29th Amendment

[RavenHawk]

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

Gee Frank. You need to be careful there. I’m beginning to believe that you know the Constitution and the mind of our Founding Fathers better than many Americans, including Ninjadude and Angent0range….

[Agent0range]

Gee Frank. You need to be careful there. I'm beginning to believe that you know the Constitution and the mind of our Founding Fathers better than many Americans, including Ninjadude and Angent0range….

Oh really? So you think our founding fathers would appreciate this partisan bull*** going on? Do you think our founding fathers would appreciate only voting for what your party wants, and not what is right for the people? YOU clearly define yourself by your party affiliation. I for one think that is bull****. I am not a republican, nor a democrat. I'm sorry that you need an elected official to tell you how to think, I do just fine forming my own opinions. That is why I really don't care that not one republican voted for it.

[RavenHawk]

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.

This is not radical. During the time of our Founding Fathers, the majority of people were land owners. People that had *skin* in the game were responsible for voting. Of course, back then slaves and women were not allowed to vote. It wasn’t evil. It was just the way society was then. But this has changed and for the better. But we’ve gotten away from the concept of having only those that have skin in the game that can vote. It is an interesting difference between those that own property and those that don’t. Not that they are all exclusive but the majority of those that do not have skin in the game (i.e. do not own property) are the ones more likely to vote for the politician that can drain the treasury and dole it out. All it takes is a community organizer. Is this right? I think not.

It is very destructive to the foundation of the nation. I do think that only property owners should be allowed to vote and perhaps those that serve in the military. We could hold a non binding popular vote so that everyone can participate (hopefully encourage them to become responsible property owners). Then have a property owner vote utilizing the Electoral College as it was meant to be used for the binding outcome. We are not a Democracy. We are a nation of laws not majority rules. The government is charged with insuring domestic tranquility. Obamacare violates that tranquility. “Insure” does not mean to cram some bad legislation down our throats legal or not and tell us, we had better like it. It’s to remove such legislation.

[F3SS]

Oh really? So you think our founding fathers would appreciate this partisan bull*** going on? Do you think our founding fathers would appreciate only voting for what your party wants, and not what is right for the people? YOU clearly define yourself by your party affiliation. I for one think that is bull****. I am not a republican, nor a democrat. I'm sorry that you need an elected official to tell you how to think, I do just fine forming my own opinions. That is why I really don't care that not one republican voted for it.

Do you think they'd appreciate the democrats all voting yay without question? At least it can be argued that some republicans were standing on principle. Anyways, the founders had all sorts of ways written up to deal with party politics as that was nothing new at the time. They never intended or allowed for forced product purchases and that's why this thing is such a constitutional mess. The SCOTUS made a big mistake on this one. They may get the last legal word but that doesn't mean they made the right call.

[Yamato]

then a majority of each party must be achieved for passage

Horrible horrible partisan stench of an idea, that's baking partisan politics right into our Constitution. I'd burn that idea down before hanging it up on the cross.

[Agent0range]

Do you think they'd appreciate the democrats all voting yay without question? At least it can be argued that some republicans were standing on principle. Anyways, the founders had all sorts of ways written up to deal with party politics as that was nothing new at the time. They never intended or allowed for forced product purchases and that's why this thing is such a constitutional mess. The SCOTUS made a big mistake on this one. They may get the last legal word but that doesn't mean they made the right call.

And how many years of law school do you have to question the most prestigious judges in the nation? Are you also saying that absolutely no republicans voted nay without question?

[RavenHawk]

Do you think our founding fathers would appreciate only voting for what your party wants, and not what is right for the people?

Isn’t that how Obamacare got passed? It got passed because that was what the Democrats wanted and not what is right for the people. And you claim not to be a Democrat?

[RavenHawk]

Horrible horrible partisan stench of an idea, that's baking partisan politics right into our Constitution. I'd burn that idea down before hanging it up on the cross.

I think you don’t understand. This assures bipartisanship in matters dealing with the purse strings and prevents one party or the other from hijacking legislation. It does the opposite of which you describe. I see nothing wrong with that. But you do.

[Leonardo]

Try having congress balance a budget and not spend dollars 3:1.

If they "balance the budget and not spend dollars", then you have everybody still complaining that they can't afford to introduce ACA. The only way to get this done is to introduce the system - and then balance your budget.

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.

Which will lead to as many complaints from constitutionalists as is happening now - because they'll argue only those paying taxes should get the "universal healthcare/insurance".

No matter which type of system is brought in, there will be quite a few unhappy people moaning about it. The point of bringing in a system, however, is to address what isn't currently being addressed - ACA goes some way to doing that.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Leonardo

[Agent0range]

Isn't that how Obamacare got passed? It got passed because that was what the Democrats wanted and not what is right for the people. And you claim not to be a Democrat?

And who are you to determine what is right for the people??? This is what I don't get about some of you people. You think your opinion is the only right one. I happen to think a nation that is medically insured is right for the people.

[Yamato]

I think you don't understand. This assures bipartisanship in matters dealing with the purse strings and prevents one party or the other from hijacking legislation. It does the opposite of which you describe. I see nothing wrong with that. But you do.

I understand differently than you. Yes, it's possible, though I know it's hard to imagine.

Assures bipartisanship? So it assures both evil and stupid. Yeah, but no thanks.

For all this ranting and raging about Socialism, why do I see letters in flashing neon lights on your forehead that spell "Statist"? Socialism that's global is somehow excused...out of sight, out of mind? Controlling the societies of others with even murderous government force is just fine, because it's from the government, and it's here to help!

Control others overseas with government force and pretend that's not socialism because that government control is not happening in your own country and habitat. Meanwhile, a democrat sneezes on a republican by accident and you can barely even tolerate that, looking at how you rant against big democrat government. A Pakistani is going to be just as mad at us for bombing the house next door as you would be if someone came and bombed yours. If your anti-Socialism stance is any manner whatsoever real enough to be taken seriously, you should really eat your own cooking you keep wanting to serve to others just because they're on the other side of the magic line drawn by government.

What you're asking for is insidious partisan madness. To reinforce the partisan entrenchment we have already and you think it's a good idea. Whatever bud.

[F3SS]

Horrible horrible partisan stench of an idea, that's baking partisan politics right into our Constitution. I'd burn that idea down before hanging it up on the cross.

Yeah, I agree but it's a way deal with the bs mandate laws that the SCOTUS deemed legal. It's a crap amendment from a constitutional outlook but an effective way to handle these particular type of unconstitutional laws the SCOTUS gave the go ahead to.

[RavenHawk]

Oh really? So you think our founding fathers would appreciate this partisan bull*** going on?

I think they would understand what was going on and they would probably be completely disgusted with Obamacare. They would be absolutely sickened.

YOU clearly define yourself by your party affiliation.

Not really. I’m a cross between Conservative, Libertarian, and Hawk. I see that the Republican party is basically travelling in the same direction I am going for the time being. But the Republican Party has become too much like the Democrat Party and it’s time for a change.

I for one think that is bull****.

To each his own. But you still haven’t answered the question of whether you can read or not? I was waiting for Ninjadude to answer, but in his question “How exactly is that dishonest?” If you had read the entire post of mine, I explain that. But either you didn’t read the post and just went off what Ninjadude said. Or you did read it and it went well over your head. Simply because you do not understand the intent of what the Founding Fathers gave us.

I am not a republican, nor a democrat. I'm sorry that you need an elected official to tell you how to think, I do just fine forming my own opinions.

Where do you come up with me needing some elected official to tell me what I think? I think for myself, thank you. I can read the Constitution and I understand the intent that the Founding Fathers wanted. I truly believe that not everyone can.

That is why I really don't care that not one republican voted for it.

That’s why you don’t comprehend.

[F3SS]

And how many years of law school do you have to question the most prestigious judges in the nation? Are you also saying that absolutely no republicans voted nay without question?

I shall not question the authority huh? I didn't say that. Reread, I said some republicans.

If they "balance the budget and not spend dollars", then you have everybody still complaining that they can't afford to introduce ACA. The only way to get this done is to introduce the system - and then balance your budget.

Which will lead to as many complaints from constitutionalists as is happening now - because they'll argue only those paying taxes should get the "universal healthcare/insurance".

No matter which type of system is brought in, there will be quite a few unhappy people moaning about it. The point of bringing in a system, however, is to address what isn't currently being addressed - ACA goes some way to doing that.

Believe me, I don't want any healthcare system largely controlled by the government but if I were to be content with one it would be the one with the least personal headaches to deal with, universal tax based. And even then, I only want that in fiscally responsible fantasy land. So yes, if it were implemented I'd be complaining for sure but I'd be more willing to try that. For every problem the ACA addresses it creates mounds of others.

[Yamato]

Yeah, I agree but it's a way deal with the bs mandate laws that the SCOTUS deemed legal. It's a crap amendment from a constitutional outlook but an effective way to handle these particular type of unconstitutional laws the SCOTUS gave the go ahead to.

Entrenching partisanship further and even codifying it into our rule of law is even worse bs than what you're talking about. Let's try to have a future and rule of law that focuses more on the individual for their merits and potential, not the red green blue team for their popularity contests.

I would love a party that commands memorable debates among its members, bringing many different ideas together to compete in a public format. These parties are so simple minded and self interested; it's a foolish idea to acknowledge them in the Constitution. They don't deserve recognition, they deserve dismemberment. I see no correlation whatever that bipartisanship confers to better results than just partisanship. Sometimes one party is right and sometimes the other party is wrong, just as often as when all the clowns are in agreement and sending us down the sewer together.

[RavenHawk]

And who are you to determine what is right for the people???

My guess would be by public response and how blatantly Obamacare violates the Constitution. You see, I don’t need a community organizer to tell me what to think.

This is what I don't get about some of you people.

You don’t get it because you do not understand the Constitution.

You think your opinion is the only right one.

No It’s not the only right one. Many many many others share it. The many that were ignored.

I happen to think a nation that is medically insured is right for the people.

That would be nice but don’t you think that it is more right for the individual to make that decision? And not be forced to purchase insurance?

[Agent0range]

My guess would be by public response and how blatantly Obamacare violates the Constitution. You see, I don't need a community organizer to tell me what to think.

You don't get it because you do not understand the Constitution.

No It's not the only right one. Many many many others share it. The many that were ignored.

That would be nice but don't you think that it is more right for the individual to make that decision? And not be forced to purchase insurance?

No. If you want the individual to make that decision, then hospitals need to close their doors to uninsured individuals or people who cannot pay their bill upon treatment.

[RavenHawk]

I understand differently than you. Yes, it's possible, though I know it's hard to imagine.

Assures bipartisanship? So it assures both evil and stupid. Yeah, but no thanks.

For all this ranting and raging about Socialism, why do I see letters in flashing neon lights on your forehead that spell "Statist"? Socialism that's global is somehow excused...out of sight, out of mind? Controlling the societies of others with even murderous government force is just fine, because it's from the government, and it's here to help!

Every single one of your posts is always so convoluted. How is bipartisanship Socialist? I simply think you just *see* things. If anything this technique is anti Socialist. It encourages each Representative to vote what their Constituents want, not what the Party wants. It forces them to read the bills before they come to a vote so that the Representative can relay the contents of the bill to their Constituents. This assures that one party or the other cannot run away with any legislation like a kid in a candy store. This is a proper limit on the power of government.

[RavenHawk]

No. If you want the individual to make that decision, then hospitals need to close their doors to uninsured individuals or people who cannot pay their bill upon treatment.

So you’re going to make the decision for them? This is supposed to be a free country. Why should the hospital close their doors? What’s wrong with utilizing faith-based charities? Why not let the market adjust itself to provide low-income clinics?

[Agent0range]

So you're going to make the decision for them? This is supposed to be a free country. Why should the hospital close their doors? What's wrong with utilizing faith-based charities? Why not let the market adjust itself to provide low-income clinics?

Because it is not a charity. I am essentially "taxed" when I pay my premium to cover for their unpaid bills. So, you don't agree with the ACA becaue it is a form of a "tax" that effects 50 million Americans. But, you are fine with the other 270 million Americans getting taxed to cover for them.

[F3SS]

Entrenching partisanship further and even codifying it into our rule of law is even worse bs than what you're talking about. Let's try to have a future and rule of law that focuses more on the individual for their merits and potential, not the red green blue team for their popularity contests.

I would love a party that commands memorable debates among its members, bringing many different ideas together to compete in a public format. These parties are so simple minded and self interested; it's a foolish idea to acknowledge them in the Constitution. They don't deserve recognition, they deserve dismemberment. I see no correlation whatever that bipartisanship confers to better results than just partisanship. Sometimes one party is right and sometimes the other party is wrong, just as often as when all the clowns are in agreement and sending us down the sewer together.

I really do agree. However, the SCOTUS granted such piles of crap legal and these piles are unique. I really don't actually want this amendment because it solidifies once and for all that such crap may fall on our heads for all time. This is simply a hypotheticald discussion on how to make the crap smell a little better if we have no choice but to accept it. Don't worry, I don't accept it but there is nothing wrong with talking about potentials if's and buts.

No. If you want the individual to make that decision, then hospitals need to close their doors to uninsured individuals or people who cannot pay their bill upon treatment.

Not such a bad idea. However, you have political correctness to deal with. Not to mention the severly injured who show up to the ER without credentials. How do you turn away someone who needs immediate attention? It is unbecoming of a great nation to do such things. Many times insured people show up to the ER without having all their info readily available. I smell mega lawsuits because someone died waiting for the hospital to find out who you are and what you have. You need to think things through a little more.

[RavenHawk]

Because it is not a charity.

It most certainly is! It’s your choice whether you accept it or not. No one is forcing you to get help.

I am essentially "taxed" when I pay my premium to cover for their unpaid bills.

You are essentially “taxed” under Obamacare as well. However, if you don’t want insurance, you are forced to buy it. On top of that, people forget that under Obamacare, the deductable is sky rocketing. Your premium may or may not be going down but you are being forced to pay more for other people.

So, you don't agree with the ACA becaue it is a form of a "tax" that effects 50 million Americans.

It is a tax that is forced on all 315 million.

But, you are fine with the other 270 million Americans getting taxed to cover for them.

I’m fine with individuals deciding whether or not they want to buy insurance and accepting the burden of higher premiums. I’m fine with opening cross state competition so that the consumer can force premiums to go down.

[preacherman76]

Just because Obama won the election does not mean the majority of people "voted for Obamacare". I've never heard such baloney....

And even if they did, they obviously were seriously misinformed. The Dems want this for everyone but themselfs, and the people who work under them. If it isnt good enough for at least the people they employ, then what the hell? How dare they push this crap on us.

How many people voted for him, and have now, or are about to find themselfs in the same situation Im in where we cant afford health care insurance at all now? Then will either end up getting stuck with a huge tax penalty, or end up buying a plan with a 5000 dollar deductable, that does me no good anyway, cause I dont have 5 grand to spend when something goes wrong.

[Agent0range]

I am going to go out on a limb and say that you are uninsured.

[Kowalski]

No. If you want the individual to make that decision, then hospitals need to close their doors to uninsured individuals or people who cannot pay their bill upon treatment.

Because it is not a charity. I am essentially "taxed" when I pay my premium to cover for their unpaid bills. So, you don't agree with the ACA becaue it is a form of a "tax" that effects 50 million Americans. But, you are fine with the other 270 million Americans getting taxed to cover for them.

Hey Fascist, it's not up to you to decide what people should be doing with their money. This is America. You can't put a gun to someones head and make them buy health insurance. Especially if they can't afford it. And it's against the Hippocratic Oath to not treat someone because they can't pay.

You don't like uninsured people? I don't like statists that think they can dictate to others what they can and can't do.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Burt Gummer