Barrett Won't Even Say if Medicare is Constitutional (!!!)

[Sparagmos]

I am not sure you understand the definition of 'living constitution':

In United States constitutional interpretation, the living Constitution or loose constructionism is the claim that the Constitution and other constitutions, holds a dynamic meaning, evolving and adapting to new circumstances, without being formally amended. A living Constitution is said to develop alongside the needs of a society, providing a more malleable tool for governments. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.[1] The constitution referred to as the living law of the land as it is transformed according to necessities of the time and situation.[2]...wiki

I mean what I said. I believe in a living constitution and in amending the constitution. We need to be able to add to the constitution.

 

[Fantine]

So you and Avila share the same vision of reality. That means nothing.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I mean what I said. I believe in a living constitution and in amending the constitution. We need to be able to add to the constitution.

A living constitution means that the courts can interpret the constitution any way they see fit to 'solve' the circumstances before them. That is why the 9th Circuit Court is one of the most frequently overturned courts in the country.

 

[JSRG]

Clearly, she is an off the rails ideological extremist.

...how?

If she said "no" I could understand your conclusion, but she didn't answer it... just like virtually all questions she was asked about whether she regards such-and-such is constitutional or not, same as all the Supreme Court nominees have been doing for a while now.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

Are you suggesting that it would be more fitting to slice up the Constitution with that steel scalpel?

Ahhh... Here we go!

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.

The welfare state was sprung upon us by those who interpret the General Welfare Clause to mean that any money given to the poor is not only Constitutional, but is mandated by the Constitution.

However, James Madison is considered the Father of the Constitution, and this is what he wrote about the General Welfare Clause he helped write.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

So if Progressives were honest, they would admit that their massive never ending welfare state is a subversion of the intent of the original US Constitution.

Any honest Progressive here at least willing to admit this fact?

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

Clearly, she is an off the rails ideological extremist.

Barrett won't say if Medicare is constitutional

There is a silver lining (I'll put it in boldface.)



And so, America, already ranked low in areas such as quality of life, education, life expectancy, healthcare, will continue to move higher in the list of "countries which violate human rights." (Yes, the Trump administration policies put us on that list.)



Thank God expanding the court is legal and constitutional--no matter what "the arguments might be."

So are we to believe that government run health care is the will of God?

The Nazis had government run health care. In fact, they were socialists, so they had free education as well. Did that make them any more holy than the US government? In fact, the German people had a higher standard of living than those in the US at that time. You might even say that Hitler bought the souls of a war weary people steeped in genocide so that they would look the other way, which reminds me a bit of the US today with their endless wars as they embrace Roe vs. Wade. Hitler did this because he feared the internal revolts that rocked Germany during WW1 due to poor living standards.

There are many aspects to government run health care that trouble me. One aspect that should trouble us all is how they lie about it when they sell it to us.

Here are but a few lies about Obamacare when it was sold to us

1. We could keep our same doctor
2. We could keep our same health care plan
3. We would pay less for it
4. It would not be a tax.
5. There was no way it could be unconstitutional.

Then the whole passage of the legislation was shady as well. As the democrats were trying to gather support for the legislation, Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor. They then realized that they needed his vote to pass it, but did not want someone to come in to stop it, so they quickly tried to change the laws so that there would not be a general election to replace him if it came to that. To make a long story short, they failed, and then entered Scott Brown to run as a Republican to take the seat, a seat that had not been filled by a Republican in a blue controlled state in decades who ran on stopping Obamacare. So why did the liberal voters of MA vote Scott Brown in to stop Obamacare? It was because they liked their Romneycare. But the reason Scott Brown could not vote against Obamacare was because Nany Pelosi and company used a thing called "Reconciliation" to bypass his vote. So essentially, the democrat party, which always praises democracy, bypassed to democrat process to get their way. That is when you heard Nancy Pelosi's famous line, "We must pass the legislation now to see what is in it". This is why I think individual states should run their own health care. Let blue states and red states do their own thing, then at the end of the day you can see which works best instead of putting all our eggs in one basket and having half the country want to secede fro the union every Presidential cycle. But I digress.

And sure enough, once it got to the Supreme Court Justice Roberts and company said that the legislation was indeed unconstituional.............unless............it was a tax, something Obama swore it was not. So he took it upon himself to make it so, that way it could only be ruled as Connotational. This was judcial activism on the part of Roberts, and not his job.

But to add insult to injury, Obama had to bribe members of his own party to even vote for the thing.

But they paid a big price for all that in the 2010 elections. The GOP route of the democrats was historic. And now, these same voices want to sell us another plan?

IF socialized medicine is so wonderful, why do many in countries with socialized medicine come to the US for care? The VA is US socialized medicine, so why do so many Veterans seek health care outside the VA and pay for it out of their own pockets if it is so great?

We should all question anything proclaimed as "free". Nothing is free, there is always a cost. That is but another lie. Speaking of which, who here wants to go to Cuba or North Korea for free health care? Anyone? So be careful for what you wish for, you might just get it and no hope of going back.

And that brings me to the VA scandal in Arizona. Here you ad a VA who had a secret list of veterans that were not to be treated. Why? Because they were under staffed, and because some of the veterans were likely to die anyway because they were so sick. So they made up treating their former soldiers and let them die alone at home instead. Then a doctor became a whistlblower. He fist wrote his Senator John McCain about it thinking he was the guy to go to because he was a former Veteran himself. However, he got no support. Instead, they tried to fire him. If it was not for an obscure Congressman from Florida who learned of the story and made a big stink about it, none of us would have ever learned of it. That is the one thing that chills me to the bone. Once the government stops playing the referee with things like health care, being the only entity to run to when wronged, who can we run to for help? As it was, the whole affair was swept under the rug as some bureaucrat who had nothing to do with the whole affair was fired. End of scandal. That is why I think that government should remain the referee and not try to run with the ball. That way if a CEO sells us a health care plan and lies to us about keeping our doctor and paying less, they go to jail instead of winning another term as President. And frankly, I could care less how much it costs.

But for those who really want the truth about Obamacare, this is one of Obama's guys telling us about Obamacare before Obama became President.

Notice what he says. Government will start to pay less for our health care, you will not live longer than your parents, and those who are too "sick" will be allowed to die to save money.

I reckon he felt safe saying these things being a Berkley university. You can even hear the Left wing students cheering in the background as he tells them they will have to pay more for it and get less coverage, which I find very disturbing in itself.

But that is how Progressives roll. They have no respect for the sanctity of life for the unborn and the elderly who are close to death. I reckon they have no useful purpose for the state and cost the state too much money, so off they go!

 

[Redwingfan9]

Clearly, she is an off the rails ideological extremist.

Barrett won't say if Medicare is constitutional

There is a silver lining (I'll put it in boldface.)



And so, America, already ranked low in areas such as quality of life, education, life expectancy, healthcare, will continue to move higher in the list of "countries which violate human rights." (Yes, the Trump administration policies put us on that list.)



Thank God expanding the court is legal and constitutional--no matter what "the arguments might be."

There is no clause in the Constitution which gives the Federal government the power to create programs like Medicare. If you want these poorly run, over priced programs then propose a Constitutional amendment.

Having said that, the fact that Barrett won't comment on Medicare doesn't mean she thinks it is unconstitutional. She refused to comment on any number of issues that might come before the Supreme Court. Anyone who tries to read something into her refusal to comment is reading their own bias into the matter.

 

[Fantine]

WonbyOne said: So are we to believe that government run health care is the will of God?

One thing I do to discern the word of God is to take the words of liberals and conservatives and try to imagine Jesus saying them.

I find that one of the best interpreters who put Jesus' words into action is Pope Francis. If you read or watch Pope Francis, you will see that he says and does makes Joe Biden and Kamala Harris look like conservatives.

You're welcome.

 

[JacksBratt]

The democrats have done a fine job of showing how extremely qualified ACB is for the job.
They are still melting down because circumstances left a seat open and the POTUS is doing his constitutional duty of filling the seat with someone that he believes to be qualified.

The Dems would have done the same.. with someone that is more left leaning.. It's the way it goes and they have done it in the past.

Watching the dems embarrass themselves as they tried to trip up this woman of integrity... She, calmly and politely listened and then calmly, politely and surgically showed them that she is perfectly prepared for the job.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Feinstein the most anti-Catholic Senator in Congress. Listen to her when she was caught on a hot mic

HOT MIC: Senator Feinstein Attacks Judge Barrett’s Faith AGAIN

 

[Fantine]

In reality, Feinstein really gave her the benefit of the doubt.

Should we be unfortunate enough to see her rule on the ACA, we will see if she is really pro-life or just another anti-abortion poseur.

 

[Aldebaran]

In reality, Feinstein really gave her the benefit of the doubt.

Should we be unfortunate enough to see her rule on the ACA, we will see if she is really pro-life or just another anti-abortion poseur.

They were saying the same things about Kavanaugh regarding both of those issues, and yet women (especially "of color") are still able to freely go about terminating the new life that would have been born had they not aborted it. So all this panic about Barrett is just more of the same fear-mongering from the left.

 

[Fantine]

No case came up in the interim that would have given him an opportunity.
My concern with Barrett isn't abortion. If Roe were overturned maybe more evangelicals and Catholics would stop voting for such bad people.
It's just the dozens of other anti human rights decisions single issue voters have inflicted in us all on their tunnel vision approach to morality.

 

[Hammster]

No case came up in the interim that would have given him an opportunity.
My concern with Barrett isn't abortion. If Roe were overturned maybe more evangelicals and Catholics would stop voting for such bad people.
It's just the dozens of other anti human rights decisions single issue voters have inflicted in us all on their tunnel vision approach to morality.

It’s not “single issue”. It’s priority issue. There are other issues. Abortion just happens to be the top priority.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

No case came up in the interim that would have given him an opportunity.
My concern with Barrett isn't abortion. If Roe were overturned maybe more evangelicals and Catholics would stop voting for such bad people.
It's just the dozens of other anti human rights decisions single issue voters have inflicted in us all on their tunnel vision approach to morality.

How about not starting a war?

He sure is better than Nobel Peace Prize Obama who overthrew Libya.