Quote from Schwa

I'm pretty sure I denoted that this was another debate topic and not entirely relevant to this debate. That's what they believe, which is important for making my point, why the believe it is not.

But okay, let me throw out some examples;

Show me where in the constitution that the legislative branch has the right to pass a law concerning healthcare? Their enumerated powers include collecting taxes for the carrying out of the governments enumerated power (Which include to make war, enforce laws, etc. but not healthcare)

Show me where in the constitution they have the right to tax someone simply because they live. By the sole fact that you are alive you must pay a tax or we will fine you. Taxation is only applicable under the constitution when it supports the funding of enumerated powers. Providing healthcare is not an enumerated power (in that case neither is medicare, medicaid or social security).

Many people would claim that the commerce clause allows them to do that, but even in the most broad and ambiguous definition of commerce health care is not part of that. Health care is not interstate commerce. The entire point of the commerce clause, besides, is to regulate trade between states so as to prevent the rising of tariffs and other such trade barriers for the good of the state and the detriment of the country. The government does not have the right to provide every or any form of interstate commerce it wills under a broad and ambiguous definition.

The constitution is a document of negative powers (what the national government can't do) it gives all powers not expressly delegated to the national government to the state government. Providing health care is the duty of the state government (if they so wish) and not the national government. The state government can do whatever the hell they want, the national government cannot.

-Also, the government is an institution by the people for the people, it is held by the consent of the governed. Polls show (at least some) that most people in the United States do not want this health care bill to pass; sure this may be due to greed or ignorance (or it may be due to intelligence, which is sometimes an option even in the most unpopular opinions, weird, right?) but that doesn't change the fact that the governments job is to represent the will of the people. It is not the government's job to tell people what is good for them, because they know better, because believe it or not, they don't.

The simple fact that 14 (I'm pretty sure it's 14) are bringing a lawsuit to the national government shows that they have strayed from their purpose. The senators in congress are supposed to represent the will of the state, and the representatives the will of the people - apparently neither of these wills have been followed.

The national government has no constitutional basis for what it is doing and has done. And if you can prove to me that it does I will eat my words.

Quote from Gavel

jesus, thanks for the essay, schwa. i don't know what it is with people on this site being blatantly against summarizing. it's like you guys think that a post isn't a good post unless it's unnecessarily wordy

anyway, i don't know what it is with people and thinking "well it's not written in the constitution so that means you can't do it." as you might have gathered, there are many implied powers that aren't exactly expressed in the constitution (hence the reason they're called "implied" powers). for instance, nowhere in the constitution does it say "all American citizens are allowed to breathe, but you aren't exactly seeing the Lung Police smashing your doors in and arresting you because you don't have the proper permits to take the necessary actions to fill said lungs. I think this bill can be backed up by the necessary and proper clause. the government is allowed to take certain actions if it is considered for the good of the people. obviously, if the legislative branch were to be carrying out something that is, as you define it, unconstitutional, the judicial branch would have intervened and declared it as such. a little something called judicial review, my friend

Quote from Tenth Ammendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Quote from "Santa Clause"

The Congress shall have power [...] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Quote from Schwa

Believe it or not there's actually an educated and intelligent republican minority who develops and professes articulately the ideas the protesters are simply required to learn as a mantra.

From what I've heard from talk radio (about as unbiased as you can get, right?) The idea of the tea party movement is to get back to constitutional values (which is another debate | but one that I think I personally agree with) - There are actually clear and articulate ideas behind the madness that these people perpetuate.

However the people that protest are never the most intelligent or the most educated, they are the people with the most free time on their hands; and generally people with masters degrees working white collar jobs don't have the care or time to go out and protest. It's the disenfranchised blue-collar (note: uneducated) lower middle-class that participates in these protests at the behest of more articulate minds.

-------------------

With that said even though I may agree with some of the sentiments they try and gurgle out I can never, and will never, support ignorance; willful or otherwise. As such I think the tea party is terrible, it's a bunch of uneducated people who may have vague values and beliefs; but they just take what they're told and regurgitate it without even digesting it, it's like sticking food in your mouth and spitting it out and expecting someone else to eat it. Realistically it's just as good as it was before, but it's just nastier and nobody's going to touch it no matter how much like regular food it is. The only way someone is going to eat that's been in your mouth is if it's thoroughly digested - broken down by bacteria and reabsorbed by other plants which become food. An idea has to be digested and understood in it's component parts, not just regurgitated blindly because you 'know' deep down that it's right.

That's like saying, "Well, I may not understand why I should kill this man, but he told me too and he had an aura of authority and I feel deep down that he's right" Err, no, that doesn't work.

And before I stop typing stuff I'd just like to make it perfectly clear that my problem isn't with ideaology (actually I have a huge problem with how people use ideaology, but that is neither here nor there or even over there) - It's not because they are or aren't republicans or democrats it's that ignorance is never laudable. And it's not just republicans that are guilty of being ignorant sheep, but democrats too and even, yes even, green party voters (just blew your mind, I know).

Quote from Gavel

i did read that part of the post. the outline of the negatives is called "civil liberties", bro

and i don't think you can define the passing of this bill as "the government doing whatever the hell they want because they think it's good for the people". a number of delegates all voted on this bill so it's not all about the legislatures all of a sudden throwing down the gauntlet. numerous acts have been passed in a similar fashion: the repeal of prohibition, civil rights, etc. what makes this different?

Quote from Zed

What if a study were to show that the majority of the people did not understand the bill, and thought it was bad even though the bill that they thought was bad could be said to be a different bill entirely - one that was never proposed. I know this has no legal standing, but morally when the people are objectively wrong it should be right to go against them.

Quote from Schwa

Even the pundits at Fox can summarize the basics of a bill without describing something that never existed in it's entirety. (Even though they make take certain parts and skew them to their absolute worst i.e. Death Panels) (However, supporters will also do that for the benefits i.e. Magical Insurance that will lower taxes and decrease the national debt with no drawbacks whatsoever)

Also, what if a study were done to show that the majority of people in support of the bill did not understand the bill, and thought it was good even though the bill they thought was good could be a different bill entirely - one that was never proposed. Morally when people are objectively wrong it should be right to go against them.

The left is as full of uneducated ignoramuses as is the right.

Quote from Zed

If that were the case then so be it. I am fully in favour of ignoring anyone who doesn't understand, whichever side they're on.