Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

Tsing Tao said:
Not at all. Follow the processes the Constitution has laid out (as you, yourself just pointed out in the other thread) if there is something that needs to be specifically interpreted or changed. What is so hard about that?
More...

Like promoting the general welfare? (and here we are back at the station)
 
dbphoenix said:
Depends on whether or not "abiding by the Constitution" means including what anyone who had anything at all to do with the Constitution and everything each one of them wrote is to be included. If so, then it would be next to impossible to come up with a definitive statement of what the Constitution "means".

This is not to say that intentions should not be a factor. This is what we've been debating for two hundred years. But to then state that one must "abide by the Constitution" is pointless.
More...
wow bro, no it doesn't depend, the minority voices were out voted. Alexander Hamilton wanted the Pres to serve for life... is that the law? NO. What was actually ratified is all that matters, and yes some of it is ambiguous, however the enumerated powers are NOT. And according to those who wrote and ratified the document is was understood that the federal govt was to be limited to specific authority. That's what they argued, that's what they voted for, and that's what they said they meant.

Again, if "general Welfare" means whatever x Congress believes to be in the best interests of the nation, then tell me, is that limited?

Also, if that is what they meant, why did it take over a century to institute federal social programs? Do you think that's because the gubberment didn't know they had that power from the start, or is it far more likely that they (and the citizenry) knew they didn't?
 
dbphoenix said:
You see no inconsistency here?
More...
You shouldn't bother asking me questions till you answer mine.

I see that you are interested in taking words out of context. Your latest argument was: should we consider the intentions of everyone who was there? But that wasn't what I said. What I'm trying to convey to you is: they debated these things at the Constitutional Convention, for a long period of time, and according the words of those who participated, and according to the writers of the federalist papers, which were created in an attempt to gain support for the Constitution, they argued for a new federal govt which was to be limited. That is what they voted for, and general authority is not limited.

A better way to put this is, the two camps at the Convention(s) were Federalists and Anti-federalists, one for a new central govt and one opposed. the debate was over whether or not they should have anything more than the Articles of Confederation. Neither side was arguing for an undefined, unlimited central govt.. it wasn't even on the table. It may have been a secret desire of people like Hamilton but there was no possibility of it being ratified by the States.
 
dbphoenix said:
Like promoting the general welfare? (and here we are back at the station)
More...

Yes, like promoting the general welfare of the United States. Which, is what we have the constitutional lawyers and Supreme Court for. You can keep trying to weasel out of this, but there's no way to go. Sorry, bud.
 
PiggyBank said:
You shouldn't bother asking me questions till you answer mine.

I see that you are interested in taking words out of context. You latest argument was: should we consider the intentions of everyone who was there? But that wasn't what I said. What I'm trying to convey to you is: they debated these things at the Constitutional Convention, for a long period of time, and according the words of those who participated, and according to the writers of the federalist papers, which were created in an attempt to gain support for the Constitution, they argued for a new federal govt which was to be limited. That is what they voted for, and general authority is not limited.
More...

So one should consider only what is written in the Constitution itself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top