The taboo subject none of the candidates have dared to broach....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Sigh, what you find 'contradictory', I see as a point of balance.

It's not balance if the only justification for it is that that's what's written on the document. If you haven't figured it out, I like things to be proven and justified, over and over again. Because something was written 200 years ago, and that's the way it is doesn't work for me. As you've probably figured out by now, I'm a real pain in the ass for my professors too (but atleast I can hit the min page length for a paper easily).

Further term limits opens the door to agenda driven individuals that no long modify their individual beliefs as they can't be re-elected anyways.

We already have 'term limits', it call the election process. ( A point, I believe, you've also made in past posts.)

Which is precisely why the house, which represents the people has no term limits. The Senate isn't supposed to represent the people, Senators are supposed to be appointed by the state. The fact that we've moved away from that is a problem because people don't understand the difference is between a Senator and a Representative. In most peoples minds they are the same thing. When you're dealing with a system that internally appoints people rather than votes on them (as it should be for the Senate), it becomes easy for the appointment process to become inbred which is why I suggest term limits for Senators. Those who represent the people should have the opportunity to perpetually remain in office so long as they're keeping their constituents happy... it gives them an incentive to continue to do so.

The reason we don't have formalized changes isn't due to the percentile required. It's due to the fear that other aspects would could also be changed worsening the Constitution, at least from their view of it. The bigger problem being the current lot would change the Constitution based on political agenda as opposed to holding the Constitution above political agenda.

But it's not above a political agenda and it never has been. The Constitution was a massive political undertaking. In fact, the more political it is the better it is for the populace as it encourages innovation and better ideas over time. Declaring it sacred and hands off means it never changes for the better, while the concept of competition mostly means it won't change for the worse.

Most of the Amendments people propose these days are either in the form of granting or limiting the rights of the citizens, something the Constitution actually doesn't get into until you get to the Bill of Rights. If you read my suggestions, each state would be able to determine such things for itself and as such it wouldn't be a national issue. The main problem would be in the overlap of federal/state authority. If a state granted a citizen the current 4th amendment protections how would the federal government (an outside entity) treat them? Would they be obligated to respect the wishes of that state or could they supersede the states authority?

a reply to: nwtrucker
Didn't Roosevelt II pack the Supreme Court somehow? My memory of this has faded - can any historian provide the details?

And as a spin-off, were there times in the past when there were balance of power issues similar to those you portray as existing now? I really need a historian!

a reply to: StanFL

Roosevelt tried to expand the court by adding new "assistant" justices to help manage the caseload for the older ones. His proposal was struck down, but then a whole bunch retired, so by the end of WW2 the same effect of rebalancing the court had taken place.

a reply to: dawnstar

What's in 'your area'? Seeing this health care issue is a national one, giving a hyperbolic percentile 'in your area' is useless.

I couldn't care less about your area. Your areas should not dictate what happens in my area. Period. Following your logic to it's conclusion, every single subsidized industry-and there are lots-should therefore be controlled by the gov't??Insanity...or communism whichever.

Finally you omit the glaring fact that due to that subsidy to an industry the gov't has the right to mandate it's citizens arbitrarily? That your portion of the co-pay will be on your credit report for life as will that debt with the gov't? That the gov't has a right to lien your estate on your passing? That any upward mobility is squashed by that debt to Uncle Sam stopping one from buying an house or a car? If one is the lowest economic strata, rest assured the health coverage almost destroys any chance for upward mobility. Oh yes, you get fined for not participating.

All justified in your mind by subsidies to the medical industry....simply amazing....

a reply to: StanFL

I have no idea on that one...

a reply to: nwtrucker
or you could interpret what I said to mean that maybe gov't should get out of subsidizing these industries...
and honest, the revenues in my area that come from gov't subsidies are quite a bit more than 50% if I am remembering them right....

Finally you omit the glaring fact that due to that subsidy to an industry the gov't has the right to mandate it's citizens arbitrarily? That your portion of the co-pay will be on your credit report for life as will that debt with the gov't? That the gov't has a right to lien your estate on your passing? That any upward mobility is squashed by that debt to Uncle Sam stopping one from buying an house or a car? If one is the lowest economic strata, rest assured the health coverage almost destroys any chance for upward mobility. Oh yes, you get fined for not participating.

maybe I am wrong, but I think you are talking about obamacare here??? although called the affordable care act, it did nothing to ensure that healthcare was affordable.... it just tried to ensure that everyone had health insurance. health insurance and healthcare are two different things...

but well, I guess maybe I should rephrase what I said...
quite frankly, there was really no constitutional basis for the gov't to step in and start diverting people's hard earned money into the medical research, the drug research, ect, or for them to divert it to providing care to the "poor" (outside of medicaid which is part of social security and the workers are required to pay in throughout their working lives and then receive the benefits for themselves and wives....

but by decided to divert money to those they deemed as "poor" and "deserving" well they brought about an injustice in that they were leaving out others who were really just as needy and deserving, maybe more so. by helping some they basically said that healthcare was a basic right, and therefore created the need to ensure that every person had it!

a reply to: Aazadan

The 'only justification'? Seriously? How about it was 'an agreed upon'. That necessary mechanism which allows a nation to function.

Your argument for the senate is negated by the fact that, these days, being elected as well means they, too, have the same term limits as the representatives do. Unless, of course, you wish to turn back the clock...oh yes, then some of those changes you support might also be overturned....

This goes nowhere. Applying Occam's Razor to this rebut:

There is no such thing as perfect.

The Constitution is more 'perfect' than any other like document.

I will not get the return of esteem that I desire.

You will not get the consensus for the tweaks you promote.

The Cowboys suck.

a reply to: dawnstar

Sorry , not their call. Not your or mine either. At best, a state issue. AT BEST!

This health industry doesn't have a 'right' to subsidy. There is also no 'right' to health care beyond purchasing it.

If your for it, then get your state involved. Leave mine alone. Mine is none of your business.

a reply to: nwtrucker

so, I take it that we are in agreement, for the most part, that the federal gov't should get the taxpayer money out of the healthcare industry....
if the states see a need for it and decide they should intervene that's fine, they can do so with the money that they raise in taxes in their states. they want to fund research they can use their funds, they want to build hospitals, they can use their funds....
what the heck, they have a better understanding of what is needed in their state anyways.....

and well, we can let the mass exodus of people begin as people relocate to states that are more suitable for them and their personal political beliefs...

a reply to: dawnstar

The moving companies would boom, LOL.

Even with funded hospitals, they are obliged to follow regulations such as giving primary aid in their emergency rooms, private hospitals only if it is a trauma case.

Actually, neither private nor socialized systems are perfect. I don't have a problem with a gov't funding a hospital in areas where the private sector hasn't been able to.

My biggest beef is with the feds mandating for all, even with 70% of the people opposed to the current plan.

We've had political/financial movement for years. California has been seeing already and increasing movement out of the state by both businesses and individuals for years. Detroit is another example.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The 'only justification'? Seriously? How about it was 'an agreed upon'. That necessary mechanism which allows a nation to function.

Agreed upon in the sense that it was a compromise that got enough states on board? Sure. But it wasn't what anyone wanted. The Anti Federalists didn't want a Bill of Rights at all (and with hindsight their arguments have been proven correct), while some states wanted more explicit freedoms and others believed that most could be inferred. What was listed was the number of freedoms that everyone could find as a tolerable balance between explicit and inferred, and they were added as Amendments rather than in the Constitution itself to appease the anti's. Concepts like data privacy, travel, and health care were never included because they simply didn't exist in a country that had no hospitals, almost no doctors, few roads, and no recording devices.

Also, note that the Constitution as written would have unified the states with no Amendments whatsoever if they could get past the issue of states like Virginia wanting explicit declarations of rights.

Your argument for the senate is negated by the fact that, these days, being elected as well means they, too, have the same term limits as the representatives do. Unless, of course, you wish to turn back the clock...oh yes, then some of those changes you support might also be overturned....

If we're going to treat the Senate as nothing more than two more representatives per state, then we should merge congress into one body and stop dividing powers. That however would have a grave implication on the system of checks and balances we have. Do you want to know why the states are so weak these days? It's because they effectively have zero representation ever since Senators answered to the people rather than the states.

You will not get the consensus for the tweaks you promote.

Probably not, but I'm used to people disagreeing with me, it's rare anyone ever agrees with the way I see things. I'm not quite smart enough to understand mainstream ideas that make perfect sense to everyone else.

a reply to: Aazadan

It seems health care is a personal hobby-horse of yours. No country even had the thought of gov't paid health care at the time. You keep adding it in/positioning it as if it was an issue when it wasn't.

I don't disagree that's part of the explanation for weakening states rights. Yet I don't see a state appointed Senate turning down the real reason for weakened state rights. That being the bribe/blackmail mechanism of the feds offering money to the states and using that mechanism to gain control of a specific area then when that money is relied on by the state, threaten to cut off that funding if further agreements are not forthcoming.

The States only have themselves to blame for allowing the Feds this much control over them. State appointed Senators probably speeds that process....

Yes the compromise was needed to reach an accord. You make my point.

You, apparently, don't value that accord and wish change to it knowing full well we couldn't even get accord on a Convention of states, never mind modifying the Constitution, itself!

Therefore, it's simple really, without the 'accord' this whole thing goes down.....

That's an amazing fact. One well worth the esteem.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
It seems health care is a personal hobby-horse of yours. No country even had the thought of gov't paid health care at the time. You keep adding it in/positioning it as if it was an issue when it wasn't.

It's not really a hobby of mine any more than I like to have a general grasp of history. I love knowing how/why things work and a large part in understanding modern day processes is by looking to how they were done in the past, and being able to accurately model any system comes in handy for what I do. The reason I keep bringing up health care is because it's a simple yes or no question. If we don't have a right to determine our own health care, then the state has that right. Earlier in the thread I pointed out several cases in which the state dictated how that person was treated, that is consistent with the idea that we don't have a right to health care.

In contrast if we do have that right, that means we have the final say in how we're treated rather than the government which makes the right to health care the smaller government path. However, if we have a right to health care, then that also means that we have rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights such as for example a right to unrestricted travel and that the Constitution isn't all encompassing, but if that's the case what is the standard for what is a right?

Also, government paid for health care isn't the same thing as a right to health care. One is about how something will be paid for while the other is about having access in the first place, the two have little to do with each other. You have a right to free speech which costs no one anything. You have a right to due process which is government sponsored. You have a right to bear arms which costs you money, the government doesn't pay for your weapon. A right to health care has to do with who has final say over your treatment, the state or the individual. Can the government step in and deny you care or mandate your treatment?

I don't disagree that's part of the explanation for weakening states rights. Yet I don't see a state appointed Senate turning down the real reason for weakened state rights. That being the bribe/blackmail mechanism of the feds offering money to the states and using that mechanism to gain control of a specific area then when that money is relied on by the state, threaten to cut off that funding if further agreements are not forthcoming.

Rarely is one cause the result of anything, it's usually a combination of factors.

You, apparently, don't value that accord and wish change to it knowing full well we couldn't even get accord on a Convention of states, never mind modifying the Constitution, itself!

Without the Bill of Rights the Constitution likely would have still been ratified, rather than a guarantee of rights to the citizens however it probably would have involved a clause limiting the power of the Federal Government in some way, which is really all the Bill of Rights does in the first place. What that clause would have been, I can't speculate because I don't know off hand what the main political issues of the day were outside of the very general ones we all know.

a reply to: Aazadan

One can get ANY treatment one desires...(unless forbidden as a 'medical practice'.) One only has to pay for it.

The gov't may restrict the insurance companies or Medicare but cash trumps all. Therefore the right to health care isn't even an issue. It's there to be had...for everyone.

The whole thing is about money. Not 'rights'. The right to health care mantra is actually nothing more than a euphemism for the 'right to free health care'. eventually....

a reply to: the owlbear

You may want someone who is strong on civil liberties appointing the new Supreme Court Justices, but the only Republican option seems unlikely at this point i.e., Sen Rand Paul. (If only the venerable Dr. Ron Paul were forty years younger, this really would be his time to shine in the USA.)

And on the Left it remains to be seen if Debbie Wasserman-Schulz will manipulate the DNC to be sure that Bernie Sanders is not the nominee. He may not be a civil libertarian, but his pro-citizen view against corporations is the only voice on the Left of its kind. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and O'Malley all were created by corporate dollars.

From my vantage point outside the USA, it seems clear that the winning ticket for the Left would be Sen Bernie Sanders with Sen Elizabeth Warren as his vice-presidential choice.

On the Right it is less clear to me although a friend of mine who lived and worked in an embassy in D.C. during the Reagan era insists that the winning ticket for Republicans would be Donald Trump with a Vice-Presidential choice of Rep. Mia Love (r-utah).

Normally, the vice-presidential choice is meant to be the attack dog so the presidential candidate can stay above the fray. But when the Presidential candidate is an attack dog like Trump, then his vice-presidential choice can be far more civil and nuanced whether it is someone like Rep. Love or Dr. Ben Carson.

I mention the vice-presidential choices because if something happens to remove the sitting president, then it will be the Vice-President elevated to Presidency who nominates those new Supreme Court Justices.

As to the Balance of Powers envisaged in the U.S. Constitution and Federalist Papers, no such thing exists today. The Executive Branch reigns, and if the balance isn't renewed soon, a new governmental structure will be needed to stop the Executive Branch from becoming the Imperial Branch imho.

Let's not forget that Executive Branch power has been building incrementally since FDR with the great ramp up in Executive power starting in the Reagan era and increasingly perhaps geometrically with each succeeding President.

Honestly, I don't expect anyone running for President to talk about it at all ... because I suspect they all want the kind of power Obama has and more.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
One can get ANY treatment one desires...(unless forbidden as a 'medical practice'.) One only has to pay for it.

No, you can't. I posted some examples earlier in the thread. For example there was a case that springs to mind where a child had cancer and her parents were Christian Scientists. They denied medical care to their child instead believing that prayer was the proper medical treatment. The court stepped in, took the child away, and forcibly treated her against the wishes of everyone involved. Here's another case in the courts right now. A 17 year old is being forcibly given chemotherapy despite wanting to take a different route to deal with her cancer. Then you get into the sticky situation of involuntary treatment for mental illness which has been upheld from time to time, and most people want to be upheld more often.

If you would like another example lets look at AA which requires a person to believe in a higher power. Sometimes the court will require a person to undergo AA as part of their sentence. Now, not only do they have to admit there's a God but they may not believe in, but they are locked into a medical treatment plan that they can never actually complete due to those beliefs. As an example of a court case you can look at Hazle vs Crofoot where an atheist was given a longer jail sentence because he couldn't successfully complete AA. Eventually he argued his way out of jail on First Amendment grounds, but not until his extra sentence was already up, and a jury awarded him no damages for it. Putting aside the religious aspect of the case for the moment, this is an example of where the state is mandating a treatment plan to a person, if they had the final say over their medical decisions that wouldn't be the case.

Which all goes back to my earlier point, we have taken the Bill of Rights (and a couple other Amendments) to mean that those are the only rights the citizens have, the state has all other rights. Essentially, it has been used to justify a very large government mainly by saying "you can do anything other than x, y, z".

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, yes, Still exceptions that prove the rule.

Now add in that those restrictions have increased at an exponential rate under ObamaCare and would under any form of Federally mandated health service, and my point is made...assuming you see it and aren't playing the bright, troublesome student with me....

It isn't an absolute and is incremental by nature.

Yet again, it is best dealt with on a state by state basis.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Yes, yes, Still exceptions that prove the rule.

It's exceptions that ultimately determine if we have that right or not, and these exceptions prove that we don't. The ACA has nothing to do with a right to health care (other than it's supporters conflating the two issues). You have the right to own a gun but no one is going out and subsidizing gun purchases, are they?

Yet again, it is best dealt with on a state by state basis.

But why? Why is this best dealt with on a state by state basis but the First Amendment is not?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Yes, yes, Still exceptions that prove the rule.

It's exceptions that ultimately determine if we have that right or not, and these exceptions prove that we don't. The ACA has nothing to do with a right to health care (other than it's supporters conflating the two issues). You have the right to own a gun but no one is going out and subsidizing gun purchases, are they?

Yet again, it is best dealt with on a state by state basis.

But why? Why is this best dealt with on a state by state basis but the First Amendment is not?

Really? You compare the first to health care 'rights'? Let's see if you can rebut this one yourself. Your 'why nots?' seems to avoid looking at the real or possible consequences of those 'why nots?'

I will give you the first hint, grasshopper, one is a fundamental, the other smacks of agenda. One costs money, the other doesn't. One implies gov'ts providing, the other gov't protecting. Pretty basic.

Yes, I know, you will cite egs where that broad-stroke has already been violated. I will pre-rebut and say look at the mess we're in as a result. Then there's the can of worms that precedent opens up....

Start listing these so-called rights and they bump into each other resulting in a cacophony of conflicting rights. We already have seen that one on gay marriage rights Vs. freedom to practice one's religion. Just a sample, I don't and won't go there.

We've digressed enough. Either way any changes, yours or mine require first our leaders and potential leaders raising the issue and they are not. The point of the thread....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Really? You compare the first to health care 'rights'? Let's see if you can rebut this one yourself. Your 'why nots?' seems to avoid looking at the real or possible consequences of those 'why nots?'

I will give you the first hint, grasshopper, one is a fundamental, the other smacks of agenda. One costs money, the other doesn't. One implies gov'ts providing, the other gov't protecting. Pretty basic.

Due process costs money, free speech doesn't, buying a gun costs money, refusing to quarter troops doesn't. The right to determine your own health care is pretty much the exact opposite of government providing. When government provides they act as an insurance agency and pay for a list of approved treatments.

Start listing these so-called rights and they bump into each other resulting in a cacophony of conflicting rights. We already have seen that one on gay marriage rights Vs. freedom to practice one's religion. Just a sample, I don't and won't go there.

Kind of low to bring it up and then say it's not a topic for debate, so I'll answer anyways. There is no conflict between gay marriage and religious freedom. Christianity does not have a stranglehold on the practice of marriage. Buddhists for example practice marriage and have always allowed for homosexual unions. Marriage as a government recognized institution is not allowed to be discriminatory, so as long as there's a legal concept of marriage that confers benefits like a marital communications privilege, tax breaks, power of attorney, and so on then homosexuals must be free to marry. Marriage as a religious institution however is left up to the church, Christians can be married according to their church but not according to the law, they are different practices that share the same name and the practice means different things from one religion to another.