The abortion issue: one solution

[Taichiliberal]

Libbie, it makes me so happy to see you shoot yourself in the foot like this. When I'm skiing at Lake Tahoe next week I will think fondly of this gift that you gave me today.

Have you ever heard of James Madison? Historians call him "The 'Father of the Constitution,' [since] he was the principal author of the document." James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Madison also wrote some of the Federalist Papers. These were a series of papers published during the time that the Constitution was being debated on and "sold" to the American People. They are the best indication that we have to ascertain the true intent of The Framers.

In Federalist 14 Madison discusses limited government and alludes to what is meant by Article I Section 8:



Apparently there were dim-wits back then as well, or perhaps Madison somehow knew that you'd be giving me this awesome gift on March 26, 2010, because in Federalist 41 he directly addresses your dim-witted assertion, pointing out Article I Section 8 specifically:

Of course you are aware that Madison did not live long enough to witness the various amendments and SCOTUS rulings that prevented his perceived fears of an over reaching gov't.? If not, then do so more research before you try to deluge us all with quotations.

In any event, this nice little recitation of yours CHANGES NOTHING...AS I EXPLAINED TO DAMO

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - The abortion issue: one solution

Carry on, einstein.

 

[DamnYankee]

Of course you are aware that Madison did not live long enough to witness the various amendments and SCOTUS rulings that prevented his perceived fears of an over reaching gov't.? If not, then do so more research before you try to deluge us all with quotations.

In any event, this nice little recitation of yours CHANGES NOTHING...AS I EXPLAINED TO DAMO

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - The abortion issue: one solution

Carry on, einstein.

Earth to Libbie: all the Founders are dead.

That doesn't change what they wrote. And what Madison wrote is that your "general welfare clause" does not exist.

Your post to Damo does nothing to support your case here. The fact is that the Constitution calls for limited government and much of what the Feds do is unconstitutional. Your Party's latest foray is the latest and most blatant example.

You fail.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal


Of course you are aware that Madison did not live long enough to witness the various amendments and SCOTUS rulings that prevented his perceived fears of an over reaching gov't.? If not, then do so more research before you try to deluge us all with quotations.

In any event, this nice little recitation of yours CHANGES NOTHING...AS I EXPLAINED TO DAMO

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - The abortion issue: one solution

Carry on, einstein.

Earth to Libbie: all the Founders are dead.

No shit sherlock, why do you think I pointed that out to YOU indirectly? Or do you only understand simple sentences?

That doesn't change what they wrote. And what Madison wrote is that your "general welfare clause" does not exist.

Funny, it's STILL in writing and STILL on record and STILL being enacted upon to this day. Madison's writings, like many of the post Constitution writings of the founding fathers, is NOT law. It can be debated until doomsday, but never the less what is written and what I quoted is pretty direct and simple.

Your post to Damo does nothing to support your case here. The fact is that the Constitution calls for limited government and much of what the Feds do is unconstitutional. Your Party's latest foray is the latest and most blatant example.

You fail.

Really? Then all you have to do is explain why the health insurance companies enjoy an exemption from the anti-trust laws. Seems you want a double standard....for the gov't to give an EXEMPTION to one PRIVATE enterprise that it does not extend to others, then you wail like a stuck pig when the same gov't places SOME regulations on said enterprise.

You can't have it both ways, Southie......and if you're head hasn't exploded yet, it probably will when you realize that my proposal falls well within the realm of rights of the federal gov't under the Constitution...unless of course you can find a way around your self imposed conundrum. Carry on.

 

[DamnYankee]

Really? Then all you have to do is explain why the health insurance companies enjoy an exemption from the anti-trust laws. Seems you want a double standard....for the gov't to give an EXEMPTION to one PRIVATE enterprise that it does not extend to others, then you wail like a stuck pig when the same gov't places SOME regulations on said enterprise.

You can't have it both ways, Southie......and if you're head hasn't exploded yet, it probably will when you realize that my proposal falls well within the realm of rights of the federal gov't under the Constitution...unless of course you can find a way around your self imposed conundrum. Carry on.

We're not talking about insurance companies here Libbie but the federal government. Again, please cite where in the Constitution it permits the federal government to provide health insurance to the People. The fact is, it doesn't, and your Democrats have therefore broken the law.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Earth to Libbie: all the Founders are dead.

That doesn't change what they wrote. And what Madison wrote is that your "general welfare clause" does not exist.

Your post to Damo does nothing to support your case here. The fact is that the Constitution calls for limited government and much of what the Feds do is unconstitutional. Your Party's latest foray is the latest and most blatant example.

You fail.

Again, your cut & paste has NOTHING to do with the Congress having the power to regulate commerce..and since the health insurance industry is a SERIOUS part of our economy, Congress can regulate how they do business. Like I tried to school you before, since the health insurance industry enjoys an exemption from the anti-trust laws, they are already more-than-willing participants in the workings of the Federal gov't.

SO, my intellectually stunted friend, Your entire argument was rendered moot LONG before you patted yourself on the back for this latest diatribe of yours. Oh, and unless you're willing to declare SEVERAL actions of the past Shrub gov't unconstitutional (because they used the EXACT same tactics to pass laws), I suggest you just stfu and stop making an ass of yourself.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Really? Then all you have to do is explain why the health insurance companies enjoy an exemption from the anti-trust laws. Seems you want a double standard....for the gov't to give an EXEMPTION to one PRIVATE enterprise that it does not extend to others, then you wail like a stuck pig when the same gov't places SOME regulations on said enterprise.

You can't have it both ways, Southie......and if you're head hasn't exploded yet, it probably will when you realize that my proposal falls well within the realm of rights of the federal gov't under the Constitution...unless of course you can find a way around your self imposed conundrum. Carry on.

We're not talking about insurance companies here Libbie but the federal government. Again, please cite where in the Constitution it permits the federal government to provide health insurance to the People. The fact is, it doesn't, and your Democrats have therefore broken the law.

Back track the thread, genius! This whole discussion is about the whether my proposal is Constitutionally sound. Since Congress does have the power to regulate commerce (and THAT you cannot deny), and the health insurance agencies fall under that label with regards to our economy, and they enjoy LAWS that EXEMPT them from certain commerce control, then my proposal is sound...because health insurance companies determine personal medical procedures AS DETERMINED BY THE STATE WITH REGARDS TO FEDERAL LAW OF Roe vs. Wade being legal.

Back to square one: when all is said and done, it seems when given the chance to withhold any participation in abortion, the anti-abortion zealots are not interested.....at least on these boards anyway.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, your cut & paste has NOTHING to do with the Congress having the power to regulate commerce..and since the health insurance industry is a SERIOUS part of our economy, Congress can regulate how they do business. Like I tried to school you before, since the health insurance industry enjoys an exemption from the anti-trust laws, they are already more-than-willing participants in the workings of the Federal gov't.

SO, my intellectually stunted friend, Your entire argument was rendered moot LONG before you patted yourself on the back for this latest diatribe of yours. Oh, and unless you're willing to declare SEVERAL actions of the past Shrub gov't unconstitutional (because they used the EXACT same tactics to pass laws), I suggest you just stfu and stop making an ass of yourself.

Article I Section 8 Clause 3:

[The Congress shall have Power To]... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;

Says nothing about regulating commerce between The People. Madison discusses this at length in Federalist 42, and his discussion is limited solely to matters of State.

Again you fail.

 

[DamnYankee]

Back track the thread, genius! This whole discussion is about the whether my proposal is Constitutionally sound. Since Congress does have the power to regulate commerce (and THAT you cannot deny), and the health insurance agencies fall under that label with regards to our economy, and they enjoy LAWS that EXEMPT them from certain commerce control, then my proposal is sound...because health insurance companies determine personal medical procedures AS DETERMINED BY THE STATE WITH REGARDS TO FEDERAL LAW OF Roe vs. Wade being legal.

Back to square one: when all is said and done, it seems when given the chance to withhold any participation in abortion, the anti-abortion zealots are not interested.....at least on these boards anyway.

Yes let's get back to square one. Using your logic with your brilliant abortion idea, you should be fully supportive of the following:

Okay, one of the major complaints by the enumerated powers folks is that they don't want their tax dollars funding Federal programs that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

My solution: just have an insert in the IRS form that allow filers the option of NOT funding Federal programs that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution.....it can have a little calculation chart that by which they can figure out what percentage of their earnings should be exempt from taxation.

That way, the objection would totally be on moral grounds...and the debate would have a whole new angle on capitol hill and the public forum.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Article I Section 8 Clause 3:

Says nothing about regulating commerce between The People. Madison discusses this at length in Federalist 42, and his discussion is limited solely to matters of State.

Again you fail.

Post #199, genius. What part of "Among the Several States" don't you understand? Get an adult to explain it to you. Then you can explain to me how you agree that health insurance companies can enjoy a gov't granted exemption from anti-trust laws, but cannot be regulated on any level from the same gov't, which has the power to regulate commerce.

I already schooled you on your wasted Madison cut & paste...so you're just being insipidly stubborn as usual.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yes let's get back to square one. Using your logic with your brilliant abortion idea, you should be fully supportive of the following:

Stop acting silly....you're ridiculous version of what I proposed has been addressed six ways to Sunday throughout this thread...you've got nothing, so you just keep repeating yourself.

 

[DamnYankee]

Post #199, genius. What part of "Among the Several States" don't you understand? Get an adult to explain it to you. Then you can explain to me how you agree that health insurance companies can enjoy a gov't granted exemption from anti-trust laws, but cannot be regulated on any level from the same gov't, which has the power to regulate commerce.

I already schooled you on your wasted Madison cut & paste...so you're just being insipidly stubborn as usual.

Post 199 shows that you again confuse States with The People.

 

[DamnYankee]

Stop acting silly....you're ridiculous version of what I proposed has been addressed six ways to Sunday throughout this thread...you've got nothing, so you just keep repeating yourself.

How ironic. Again you do exactly what you accuse me of. Do you support my proposal or not?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Post 199 shows that you again confuse States with The People.

So the Constitution was about land and property, NOT the people who inhabit it and use said property? Are you truly this fucking stupid, Southie?

You can split all the hairs you want, but you can't bypass simple facts:

Roe vs. Wade is LAW

My proposal does NOT in anyway change this law, nor prevent those who oppose it from protesting and soliciting against it or advocating repeal.

Congress regulates commerce and works for the general welfare of the country--states and the people that inhabit them....therefore it's well within it's power to insert in the tax laws an option (state and/or federal) regarding the commerce of a business THAT ALREADY ENJOYS GOV'T REGULATION VIA EXEMPTION FROM ANTI-TRUST LAWS.

You don't like abortion...fine. Go to your state and federal reps to get it repealed. If my option existed, you could opt NOT to have your money fund it. Simple, direct and legal - if the proposal was fact.

 

[Taichiliberal]

How ironic. Again you do exactly what you accuse me of. Do you support my proposal or not?

Post #24, 31, 38, 179, 181, 186, 188, 191, 199, 209, and so on, and so on.

This should be an easy guide for the reader to see what an intellectually bankrupt and dishonest person you are on these threads.....Now, you may to stubbornly repeat the entire thread...the result of your defeat will be the same. (See folks, like the insane, neocons think that repeating the same exact discussion pattern will produce a different result).

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Chicklet, why don't you shut the fuck up or die?

 

[DamnYankee]

So the Constitution was about land and property, NOT the people who inhabit it and use said property? Are you truly this fucking stupid, Southie?

You can split all the hairs you want, but you can't bypass simple facts:

Roe vs. Wade is LAW

My proposal does NOT in anyway change this law, nor prevent those who oppose it from protesting and soliciting against it or advocating repeal.

Congress regulates commerce and works for the general welfare of the country--states and the people that inhabit them....therefore it's well within it's power to insert in the tax laws an option (state and/or federal) regarding the commerce of a business THAT ALREADY ENJOYS GOV'T REGULATION VIA EXEMPTION FROM ANTI-TRUST LAWS.

You don't like abortion...fine. Go to your state and federal reps to get it repealed. If my option existed, you could opt NOT to have your money fund it. Simple, direct and legal - if the proposal was fact.

Your post here makes no sense. We're talking about legislation that is not supported by the Constitution, which includes much of what has been written since FDR. Abortion is simply one of those laws. So if you support your own proposal, in order to be consistent you must support mine.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Chicklet, why don't you shut the fuck up or die?

BRILLIANT RETORT, Dixie! Spent all night on that one, did ya?

Poor little intellectually bankrupt Dixie....a simple proposal to which his prepackaged mantras and slogans have no effect just rips the hinges of his fragile mind.

I almost feel sorry for the little dope....almost.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So the Constitution was about land and property, NOT the people who inhabit it and use said property? Are you truly this fucking stupid, Southie?

You can split all the hairs you want, but you can't bypass simple facts:

Roe vs. Wade is LAW

My proposal does NOT in anyway change this law, nor prevent those who oppose it from protesting and soliciting against it or advocating repeal.

Congress regulates commerce and works for the general welfare of the country--states and the people that inhabit them....therefore it's well within it's power to insert in the tax laws an option (state and/or federal) regarding the commerce of a business THAT ALREADY ENJOYS GOV'T REGULATION VIA EXEMPTION FROM ANTI-TRUST LAWS.

You don't like abortion...fine. Go to your state and federal reps to get it repealed. If my option existed, you could opt NOT to have your money fund it. Simple, direct and legal - if the proposal was fact.

Your post here makes no sense. Translation: Southie has no way to logically/factually refute what I wrote, so he'll just repeat an already addressed point. We're talking about legislation that is not supported by the Constitution, which includes much of what has been written since FDR. Abortion is simply one of those laws. So if you support your own proposal, in order to be consistent you must support mine.

What did I tell you folks...all one has to do is follow the thread and see how when Southie cannot logically or factually refute/disprove what I point out or defend his position, he just throws out a mish-mosh of assertions and opinions that have NO basis in reality.

Earth to Southie: Your OPINION, SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE ARE NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR FACT.

Notice, folks how Southie IGNORES THE FACT that Roe vs. Wade has survived SCOTUS review and Congress/Senate debate for over 30 years....notice how Southie IGNORES THE FACT that since Congress EXEMPTS HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM ANTI-TRUST LAWS, then it is well within legal and Constitutional bounds to add an option to the tax laws that provide an OPTION that deals with the nation's commerce......notice how Southie REFUSES to acknowledge that Congress has the power to regulate commerce of the States VIA THE CONSTITUTION.

Essentially, Southie's argument is one of denial....because my proposal would strip away an important physical/legal point of the anti-abortionist and demonstrate to all their ideological bent to superscede all others lives. Post #214 says it all.

 

[DamnYankee]

What did I tell you folks...all one has to do is follow the thread and see how when Southie cannot logically or factually refute/disprove what I point out or defend his position, he just throws out a mish-mosh of assertions and opinions that have NO basis in reality.

Earth to Southie: Your OPINION, SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE ARE NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR FACT.

Notice, folks how Southie IGNORES THE FACT that Roe vs. Wade has survived SCOTUS review and Congress/Senate debate for over 30 years....notice how Southie IGNORES THE FACT that since Congress EXEMPTS HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM ANTI-TRUST LAWS, then it is well within legal and Constitutional bounds to add an option to the tax laws that provide an OPTION that deals with the nation's commerce......notice how Southie REFUSES to acknowledge that Congress has the power to regulate commerce of the States VIA THE CONSTITUTION.

Essentially, Southie's argument is one of denial....because my proposal would strip away an important physical/legal point of the anti-abortionist and demonstrate to all their ideological bent to superscede all others lives. Post #214 says it all.

SCOTUS routinely lets Congress usurp the Constitution, Libbie. That doesn't make laws that they reviewed Constitutional. Didn't you read what Madison wrote in Federalist 14 and 41?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What did I tell you folks...all one has to do is follow the thread and see how when Southie cannot logically or factually refute/disprove what I point out or defend his position, he just throws out a mish-mosh of assertions and opinions that have NO basis in reality.

Earth to Southie: Your OPINION, SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE ARE NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR FACT.

Notice, folks how Southie IGNORES THE FACT that Roe vs. Wade has survived SCOTUS review and Congress/Senate debate for over 30 years....notice how Southie IGNORES THE FACT that since Congress EXEMPTS HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM ANTI-TRUST LAWS, then it is well within legal and Constitutional bounds to add an option to the tax laws that provide an OPTION that deals with the nation's commerce......notice how Southie REFUSES to acknowledge that Congress has the power to regulate commerce of the States VIA THE CONSTITUTION.

Essentially, Southie's argument is one of denial....because my proposal would strip away an important physical/legal point of the anti-abortionist and demonstrate to all their ideological bent to superscede all others lives. Post #214 says it all.

SCOTUS routinely lets Congress usurp the Constitution, Libbie. That doesn't make laws that they reviewed Constitutional. Didn't you read what Madison wrote in Federalist 14 and 41?

Didn't we already do this dance, Southie? Go back and see what my answers were...so you can ignore them all over again.

You've got nothing but to parrot your already disproven assertions and claims. My above post quote stands....now why don't you have the last word with your usual false claim or accusation or a new verison of the SOS you've already posted? I'll leave you to it.