's the end of the story. The only question was if the ACA was a valid exercise of federal power, and it was ruled to be so. If the federal government's exercise of power is valid, it immediately overrides anything the states do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
After you get out of economics class, head across the hall to civics 101.
lol, ruled a valid use of federal government power by none other than <gasp> the federal government! checks and balances and the idea of those 9 declaring constitutional/unconstitutional is a joke
The public doesn't back it? Lol! 10% of the public like the ACA more than Obamacare! What do you think is really going on?
People not knowing the ACA is Obamacare means they back it?
When are the riots going to start?
I demand riots!!!!
Washington (CNN) Busloads of World War II veterans, many in wheelchairs, broke past a barricade Tuesday morning to cross into the World War II Memorial, as onlookers applauded and a man playing the bagpipes led the way.
Moments earlier, a few Republican members of Congress had removed a section of the black gates that surrounded the site, allowing a line of veterans to roll past security officers, who willingly stood aside.
the whole point of the constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT and protect individual rights of the people.
Honest framing of issues? Like airing ads showing Republicans pushing Grandma over a cliff? Is that what you mean? That ad set the bar for Democrats and illustrated just how low they're willing to go when it comes to such matters as honest framing of the issues. Get real.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.
I'm sorry, but the purpose of the constitution was to strengthen the federal government. There's simply no arguing that.
I'm sorry, but the purpose of the constitution was to strengthen the federal government. There's simply no arguing that.
I'm sorry, but the purpose of the constitution was to strengthen the federal government. There's simply no arguing that.
it was built to create a federal goernment whereas the Articles of Condfederation didn't have such a strongly defined entity.
However, the constitution works to limit the government.
I was going to publicly call you a moron, but I see that you've already beat me to it.Yeah, I'll stand by my statement, thanks for proving my point
Dumb asses don't even realize when they are being fed propaganda (hint: it doesn't just come from the government).
Maybe you should move to China or Russia, I heard they have a strong central government there.
Patrick Henry - The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Jefferson praised a minimal federal government - http://www.heritage.org/initiatives...ry-sources/jeffersons-first-inaugural-address
I'll offer that 5:1 ratio again.
You quote 1 founding father that wanted a strong central government, and I will give you 5 that wanted a limited federal government.
While there are certainly parts of the Constitution that limit what the federal government can do it was made with the express purpose of increasing centralized authority.