29th Amendment

[supervike]

You should first work on comprehending what is being said. Yes, it was passed by the majority. That’s how it became law. But how was it done? Was it representative of the wishes of the majority of the people? Absolutely not! This was rammed through without the consent of the people. That makes this law invalid. That makes it a bad law. Bad laws usually get repealed.

When the POTUS refuses, to talk to Republicans, these issues find ways to come up. If the POTUS was not intent in harming this nation with his-way-or-the-highway tactics, we wouldn’t be in this predicament.

Thats how ALL laws are made. A majority rules on it.

It certainly doesn't invalidate the law.

It may very well be a bad law, but shutting the government down is NOT the way to repeal it. There is a legal process to change it. Why can't they play within the rules?

[Leonardo]

I agree with your statement but the focus is less about what the government can force us to do as it is a limitation of what it can do to us. That is a concept in keeping with the first 10 Amendments Commandments. The premise is that as long as we have a healthy two-party system, no such law would be passed in the first place. It would require such an overwhelming acceptance among the people before such a bipartisan vote would take place.

Fixed your post for you. No need to thank me.

[F3SS]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Repubs reel in just as many 'zombie' voters.

I think they call them Ditto heads....and they are proud of the moniker. It's no different. Villifying one side over the other is an age old tired tactic.

People voted Obama in PERIOD.. If they don't like it, then do better next time.

Very well. Rush does have some mindless followers. Anyways, this is an observational argument and not a sour grapes argument. Capitalizing period won't make me understand the results of the election any more or any less. So what if I don't like Obama. Just because he won doesn't mean I have to sit quietly while he destroys the country. Besides, we're all here to voice an opinion. What the hell you think these forums are for? Lecture and study? Partly, but not entirely.

[supervike]

Very well. Rush does have some mindless followers. Anyways, this is an observational argument and not a sour grapes argument. Capitalizing period won't make me understand the results of the election any more or any less. So what if I don't like Obama. Just because he won doesn't mean I have to sit quietly while he destroys the country. Besides, we're all here to voice an opinion. What the hell you think these forums are for? Lecture and study? Partly, but not entirely.

Oh hey, I don't disagree at all. This is the exact kind of stuff I like to discuss here in the forums.

My point wasn't meant to be directed at you personally, but to the Repubs in general. Meaning, if they don't like that the country voted in Obama, they need to pick up their game. But, they should do that through the correct channels and not stamp their feet and scream until they are heard.

Now, here in the forum, I'd expect folks to stamp and scream to their content...

[F3SS]

I'd hope so 'cause I don't plan on stopping anytime soon!

[ninjadude]

You should first work on comprehending what is being said. Yes, it was passed by the majority. That’s how it became law. But how was it done? Was it representative of the wishes of the majority of the people? Absolutely not! This was rammed through without the consent of the people. That makes this law invalid. That makes it a bad law. Bad laws usually get repealed.

Apparently you missed civics class. We are not a democracy. It was passed by a majority of the the peoples REPRESENATIVES aka Congress. There for it is the will of a majority of people WITH their consent. It is very valid. It is a great step from what we had to medicare for all.

The problem with politicians is they try to make themselves exempt from laws.

Congress already has health insurance. How are they exempt?

[Drayno]

Apparently you missed civics class. We are not a democracy. It was passed by a majority of the the peoples REPRESENATIVES aka Congress. There for it is the will of a majority of people WITH their consent. It is very valid. It is a great step from what we had to medicare for all.

Congress already has health insurance. How are they exempt?

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/10/obama_obamacare_boehner_congre.html

Interesting article..

Some Republicans who refuse to continue funding the government without changes to the ACA accuse the Obama administration of granting an exemption to Congress.

Is it true?

It might depend on what someone wants to believe. Or what someone wants the American public to believe.

The ACA requires members of Congress and their staffers to select their health insurance from the new exchange that opened Oct. 1. In the past, they chose their coverage from a menu of plans available to federal employees.

They also have long received an employer contribution toward their health insurance -- just like most people who receive coverage from a private employer.

Federal officials recently decided members of Congress will continue to receive that contribution, and will be allowed to use it toward coverage purchased on the exchange.

But that's different than the rules that apply to regular citizens -- they aren't allowed to take an employer contribution and apply it to coverage purchased through the exchange.

And that gives rise to what some opponents of the Affordable Care Act are deriding as an "exemption."

But is it really an exemption?

[RavenHawk]

Thats how ALL laws are made. A majority rules on it.

That’s exactly how it was designed to be but this is also the ultimate example of what the Founding Fathers warned us about with the extremes of Democracy. That is why they did everything to keep us from being a Democracy. We are a Republic that utilizes aspects of a Democracy.

It certainly doesn't invalidate the law.

Common sense states this is a perfect storm of usurpation. It was achieved dishonestly. Not one Republican Senator voted for it. All Republicans but one or two Rinos in the House voted against it. And the majority of Americans do not want it. Even when it goes into full effect, there will be at least 11 million Americans still not covered. Justice Roberts didn’t say it was right, just that for the time being, it was Constitutional. So why should this Law stay? DOMA was finally effectively ruled unConstitutional and in 2014 Obamacare will be challenged in the courts again for different reasons; reasons that are this time, clearly unConstitutional.

It may very well be a bad law, but shutting the government down is NOT the way to repeal it. There is a legal process to change it. Why can't they play within the rules?

Again, when the first thing out of the POTUS’s mouth is, “I will not negotiate”, don’t you think that is bad practice that may put into motion undesirable consequences? This is the POTUS after all. At some point in this term, he’ll have to be seen as governing and not campaigning for once. But you do realize that this government has been shutdown some 17 times since the mid 70s? And none of them were catastrophic; only during this administration. Why waste a good crisis. Any time is a good time to repeal this immoral and unConstitutional Law.

[Frank Merton]

With the steady spread of the right to vote, especially to illiterates, and very recent arrivals in a location, and late teenagers, and, most significantly, those with no property interest in the welfare of the community but every interest in what they can get out of it, the States and most of the rest of the world has steadily become more and more "democratic."

This has its good and its bad sides, but mostly bad. For one thing, I think people who pay no taxes or who get half or more of their income from the government (other than insurance) should not be able to vote. Residency requirements also need lengthening in many places, and pre-registration, so as to stop the voter fraud no present in most major cities. And if someone cannot read and write, how can the be expected to vote sensibly?

[ninjadude]

It was achieved dishonestly. Not one Republican Senator voted for it.

How exactly is that dishonest?

[ninjadude]

For one thing, I think people who pay no taxes or who get half or more of their income from the government (other than insurance) should not be able to vote.

ok I'll byte. For what unfathomable reason? paying taxes or owning anything has nothing to do with voting. In fact that leads to the very insanity that we have in the US. Disenfranchised voters don't get their say and the rich 1 percent drop kick us to the curb.

Edited October 4, 2013 by ninjadude

[RavenHawk]

How exactly is that dishonest?

Can your read?

Can you comprehend?

[Agent0range]

Can your read?

Can you comprehend?

Well that was a silly response to a good question. In our government, majority rules. It has been that way since day 1. So, it doesn't matter that not a single republican voted for it. It was still passed honestly.

[Frank Merton]

ok I'll byte. For what unfathomable reason? paying taxes or owning anything has nothing to do with voting. In fact that leads to the very insanity that we have in the US. Disenfranchised voters don't get their say and the rich 1 percent drop kick us to the curb.

It would be a modern equivalent to the old property requirement, so that only responsible people who have a vested interest in the society can vote. Radical I know but the modern democratic ideology is leading societies down the garden trail to more and more subsidy of people who don't make their own way.

[Frank Merton]

Well that was a silly response to a good question. In our government, majority rules. It has been that way since day 1. So, it doesn't matter that not a single republican voted for it. It was still passed honestly.

It can't be that majority always rules: that is called the tyranny of the majority. Minority rights must also be protected.

[Leonardo]

Common sense states this is a perfect storm of usurpation. It was achieved dishonestly. Not one Republican Senator voted for it. All Republicans but one or two Rinos in the House voted against it.

So what?

That doesn't make it unconstitutional - it doesn't even make it wrong. It only suggests that Republican policy was to not vote for the ACA, but Republican policy is not what determines what is right and constitutional.

[Agent0range]

It can't be that majority always rules: that is called the tyranny of the majority. Minority rights must also be protected.

I'm speaking strictly in regards to voting in congress. Can you think of a better way than majority rules when voting on an issue? Minority rights are protected. The bills are debated before they are brought to a vote, and it is up to the people that we elected to decide what is best.

[Frank Merton]

I'm speaking strictly in regards to voting in congress. Can you think of a better way than majority rules when voting on an issue? Minority rights are protected. The bills are debated before they are brought to a vote, and it is up to the people that we elected to decide what is best.

Often things require various super-majorities, and the Senate is hardly democratic with a Senator from Nevada having the same vote as a Senator from California.

However I think the complaint here is that the Democrats in the House pulled a fast one and could have been defeated if they had followed normal procedure. I don't know if that is true or not, but what they did does seem underhanded.

[F3SS]

That doesn't make it unconstitutional - it doesn't even make it wrong. It only suggests that Republican policy was to not vote for the ACA, but Republican policy is not what determines what is right and constitutional.

Equally, a blindly accepted and inconsiderate vote by every single democrat with question or challenge also does not determine what is right and constitutional.

[Leonardo]

Equally, a blindly accepted and inconsiderate vote by every single democrat with question or challenge also does not determine what is right and constitutional.

Agreed, however the SCOTUS decreed it was constitutional. Case closed - unless and until the Republicans sweep the next elections and move to repeal the Act.

To be honest, the Homeland Security Act is a far greater threat to the rights and freedoms of Americans than ACA could ever be. But the average American seems to have resigned themself to not challenging that any more. Why?

I'll tell you why - money.

ACA has the appearance (and may in fact) take money out of the pocket of many Americans, and it seems those Americans care more about this than their rights and freedoms.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Leonardo

[F3SS]

The case may be closed but does that mean we can't continue to debate and challenge SCOTUS decisions or create thread topics on possible amendments to handle such catastrophic forceful laws granted legal by their ruling? I like Ravens op because the ACA isn't just another law like any other. When it comes to mandated people into purchasing a third party product or service, simply for being alive, a partisan vote is hardly a healthy means of doing it.

[Kowalski]

With the steady spread of the right to vote, especially to illiterates, and very recent arrivals in a location, and late teenagers, and, most significantly, those with no property interest in the welfare of the community but every interest in what they can get out of it, the States and most of the rest of the world has steadily become more and more "democratic."

This has its good and its bad sides, but mostly bad. For one thing, I think people who pay no taxes or who get half or more of their income from the government (other than insurance) should not be able to vote. Residency requirements also need lengthening in many places, and pre-registration, so as to stop the voter fraud no present in most major cities. And if someone cannot read and write, how can the be expected to vote sensibly?

It would be a modern equivalent to the old property requirement, so that only responsible people who have a vested interest in the society can vote. Radical I know but the modern democratic ideology is leading societies down the garden trail to more and more subsidy of people who don't make their own way.

I think this is a great idea.

I can't remember who said it, but it was something like, When people realize they can vote money from the treasury into their pockets, you no longer have a democracy. People now, vote on what leader is going to give them free goodies from the government, instead of voting someone in based on their leadership merits and platform. Things get bad when people start doing this.... They don't seem to understand that eventually, that money IS going to run out.

[Leonardo]

The case may be closed but does that mean we can't continue to debate and challenge SCOTUS decisions or create thread topics on possible amendments to handle such catastrophic forceful laws granted legal by their ruling? I like Ravens op because the ACA isn't just another law like any other. When it comes to mandated people into purchasing a third party product or service, simply for being alive, a partisan vote is hardly a healthy means of doing it.

I think this is a great idea.

I can't remember who said it, but it was something like, When people realize they can vote money from the treasury into their pockets, you no longer have a democracy. People now, vote on what leader is going to give them free goodies from the government, instead of voting someone in based on their leadership merits and platform. Things get bad when people start doing this.... They don't seem to understand that eventually, that money IS going to run out.

Try linking these two concepts, and then you'll realise why the ACA has to be.

[RavenHawk]

Well that was a silly response to a good question. In our government, majority rules. It has been that way since day 1. So, it doesn't matter that not a single republican voted for it. It was still passed honestly.

Then I would ask you the same questions.

[F3SS]

Try linking these two concepts, and then you'll realise why the ACA has to be.

Try having congress balance a budget and not spend dollars 3:1. Maybe then money wouldn't be an issue so much. And when they do that I'll entrust them to instate a true universal healthcare system based on taxes deducted right from every bodies paycheck. The ACA is nothing like that. Some will pay, some won't. The bulk of it goes to insurance mega corps. There is nothing fair and just about the ACA. The rich won't go broke. The poor won't pay in. Only the middle class will be affected and the ones on the lower middle tier who are going to go broke from insurance/fines will be pushed into the lower class, will then not have to pay for anything leaving fewer middle class to carry the heavy end of the pile of crap known as the ACA. And so on and so on until there are too few left in the middle class to do the heavy lifting and with not enough rich folks to make up for it the system will run out of money and future democrats will hoot and holler about all the "unexpected consequences" and will contend for a complete government takeover as "the only solution". That's how it's going to go. And while a part of me wouldn't mind universal healthcare don't mistake the future takeover for something I'd want because they still will have not done the one thing I require of them before I'd agree to universal healthcare and that one thing is proving that they can be fiscally responsible enough to handle such a venture. The ACA sucks and is not going to improve anything. You're mind is stuck in a state of "fairness". Well it isn't fair not to mention fairness is a state of mind different to each individual and far too emotional and opinionated to be a proper form of governing.

Edited October 4, 2013 by F3SS