When the Constitution gets in Pelosi's way, she'll just ignore it....

[CycloWizard]

It's actually extraordinarily simple.

You're right to life cannot interfere with my right to my property.

[FONT=&quot]"Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation."[/FONT]

As much as I oppose this healthcare bill, I think the hierarchy of rights is being misstated here. One's right to life necessarily takes priority over the right to property. However, having a right to life, liberty, or property is simply a guarantee that others will not have a legal recourse to infringe on these rights, except according to the hierarchy of rights. For example, within this framework, one cannot take a life to protect your right to liberty, as life is above liberty in the hierarchy.

That said, one's right to life is not a claim on anyone else's rights to life, liberty, or property. I have no legal claim to take someone's bank accounts to improve my lifespan because he has a right to property which is inalienable, except as he attempts to use it to infringe on my right to life or liberty. In other words, this does not give anyone a claim against the life, liberty, or property of anyone else: it only protects each of these rights from infringement by individuals or government.

 

[spidey07]

Ugg. I may have been speaking too soon. Pelosi is saying this is the preferred route because it will hide how any house members voted because there would be no vote on the bill.

So let me get this straight. People don't want this, many house democrats scared they'll lose their seat, so instead of representing their constituents we'll make it so you can say you didn't "vote" for the senate bill.

This is madness. This is tyranny!

 

[cubeless]

As much as I oppose this healthcare bill, I think the hierarchy of rights is being misstated here. One's right to life necessarily takes priority over the right to property. However, having a right to life, liberty, or property is simply a guarantee that others will not have a legal recourse to infringe on these rights, except according to the hierarchy of rights. For example, within this framework, one cannot take a life to protect your right to liberty, as life is above liberty in the hierarchy.

That said, one's right to life is not a claim on anyone else's rights to life, liberty, or property. I have no legal claim to take someone's bank accounts to improve my lifespan because he has a right to property which is inalienable, except as he attempts to use it to infringe on my right to life or liberty. In other words, this does not give anyone a claim against the life, liberty, or property of anyone else: it only protects each of these rights from infringement by individuals or government.

wow... my head about exploded from that one...

the question seems to fall back to: how much of my production is it ok for the govt to take to give to other people for stuff... because tomorrow everyone will vote themselves the right to a car, etc...

 

[QuantumPion]

As much as I oppose this healthcare bill, I think the hierarchy of rights is being misstated here. One's right to life necessarily takes priority over the right to property. However, having a right to life, liberty, or property is simply a guarantee that others will not have a legal recourse to infringe on these rights, except according to the hierarchy of rights. For example, within this framework, one cannot take a life to protect your right to liberty, as life is above liberty in the hierarchy.

That said, one's right to life is not a claim on anyone else's rights to life, liberty, or property. I have no legal claim to take someone's bank accounts to improve my lifespan because he has a right to property which is inalienable, except as he attempts to use it to infringe on my right to life or liberty. In other words, this does not give anyone a claim against the life, liberty, or property of anyone else: it only protects each of these rights from infringement by individuals or government.

I guess since you are a European that might make sense, but here in America that is completely 180 degrees wrong.

a) I'm not sure what your real position is on the issue since you contradicted yourself but your right to life does not include taking my property to provide it. If it did, there would be no property rights.

b) Liberty > life. At least that is what America's founders thought. Note that person A refusing to give person B money to pay for health care does not equate to person A killing person B. Person A is not responsible for the life choices of person B.

 

[CycloWizard]

Ugg. I may have been speaking too soon. Pelosi is saying this is the preferred route because it will hide how any house members voted because there would be no vote on the bill.

So let me get this straight. People don't want this, many house democrats scared they'll lose their seat, so instead of representing their constituents we'll make it so you can say you didn't "vote" for the senate bill.

This is madness. This is tyranny!

Hence my analogy.

 

[waggy]

"Your side shit on the Constitution for years and now it's our turn!". Brilliant. I love watching the Dems/Reps fight each other like this. It's really quite funny when you simplify it. "Your momma!"

yeah its rather disgusting ain't it?


I'm all for health care. i just don't care for how they are trying to force it in. i suspect a bad backlash on Dems next election..

 

[CycloWizard]

I guess since you are a European that might make sense, but here in America that is completely 180 degrees wrong.

a) I'm not sure what your real position is on the issue since you contradicted yourself but your right to life does not include taking my property to provide it. If it did, there would be no property rights.

b) Liberty > life. At least that is what America's founders thought. Note that person A refusing to give person B money to pay for health care does not equate to person A killing person B. Person A is not responsible for the life choices of person B.

Except I'm not European - I'm American. Your point A is exactly what I said: one's rights are not an imposition on anyone else, only a protection for the individual. Life is necessary for liberty, so liberty can never take priority over life. This is clearly indicated in the initial statement of the hierarchy of rights in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Thus, the entire purpose of government is to uphold these rights, not make impositions on them.

 

[bfdd]

Yes it does. It gives Congress the right to legislate what it sees fit, within the boundaries of the Constitution, and to raise taxes to pay for that legislation.

Pretty hard to argue that health care isn't germaine to "life", which is one of the things our government is charged with protecting.

See I always took life as you can live how you choose to live, not that you're guaranteed to live.

Also, what's with all the people hating on the filibuster process? There's nothing wrong with filibusters, it just is constantly abused because everything is fucking R vs D and just towing the party lines. You want REAL change stop voting for the same pieces of shit over and over and over who constantly just tow their party lines and could give one flying fuck about you or me, only that they and their party are in power.

 

[waggy]

Also, what's with all the people hating on the filibuster process? There's nothing wrong with filibusters, it just is constantly abused because everything is fucking R vs D and just towing the party lines. You want REAL change stop voting for the same pieces of shit over and over and over who constantly just tow their party lines and could give one flying fuck about you or me, only that they and their party are in power.

yeap. but people won't do that. same reason people don't vote out corrupt politicians. People really don't care.

 

[CycloWizard]

wow... my head about exploded from that one...

the question seems to fall back to: how much of my production is it ok for the govt to take to give to other people for stuff... because tomorrow everyone will vote themselves the right to a car, etc...

The answer is in the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In other words, if a government infringes on the life, liberty, or property of its citizens, then it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Further,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[Patranus]

I find it funny that the Democrats are going to employ this blatantly unconstitutional means to pass this legislation in a effort to allow their members to go home and act like they didn't vote for the legislation.

Do they really thing the American people will not see right through this?

I don't care what party or ideological group you are in, the Constitution is a vague in this area. All laws must be voted on in the house and the yes and no votes recorded.

Then again, the "progressives" interoperate the lack of interstate commerce as interstate commerce so I guess something as clear cut as voting on something could be up to interpretation by that group.

 

[nonlnear]

Yes it does. It gives Congress the right to legislate what it sees fit, within the boundaries of the Constitution, and to raise taxes to pay for that legislation.

Pretty hard to argue that health care isn't germaine to "life", which is one of the things our government is charged with protecting.

Totally wrong. The government is not charged with protecting life, it is restricted from depriving the people of it.

Your argument falls flat unless you are willing to argue that the government should provide everybody with a house, clothes and food too. In fact those would be MORE germane to "life" than health care, so don't try to claim that this is a reductio ad absurdum either...

 

[CycloWizard]

Totally wrong. The government is not charged with protecting life, it is restricted from depriving the people of it.

Your argument falls flat unless you are willing to argue that the government should provide everybody with a house, clothes and food too. In fact those would be MORE germane to "life" than health care, so don't try to claim that this is a reductio ad absurdum either...

Exactly. A right is not a claim on anyone - it is simply a protection from infringement. Whether you live or die is up to you and no one else - that is the point of the hierarchy.

edit: I'll also add that the government is also responsible for ensuring that other individuals do not deprive you of these rights.

 

[waggy]

I find it funny that the Democrats are going to employ this blatantly unconstitutional means to pass this legislation in a effort to allow their members to go home and act like they didn't vote for the legislation.

Do they really thing the American people will not see right through this?

yes they do And sadly they are right. Even though the GOP will bring it up every possible chance they get FOR YEARS. it won't hurt the Dems very bad at all.

 

[Patranus]

yes they do And sadly they are right. Even though the GOP will bring it up every possible chance they get FOR YEARS. it won't hurt the Dems very bad at all.

I don't think you are correct. This will hurt the Democrats just as bad if not worse considering the fact that Obama ran his entire campaign on "change" and instead of the image he painted on the campaign trail, his "change" has been more corruption.

 

[cubeless]

snip

reductio ad absurdum...

this will be the epitaph of the republic...

 

[cubeless]

Exactly. A right is not a claim on anyone - it is simply a protection from infringement. Whether you live or die is up to you and no one else - that is the point of the hierarchy.

edit: I'll also add that the government is also responsible for ensuring that other individuals do not deprive you of these rights.

but it's ok if the gov't does?

 

[CycloWizard]

but it's ok if the gov't does?

Did I say that anywhere? Anything resembling that?

 

[waggy]

I don't think you are correct. This will hurt the Democrats just as bad if not worse considering the fact that Obama ran his entire campaign on "change" and instead of the image he painted on the campaign trail, his "change" has been more corruption.

IF it fails (doubt it by the way they are talking. its going to pass by "hook or crook") then Obama is going to look foolish for fighting so hard on something and loosing.

IF it pass's the way it looks like it will. then the dems in Congress are going to look weak in that they did what Obama wanted even going against what the people who elected them wanted. I suspect some will get voted out.

 

[spidey07]

The more I'm reading about this Slaughter rule it seems the bill won't be law. Both house and senate must VOTE on a single bill for it to become law (executed by executive branch). Obama can sign the senate bill all he wants, but it will not be law because house didn't vote on it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well regardless of what he said or didn't say, actions speak louder than words and GWB used the constitution as his own personal ass rag on many occasions.

Which I was completely against. Guess what? I'm against any party who tries it.

One thing which hasn't occurred to you. Any bill passed under rules the SCOTUS deems unconstitutional will probably become moot.

At that point it does start over from square one.

 

[spidey07]

Which I was completely against. Guess what? I'm against any party who tries it.

One thing which hasn't occurred to you. Any bill passed under rules the SCOTUS deems unconstitutional will probably become moot.

At that point it does start over from square one.

Somebody correct me, but isn't any bill/law thrown out if ANY part of it is unconstitutional? Or can the SC just pick and choose parts to toss?

 

[woolfe9999]

Somebody correct me, but isn't any bill/law thrown out if ANY part of it is unconstitutional? Or can the SC just pick and choose parts to toss?

The short answer is, they can "pick and choose parts to toss."

If the procedure that produces the bill itself is unconstitutional, however, then the entire bill is out. So for example, if the mandate in the bill is unconstitutional, only the mandate is moot. However, if the deem and pass procedure that Pelosi is talking about is unconstitutional, then the whole bill is out.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

Which I was completely against. Guess what? I'm against any party who tries it.

One thing which hasn't occurred to you. Any bill passed under rules the SCOTUS deems unconstitutional will probably become moot.

At that point it does start over from square one.

This procedure has been used dozens of times in the past. It's likely that other legislation would have already been tossed if this procedure is unconstitutional. It isn't unconstitutional anyway. If you really understand what the procedure is, it just obviously isn't.

- wolf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This procedure has been used dozens of times in the past. It's likely that other legislation would have already been tossed if this procedure is unconstitutional. It isn't unconstitutional anyway. If you really understand what the procedure is, it just obviously isn't.

- wolf

If Pelosi gets her way...will I be able to tell how my elected representatives voted?