Socialism?

http://open.salon.com//blog/paul_j_o...-212_years_ago

It appears that the second POTUS, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, mandated that American citizens purchase health insurance in 1798. His next two successors. Thomas Jefferson & James Madison continued this policy. I think this weakens the argument that the Obama Health Insurance bill is unconstitutional. If not, it strengthens the argument that the founding fathers were socialists.

BTW, the 1798 act evolved into the creation of the US Public Health Service, without whom polio & tuberculosis might still be rampant in this country.

How many other abused Federal entitlement programs were the population addicted to at that time?

I read all of the articles referenced. The seamen, while employed, were taxed for their own care. Those contributing to the system were rewarded with health care for their contribution. No where in the statute did I find provisions for taxing one group of people to subsidize coverage for another group of people.

I do not think the suit brought by the several states will be successful. However, in the near future, a citizen or group of citizens (probably healthy, affluent twenty-somethings) directly ‘afflicted’ by the new health care laws will bring suit, and certain provisions of the new health care law will be declared unconstitutional.

Does anyone really believe laws are enacted or upheld or thrown out because of Constitutional issues? Please, the Constitution sets up our federal govenrment and limits the powers of government, except when the federal govt does not want its powers limited. 9 people on the Supreme Court implement their views and ideaologies, not what they read in the Constitution. We are already in a state of Big Brother, Uncle Sam does whatever he sees fit, nothing we can do about it.

How can anyone say homosexuality is illegal? How can anyone say oral sex is illegal? How is it Constitutional that the State of California legalizes MJ and the feds come in and shut it down? How can anyone limit what we do in private to include paying for sex? How can anyone agree that traffic cameras are legal? (Big Brother is watching) The Constitution has nothing to do with our present state of affairs, just my humble opinion. It is our lack of adherence to it. And we as a people allow it.

I use Wal-Mart as an example. I do not allow the checker to see my goods I just purchased unless not in a bag. I have had them chase me into parking lot. I am sorry I now own this merchandise and I do not have to prove anything to you. My products are in a bag and no reasonable suspicion exists that I am stealing. I will not show a reciept, just me, i am pretty alone in this one. Only when reasonable suspicion exists, do I allow the checker to see my receipt. I do not have a duty to help Wal-Mart prevent theft, not my problem, and I do not see Wal-Mart reducing its prices by preventing theft so I am not giving up any of my precious time so they can feel good, sorry. Same thing with Constitution, Uncle Sam will chip away at our freedoms until we are no lonoger free. Thats what govt's do limit the poeple's choices.

The second amendment is the right to bear arms, read what the enactors intended, the poeple should be armed so as to limit the government's ability to strong arm the people. Is it legal to own a working M1Abram Tank?, can an indvidual purchase a sidewinder missile or F-16 jet? No, a person cannot, and understand I am glad a person cannot, but my point is that the second amendment is complete garbage just as most of the rest of the Constitution. We as a people do not follow its intent or design and in some instances that is good but in most instnaces that means the feds just have too much power.

I think the Health bill will pass muster with the Supreme Court. Compare it to Social Security, where is it legal to force us all to pay for the retirement of a few, it is un-Constituional IMHO. Health care same thing.

I do not know if I articulated my points well but I certainly know I feel better. thx for letting me rant for a few minutes. Now back to my "who to do" list.

Just my .02

Outdoorsman, you are quite clear.

DAYUM!!! Now, I am all depressed!! Nikki.... will you make me feel better?

Outdoorsman, I agree with Juan in that you were quite clear.

Unfortunately, I also agree with your statements.

I must respectfully disagree. I am not yet so jaded or disillusioned to believe otherwise. I frequently do not agree with the nine people on the Supreme Court, but I believe, for the most part, that their views and ideologies are based on precedent and their understanding of the Constitution. Socialism would be much further advanced in this country were it not for the Supreme Court ruling unconstitutional many of FDR’s programs. Yet it took years for the courts to become properly engaged and make its rulings. Someone had to first file a viable objection to FDR’s programs before the courts could make a determination. I do not believe the Health Care Plan will be declared unconstitutional, but I do believe certain provisions—perhaps the most onerous (if we are lucky)—will be challenged in court and ultimately changed because of court rulings. Were I to accept our present condition as inevitable and unchangeable, I would quit voting.

there is a class action suit filed by a group in tennessee. they contend that the health care act is unconstitutional and intend to sue all parts of it as it relates to the commerce clause. They say that about 100,000+ people signed up.

In other words they think health insurance does not have an effect on interstate commerce? Good luck with that.

In other words they think health insurance does not have an effect on interstate commerce? Good luck with that. Originally Posted by juan2fork

some economist don't think the insurance is a real product (agriculture, automobiles, drugs) in the truest sense of the word as it applies to the interstate commerce. Insurance is a service product. there isn't that much crossover on interstate commerce with regards to insurance from what I gather. with a lot of states, its not allowed for insurance companies to sell insurance in another state. if they do not have a physical presence in that state. If they do, then its a different story.

theres a good reason why there never was a dept of ins at the federal level.

None of what is being said really matters. If 5 of the 9 people on the Supreme Court believe a nationalized health care system is good then it passes muster, period. Does not matter if interstate commerce clause or precedent or anything else. Here is a shot of reality. Judges write opinions based upon their own beliefs and political standing, the law clerks find precedent that bacls up their opinion to make it fit. It does not matter what the COnstitution says, what precedent says or what crosses state lines. The federal govt can do whatever it so chooses, until we, the people, stop allowing it -plain and simple. Health care will pass I will pay more taxes and get less services and nothing will change except I will be that much less free as individual than I was before, just my prediction.

I have seen Judges rule on which party they like - nothing to do with what the law states and the law clerk just finds case law to fit what the Judge is ordering. I just saw a documentary where a Judge believed a wife was abused by her husband that she killed by the way. The jury did not believe her and found her guilty of 1st degree murder. The judge orders a new trial, not because of any missing evidence, any testimony problems. Reality he did it because he thinks the jury is wrong. Not his job, it is the jury's job to determine fact - guilty or not guilty - not the Judge. Happens everyday. The Supreme Court is no different, they rule based upon their own idea of how the nation should operate, nothing to do with Constitution or precedent. The Supreme Court even solicits cases by asking attorneys to bring suit in different areas of the law, these 9 people feel need adjusting. And which attorney is going to turn that down, I got the highest Court in the land asking me to represent soemone, do you know what that does for his business!!!

Wake up people or accept the reality that Uncle Sam can do whatever and whenever he wants.

Do you really think elections can not be rigged? Please, how many of you out there voted for the latest mileage hike on property taxes. I cannot find a single person that voted for it, yet it passed by an overwhelming number. Citizens do not vote tax increases in NOLA, because we do not trust the people handling the money, yet they always seem to pass and we the people never get any additional services for the increases. It has been shown that the little cards on the machines we vote in can and sometimes are preprogramed to a certain outcome - meaning your vote is not even counted. Louisiana who is last in everything else has the most sophisticated election devices in the land. Now why is that? Easier to program from the top.

I am not a cynical person, look at my other posts, just hard for me to sit by and listen to this, without mentioning reality. I accept the fact that as long as we the poeple do nothing and do not organize our discontent nothing will happen except we will all lose more and more freedoms. That is a fact and I accpet it and move forward, thats all I can really do.

Now I have try and book something for tomorrow. I need some cheering up.

http://open.salon.com//blog/paul_j_o...-212_years_ago

It appears that the second POTUS, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, mandated that American citizens purchase health insurance in 1798. His next two successors. Thomas Jefferson & James Madison continued this policy. I think this weakens the argument that the Obama Health Insurance bill is unconstitutional. If not, it strengthens the argument that the founding fathers were socialists.

BTW, the 1798 act evolved into the creation of the US Public Health Service, without whom polio & tuberculosis might still be rampant in this country. Originally Posted by juan2fork

Ok, I read this 1798 law. the claim for precedent is rather weak. It targeted a very limited subset of the population, namely sailors of the Merchant Marine.

the 1798 law is rather understandable. the U.S. govt. as per the legislation were building hospitals for the sailors at each port that was in existance that time. It did made sense to "tax" the sailors to fund a Marine insurance to help pay for the hospital service if and when sailors got injured at sea.

So, no, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, & James Madison were not socialist.

None of what is being said really matters. If 5 of the 9 people on the Supreme Court believe a nationalized health care system is good then it passes muster, period. Does not matter if interstate commerce clause or precedent or anything else. Here is a shot of reality. Judges write opinions based upon their own beliefs and political standing, the law clerks find precedent that bacls up their opinion to make it fit. It does not matter what the COnstitution says, what precedent says or what crosses state lines. The federal govt can do whatever it so chooses, until we, the people, stop allowing it -plain and simple. Health care will pass I will pay more taxes and get less services and nothing will change except I will be that much less free as individual than I was before, just my prediction.

I have seen Judges rule on which party they like - nothing to do with what the law states and the law clerk just finds case law to fit what the Judge is ordering. I just saw a documentary where a Judge believed a wife was abused by her husband that she killed by the way. The jury did not believe her and found her guilty of 1st degree murder. The judge orders a new trial, not because of any missing evidence, any testimony problems. Reality he did it because he thinks the jury is wrong. Not his job, it is the jury's job to determine fact - guilty or not guilty - not the Judge. Happens everyday. The Supreme Court is no different, they rule based upon their own idea of how the nation should operate, nothing to do with Constitution or precedent. The Supreme Court even solicits cases by asking attorneys to bring suit in different areas of the law, these 9 people feel need adjusting. And which attorney is going to turn that down, I got the highest Court in the land asking me to represent soemone, do you know what that does for his business!!!

Wake up people or accept the reality that Uncle Sam can do whatever and whenever he wants.

Do you really think elections can not be rigged? Please, how many of you out there voted for the latest mileage hike on property taxes. I cannot find a single person that voted for it, yet it passed by an overwhelming number. Citizens do not vote tax increases in NOLA, because we do not trust the people handling the money, yet they always seem to pass and we the people never get any additional services for the increases. It has been shown that the little cards on the machines we vote in can and sometimes are preprogramed to a certain outcome - meaning your vote is not even counted. Louisiana who is last in everything else has the most sophisticated election devices in the land. Now why is that? Easier to program from the top.

I am not a cynical person, look at my other posts, just hard for me to sit by and listen to this, without mentioning reality. I accept the fact that as long as we the poeple do nothing and do not organize our discontent nothing will happen except we will all lose more and more freedoms. That is a fact and I accpet it and move forward, thats all I can really do.

Now I have try and book something for tomorrow. I need some cheering up. Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

its a little harder to rig elections to change outcomes in a certain favor, but the trend seems to be trending towards the David Copperfield magic trick of the extra votes that appear out of nowhere in the example of Minnesota, Washington and New York. this kind of thing seems only to work in very close races.


there's really only one way to identify a suspicious vote fraud had taken place, the number of registered voters voting vs. the number of registered voters on the rolls in the form of over votes.

outdoorsman, little cards? what kind of machine did you vote on. are you talking about the OCR machines? the one I was familiar with was the electronic voting machine & previously, the obsolete old manual switch voting machines.

Is the glass half empty, or is it half full? Outdoorsman, I concede. You are obviously much more familiar with judges than I am - I know no judges; so I am not an expert.

Yet it is my understanding that it has been the role of the Court (and at one time in this nation’s past the Senate’s role also), per checks and balances, to fetter rampant, radical change. With this purpose in mind, perhaps, seeing this Court’s conservative biases shine through is exactly what many of us are hoping for. For instance, I liked their decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008. This Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is much closer to the intent of the Founding Fathers than most previous Courts. Yes, they did coach that similar cases should be brought before them so that this particular decision might be broadened beyond the bounds of DC. I look forward to hearing their decision(s) this summer.

As for John Adams, he was much closer to being a monarchist than a socialist. He much more would have preferred being called ‘His Highness the President’ to the rather mundane title ‘Mr. President’ that George Washington chose.