Hillary nearly collapses at Sep. 11th ceremony

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

The SCOTUS is not the final say in all matters. They are but ONE PART of our government system. And for the record, they violated the law in their ruling on the ACA. A tax cannot be ruled upon, until the first person is taxed. And yet, Roberts rewrote the law to define a fine as a tax, and then they ruled on the "tax", which was not legal for them to do so.

This government is completely corrupt and out of control.

You can argue whatever you like. But in the end it is only an opinion. The fact is, they ruled that it was indeed Constitutional. I do find it funny though, the very Justice you are arguing against was appointed by President George W. Bush.... a conservative. It makes me think that the Conservatives can't be "conservative" unless they have 100% control of the government.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You can argue whatever you like. But in the end it is only an opinion. The fact is, they ruled that it was indeed Constitutional. I do find it funny though, the very Justice you are arguing against was appointed by President George W. Bush.... a conservative. It makes me think that the Conservatives can't be "conservative" unless they have 100% control of the government.

That's your problem, you don't understand the term 'conservative'. The Bush family has never been conservative. They rode on the coattails of the Reagan wave, but George HW Bush and Reagan disagreed on policy. Reagan picked him as his VP, for political reasons only.

And the ruling of the SCOTUS means nothing, if that ruling was based on a false premise and an illegal action.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It doesn't make us "wrong" either. My point is, it is clearly a matter of interpretation.



Yes.



Freedom. You mean, like, the right to live? They say that health care is rationed in other countries. What they don't tell you is that in the United States an average of 45,000 Americans were dying each year from treatable or preventable conditions. Why? They couldn't pay for physicals or treatments with cold hard cash. Your version of "freedom" is obviously too expensive for those poor souls who have died under it. My mother was one of them in 2007. So, from my perspective, your version of freedom is a threat to nearly 50,000 thousand Americans every year. Of course, you throw them on charity's door step to soothe the conscience. But the fact remains, these are real people with real lives. And they've perished in the night, their only sin? Being unable to afford health insurance.

Tell me, why fight tooth and nail for the unborn... if you don't care if they suffer and die later if they are too poor to afford insurance? Why not just look at all the people desperate for coverage as the children of those who chose life? And then value them with as much value you attached to them before they were born.



There isn't going to be any coming conflict. The world is constantly advancing. It is 2016. In what might seem to be a mere blink of an eye it will be 2020. We are not going back to the days of the frontier and the Wild West. Oh, I'm sure there will be a few wiley-eyed crazies who are stock piling weapons right now who will go nuts and launch some kind of sad hiccup of resistance that the majority of the nation will shake their heads at. I hope they are dealt with peacefully, talked down, and given the mental health services they need. But it will only seem like a "conflict" to those who determined to go down in a blaze of glory because they can't adapt to a changing world. To those who have to deal with such unbalanced people, it will be a sad day wherein they had to due their duty to eliminate an obvious threat to human life. And it will probably take place in a massive compound or small network of compounds out West. It will be news at 11. America will be sad. And time will march on.

The only caveat will be if Jesus returns! Now that will be awesome! Then we all can set down these crazy disagreements and move on together under our Lord and King.



I know. But the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court. The decision has been made. They can disagree all day long. But the law is the law.

I have an interesting question that popped into my mind. Has the SCOTUS ever granted a civil liberty and then taken it away?

I'm going to have to do some reading. I'm not sure if I've approached anything I've read with that question in mind.

Brother, what happened to you? Do you not see what these damnable political heresies have done to you? I have really wondered at times if someone has hijacked your AFF account. You used to possess such a sweet, humble spirit. Now you have turned into the type of arrogant, straw man builder that so typifies the left.

You somehow equate the return to strict adherence to the Constitution to the "wild west". What happened to that intellect and insight you once had? You were the one who sought to model your life and ministry according to the original blueprint of the apostles instead of this man made tradition so many Christians follow. But you now scoff at and hold in contempt those who have studied the original intents of the Apostles of our republic and understand that our nation's problems (including the healthcare crisis) stem from a departure from those moorings. You would force every state in the union (through misapplying the constitution) to submit to a complete uniformity to something in a way that those small States of Europe (that you love so much) have not been forced to, nor would ever submit to. are the States of Europe "living in the wild west 1800's' because they have not formed a unified, single-payer EU health plan? Such a silly argument is beneath you.

I will defer to Jefferson and Madison. Surely you cannot claim that you or Hamilton know better how to interpret the Constitution than the very man who wrote it..

"Instead of relying on the courts to reach a correct conclusion regarding constitutional axioms, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Constitution and its amendments had to be accepted “according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends.” If there was ever a dispute, Jefferson wrote, “let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

On the same foundation, James Madison echoed this sentiment:


“The legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received. all the authority which it possesses.”

Jefferson and Madison always maintained that the Constitution and its amendments had to be interpreted through the lens of the original understanding reached by the endorsing states, not through the whims of the federal courts decisions. Simply put, federal judges can reach an incorrect conclusion and often fail to acknowledge the context of each amendment’s ratification. Both men realized that this oversight would turn the Constitution into an inane and irrelevant instrument."

And you are truly foolish and blind to deny that a revolution is coming. It will be, I predict, a bloodless revolution. The people of Texas will soon reclaim their place in the world as a separate country. They will have the world's 15th largest economy and will become as rich as Switzerland and Morocco almost overnight. At least 10 states, and probably more, will join her. This will be done democratically and orderly.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

That's your problem, you don't understand the term 'conservative'. The Bush family has never been conservative. They rode on the coattails of the Reagan wave, but George HW Bush and Reagan disagreed on policy. Reagan picked him as his VP, for political reasons only.

And the ruling of the SCOTUS means nothing, if that ruling was based on a false premise and an illegal action.

It's not an "illegal" action. The role of the SCOTUS is to interpret laws and the Constitution. Whatever they interpret the Constitution as saying is, "legal", even if it departs from historic "interpretations" and "opinions". The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress and the Constitution.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Brother, what happened to you? Do you not see what these damnable political heresies have done to you? I have really wondered at times if someone has hijacked your AFF account. You used to possess such a sweet, humble spirit. Now you have turned into the type of arrogant, straw man builder that so typifies the left.

Is it possible that you're painting me through your own political bias? I mean, I'm the same person I've always been. Can you please show me a "straw man" that I've built? I'm curious.

You somehow equate the return to strict adherence to the Constitution to the "wild west". What happened to that intellect and insight you once had?

Where am I not holding to a "strict adherence" to the Constitution?

You were the one who sought to model your life and ministry according to the original blueprint of the apostles instead of this man made tradition so many Christians follow.

We're talking politics, not religion. My religious convictions haven't changed in any significant way. I've come to some conclusions about politics of late that caused me to reconsider my political philosophy, but not my faith.

But you now scoff at and hold in contempt those who have studied the original intents of the Apostles of our republic and understand that our nation's problems (including the healthcare crisis) stem from a departure from those moorings.

I believe the founding fathers had a rather progressive vision for their era. I believe the Constitution reflects the wisdom of those fathers. However, I don't believe that our founders or the Constitution is perfect or infallible. I also recognize that times change and we as a nation must change with them. Instead of looking back at the "glory days" of a bygone era, I'm looking forward to advancement, justice, technical and social progress. One reason why I left the UPCI is because they became frozen in time and fallible human interpretations of Scripture. To me, the GOP is doing the same thing. They are frozen in the values of the 1950's and the economics of the 80's.

You would force every state in the union (through misapplying the constitution) to submit to a complete uniformity to something in a way that those small States of Europe (that you love so much) have not been forced to, nor would ever submit to. are the States of Europe "living in the wild west 1800's' because they have not formed a unified, single-payer EU health plan? Such a silly argument is beneath you.

I'd not force any state into a national single payer system. I'd leave states with the right to sign aboard or stand alone. A state that chose not to come aboard could make their own single payer plan if they wanted or move to an entirely privatized health care system if they wanted. My only action would be that if they do not come aboard, they have to supplement their own current programs and pay for any future program themselves. They have the power to join or to decline. That's states rights.

I will defer to Jefferson and Madison. Surely you cannot claim that you or Hamilton know better how to interpret the Constitution than the very man who wrote it..

"Instead of relying on the courts to reach a correct conclusion regarding constitutional axioms, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Constitution and its amendments had to be accepted “according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends.” If there was ever a dispute, Jefferson wrote, “let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

On the same foundation, James Madison echoed this sentiment:


“The legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received. all the authority which it possesses.”

Jefferson and Madison always maintained that the Constitution and its amendments had to be interpreted through the lens of the original understanding reached by the endorsing states, not through the whims of the federal courts decisions. Simply put, federal judges can reach an incorrect conclusion and often fail to acknowledge the context of each amendment’s ratification. Both men realized that this oversight would turn the Constitution into an inane and irrelevant instrument."

You're suggesting that we view the Constitution through the lens of the original understanding reached by those who drafted it. A lens and perspective that saw no issue with slavery, women being treated like second class citizens, etc.???

To me, the very preamble of the Constitution explains the intent of the Constitution's contents.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Therefore, if any interpretation of the Constitution itself adheres to those ideals mentioned above, it is a valid one. Those ideals are as follows:

-Establish Justice
-Insure Domestic Tranquility
-Provide For the Common Defense
-Promote the General Welfare
-To Secure Liberty

I agree that the federal government would be out of line to pass laws that force states into a national single payer system. That would indeed violate states rights. But the federal government can "promote" the general welfare. If such a system was presented to promote the general welfare of the American people, and states were allowed to participate or decline, I don't see it as violating the Constitution.

And you are truly foolish and blind to deny that a revolution is coming. It will be, I predict, a bloodless revolution. The people of Texas will soon reclaim their place in the world as a separate country. They will have the world's 15th largest economy and will become as rich as Switzerland and Morocco almost overnight. At least 10 states, and probably more, will join her. This will be done democratically and orderly.

I don't see it happening. Frankly, I think the rhetoric that has been coming from the far right is backfiring. The conservative movement isn't presenting a unifying vision for the entire nation. Instead, it has a divisive vision that even has fellow conservatives thinking in paradigms of division and faction.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No, truth.

lol

Like I said, you have no clue. You are what Bolsheviks used to call a "useful idiot", an ideologue, an "intellectual", ie someone with a philosophical viewpoint that promotes some tenet or plank of the revolutionary agenda, with no clue as to the Big Picture and no idea that 1) you are a willing tool being used by others, and 2) you are in the crowd that is usually first against the wall when your Manipulators finally succeed.

As usual, such "intellectuals" who are useful dupes of communism have failed to study history, knowing only the "class warfare" version provided by the revolutionists.

Sat Cong is what it will come down to eventually. The question is, how many of your fellow Christians and fellow citizens are you willing to kill and see killed in order to establish your planned utopia? Because that's really what it's going to come down to. There are way too many people in this nation who have about gone as far down the road of statism as they will peacefully go.

But if you understood history, you would already know that, and you would know what the next stop on the Fundamental Transformation Tour is.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Is it possible that you're painting me through your own political bias? I mean, I'm the same person I've always been. Can you please show me a "straw man" that I've built? I'm curious.



Where am I not holding to a "strict adherence" to the Constitution?



We're talking politics, not religion. My religious convictions haven't changed in any significant way. I've come to some conclusions about politics of late that caused me to reconsider my political philosophy, but not my faith.



I believe the founding fathers had a rather progressive vision for their era. I believe the Constitution reflects the wisdom of those fathers. However, I don't believe that our founders or the Constitution is perfect or infallible. I also recognize that times change and we as a nation must change with them. Instead of looking back at the "glory days" of a bygone era, I'm looking forward to advancement, justice, technical and social progress. One reason why I left the UPCI is because they became frozen in time and fallible human interpretations of Scripture. To me, the GOP is doing the same thing. They are frozen in the values of the 1950's and the economics of the 80's.



I'd not force any state into a national single payer system. I'd leave states with the right to sign aboard or stand alone. A state that chose not to come aboard could make their own single payer plan if they wanted or move to an entirely privatized health care system if they wanted. My only action would be that if they do not come aboard, they have to supplement their own current programs and pay for any future program themselves. They have the power to join or to decline. That's states rights.



You're suggesting that we view the Constitution through the lens of the original understanding reached by those who drafted it. A lens and perspective that saw no issue with slavery, women being treated like second class citizens, etc.???

To me, the very preamble of the Constitution explains the intent of the Constitution's contents.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Therefore, if any interpretation of the Constitution itself adheres to those ideals mentioned above, it is a valid one. Those ideals are as follows:

-Establish Justice
-Insure Domestic Tranquility
-Provide For the Common Defense
-Promote the General Welfare
-To Secure Liberty

I agree that the federal government would be out of line to pass laws that force states into a national single payer system. That would indeed violate states rights. But the federal government can "promote" the general welfare. If such a system was presented to promote the general welfare of the American people, and states were allowed to participate or decline, I don't see it as violating the Constitution.



I don't see it happening. Frankly, I think the rhetoric that has been coming from the far right is backfiring. The conservative movement isn't presenting a unifying vision for the entire nation. Instead, it has a divisive vision that even has fellow conservatives thinking in paradigms of division and faction.

You're suggesting that we view the Constitution through the lens of the original understanding reached by those who drafted it. A lens and perspective that saw no issue with slavery, women being treated like second class citizens, etc.??

The above proves you have been fully brainwashed to be a liberal attack dog. You equate the original understanding of the Constitution to "slavery". But of course, you know what I was referring to is the construct of the Union and the powers reserved to the States versus the minuscule, few powers delegated to the Federal Government. Seriously, why can't you liberals migrate to one of those Euro-socialist utopias you love so much?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'd not force any state into a national single payer system. I'd leave states with the right to sign aboard or stand alone. A state that chose not to come aboard could make their own single payer plan if they wanted or move to an entirely privatized health care system if they wanted. My only action would be that if they do not come aboard, they have to supplement their own current programs and pay for any future program themselves. They have the power to join or to decline. That's states rights.

(SNIP)

I agree that the federal government would be out of line to pass laws that force states into a national single payer system. That would indeed violate states rights. But the federal government can "promote" the general welfare. If such a system was presented to promote the general welfare of the American people, and states were allowed to participate or decline, I don't see it as violating the Constitution.

You suggestion is impossible. It simply cannot happen the way you've envisioned it, because any national system is going to rely on federal funds. Those federal funds will be pulled from the states, including any states who opt out of the system. That means, all the states who opt out, will still be funding the very system they oppose.

We know this, because we see it already happening with existing federal funds. There is no way this can be achieved amicably.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Seriously, why can't you liberals migrate to one of those Euro-socialist utopias you love so much?

That's like asking "why don't lice just migrate to someone else's head?"

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You're suggesting that we view the Constitution through the lens of the original understanding reached by those who drafted it. A lens and perspective that saw no issue with slavery, women being treated like second class citizens, etc.??

The above proves you have been fully brainwashed to be a liberal attack dog. You equate the original understanding of the Constitution to "slavery".

No, the point is that neither liberals nor conservatives view the Constitution exactly as the founders did. We have far different values, and we will read out of it and use it in ways they never would have. For example... corporate personhood. Our founders would be so livid with us.

But of course, you know what I was referring to is the construct of the Union and the powers reserved to the States versus the minuscule, few powers delegated to the Federal Government. Seriously, why can't you liberals migrate to one of those Euro-socialist utopias you love so much?

You know, Forbes put out an article last year showing the top 10 nations to do business in, and these were primarily Democratic Socialist nations. Do you know of any nation that reflects the conservative utopian vision?