I don't think the business market is as important as it used to be. Computers have become like appliances, which people use for their entertainment, and Apple's goal should be to put one Mac into the hands of every person. If they do that, they will sell FAR more units (~110 million homes times 2 adult per home) than what business would buy.
That's what made the Commodore=64 the world's number one selling computer. It flopped in the business world, but it still managed to sell 30 million units by focusing on providing entertainment for the home user. Apple is wise to keep its focus on that home market.
>>>no full time admin - Macs save you a small fortune.
Well let's see. I just bought an AMD X2 IBM PC-compatible for $300 plus 6% tax == 318. Out of curiosity I compared the equivalent Mac (3000 megahertz, 3 gig of RAM) to see what it would have cost - about $1500 plus 6% tax == 1590.
So that's about $1270 difference..... let's say $1000 to keep the math easy. Times 30 office workers (small office) yields $30,000 more money spent on the Macs.
Remind me again how Macs will save a fortune, because I'm not seeing it???
Oh and I don't buy the argument that Mac are less crashprone. That was true back in the days of Windows 3/95/98/DOS kludge, but since XP (NT 5.1) has become the standard, the PC-compatibles are as stable as any Mac. My NT-PC typically stays on 2-3 months before it crashes. That's as good as my OS X Mac.
>>>Oh, yeah... well how would you feel if you were a country that was just trying to provide the most wholesome kind of social system possible, and all your people were using the internet for was bad-mouthing your attempts >>>
Please.
We're discussing Iran, not Barak Obama's healthcare bill
>>>I thought it was Bush that thought the Constitution was just a piece of paper, and he only set foot in public schools for photo ops.
Almost every president since 1900 has been lousy, walking all over the Constitution as if it didn't exist. Rep or Dem - it didn't matter.
. >>> And pretty much everyone agrees that government is better than the alternative, if not, there would be places without government, and there aren't.
The world is not black-and-white. In between anarchy (no government) and tyranny (government controls virtually all things), there's plenty of room. Our government should be restrained by the Constitution, like shackles on a prisoner, so that it cannot grow and become a tyranny. When the Constitution is ignored, then the central government grows without limit, and individual freedom shrinks to near-nothing.
. >>>So to imply government is bad just makes it clear that your assumptions are so far from the average person
Perhaps. I defer to someone smarter than me, who was definitely not an average person. In fact he was our second smartest president (by IQ): "If it were possible, we would have no government. It is only to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." And: "No man has a right to harm another, and that is all the government should restrain him." - Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson believes that government was a necessary evil, therefore it should exist, but be kept as weak/small as possible. I agree with him. If that makes me "borderline insane", well at least I'm in good company.
But the man who wrote those Federalist Papers, later realized he made some errors, and came to embrace the concept of State Nullification of unconstitutional laws as a "check" against Washington DC's central government. (My proposed 28th amendment.)
And history has shown that, rather than fight with one another, the three branches typically cooperate to get laws passed. Congress passes the bill, the Executive signs it into law, and then the Supreme Court typically rubberstamps the law as "constitutional" to keep their friends in Congress and the White House happy.
Our government was very well-designed, but we've seen that it has errors, such that Washington DC now runs practically every facet of our private lives. That was NOT the original intent when they rebelled against the British Parliament (another organization that was running virtually everything).
>>>So, the implementation of social security, and the fines and penalties for not paying it on any income, is unconstitutional? Gee, though the supreme court already ruled on that... >>>
No. SSI is a tax (per 1930s Supreme Court ruling). Not paying the tax means getting fined - perfectly legal.
Healthcare is a product. Congress has never, ever fined somebody for not buying something, and for good reason. It's not constitutional. Congress can not fine somebody for refusing to buy a product; they were never granted that power.
It also sets up the dangerous precedent of Congress saying, if you don't buy a solar roof, we'll fine you. Or, if you don't buy a Government Motors car, we'll fine you. If you don't buy Comcast, Cox, or other Internet Service, we'll fine you. And so on.
It's like being treated as a Serf, not a Liberated citizen.
>>>Oh, and the US code of commerce, yes it very well CAN regulate commerce inside of a state.
Incorrect. The U.S. Constitution says "among" the States. That does not include the power to regulate within the States. Maybe you ought to read the Constitution sometime, especially Amendments 9 and 10. It's become clear that you never have.
As for drinking laws or speed limit laws, the State *voluntarily* complies with those U.S. laws. They are not required to. A State could just as easily make a drinking law equal to 0 if they desired (like German drinking laws).
.
>>>, it will be ASSUMED you are covered. this streamlines check-in and gets you to diagnosis, or surgery, faster
Not correct. Even though the services are prepaid (by government), the Canadian and UK hospitals have the longest waiting times in the 1st world. They have become LESS efficient, not more efficient.
>>>are you really willing to let children go uncovered
Children are not uncovered. They have SCHIP for anyone below age 18, to ensure children get healthcare even if the parents have no money.
Anyway you've clearly demonstrated that you don't believe in freedom. You want to FORCE people into compliance ("prove you have 1/2 a million dollars for self-insurance"). You embrace tyranny - the opposite of liberty.
Why is Obama/Pelosi/Reid proposing another $800 billion Stimulus bill when the first one clearly did not work? And we have no money to spend??? And China is refusing to loan us more?!?!? I think these people are insane, and you can never predict what insane people might do - like raise the fine from $950 back to the $2500 in the original draft.
I'm hoping there won't be any fine at all, but I'm not holding my breath. The U.S. government is heading towards bankruptcy like the German government of the 1920s did.
>>>I suggest a tatoo or other permanent mark (or RFID) indicating your status of do-not-treat so hospitals
Yeah that will go over really well in the U.S. They'll call it the "Mark of the Beast" that is described in the Bible.
I don't understand why I need to be FORCED to buy health insurance. I've got close to a million dollars - I can afford to pay my own bills directly, which are only ~$200 a year. Why take-away my right to continue paying my own bills??? That's anti-liberty.
>>>Since having a drivers license is all but mandatory
No it isn't. I've met many people who have ID Cards rather the DLs, and therefore don't drive, and don't have to buy car insurance. So the "mandate" is a mandate for only most people, but not all.
In contrast the health insurance mandate would be universal. You must buy it. No exceptions.
>>>I think you maybe a bit blind with the thought of "Only my way can save the Union!"
No I'm not. I already said your idea of repealing the 17th is a good idea. I just don't think it would fix the problem, because even when the Senate was directly selected by the State Legislators, unconstitutional laws still passed. Like the Sedition Act of the 1790s which forbade people from exercising free speech/press. The Senate did not stop that unconstitutional law, did they?
Therefore I think there needs to be a mechanism to "undo" laws after they've been signed by the president. One method is via the U.S. government's court, as we currently do. The second method is via the States (Nullification as Jefferson/Madison proposed, and was used by numerous states including Maine and Massachusetts).
.
>>>you could force ALL legislation passed by Congress to be reviewed by SCOTUS
No because SCOTUS is part of the Washington D.C. government. It is not impartial and often cooperates with the Congress to declare law "constitutional" even when they are clearly not. IMHO the SCOTUS can continue reviewing laws, but the primary review should be done by an entity outside of the DC Beltway that is not part of the central government. The only entity I can think of is the State Legislatures themselves.
I'd sooner put my faith in the ~10,000 elected state representatives, who are typically our neighbors just down the street and therefore hear our voices, than in 9 old men in a non-elected court.
.
>>>If you give the Federal Government too little power the Union will fall apart, Too much and the States themselves become nothing more than puppets. We need a real balance. >>>
Which we no longer have. The "balance" is gone and Washington DC runs practically everything. Congress regulates how much corn, potatoes, and wheat you can grow (not relevant to me but relevant to my farming neighbors). Congress regulates how much water your toilet flushes or electricity your refrigerator uses. Congress regulates the cost of your telephone line (via the USF), or the speed of your internet. Congress even regulates that you MUST buy a certain product, or else be fined $950 a year. (Not passed yet, but the healthcare bill is virtually certain to pass this year.) Imagine the precedent that sets - Buy a hybrid car, or else we'll fine you. But a solar roof, or else we'll fine you.
Congress has usurped virtually all power to itself. It's turned into a tyranny of ~535 men.
.
>>>Giving the 25 least populous states (which accounts for less than 25% of the population) the ability to remove any and all legislation that the 25 most populous states want is not what a democracy is about. >>>
Red herring. Most of the current unconstitutional laws would be nullified by our most populous states. For example the marijuana prohibition is already under attack by California, Washington, Maine, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. They've legalized marijuana usage, in direct opposition to the U.S. government. If my proposed amendment existed, these high-population states would certainly declare the law unconstitutional.
Also I think you've forgotten that we're not a Democracy (tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot). We're a Republic which is rule of law, and the law is clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
My proposed amendment would simply give this sentence teeth. Powers are reserved to the States (by the 10th), therefore the States should have the power to nullify unconstitutional laws (by the 28th). If Congress doesn't like that, they are welcome to rewrite the law and pass it a second time (as they typically do), or amend the constitution to give themselves new powers.
The point is that Congress will, once again, be chained by the Constituti
>>>Which is why the SCOTUS has such an important job in being the checks and balances that prevents this from happening.
But the SCOTUS is part of the central government. That is the U.S. government self-policing itself, and as illogical as Microsoft deciding for itself whether or not it violated antitrust laws ("Microsoft is not guilty," declared the Microsoft CEO, acting as judge and jury).
The entity that decides whether or not U.S. governmental laws are unconstitutional should not be a branch of the U.S. government itself. It should be a body outside of the Washington Beltway. It should be the Member States, acting to enforce the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, on behalf of their own citizens.
>>>They don't; by signing on to Article 4 of the constitution, the states give the Federal legislature an unilateral and perpetual right to impose laws that trump each individual state's laws. >>>
False.
To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41)
He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
If you're still confused, just read the Supreme Law for yourself, which makes clear most powers belong to the State governments, not Congress: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means Federal Legislature can only pass laws that it has been given power to legislate. All other powers are reserved to the Member States.
>>>your logic in arriving there is, in my opinion, very bad.
My comment about how drivers insurance not being mandatory, because you don't have to drive (like my Amish neighbors, or most people who live inside a city) was not my logic. It came directly from Judge Napolitano, who of course was a lawyer prior to being a judge. I figure a lawyer/judge knows his way around logic, having practiced the law all his life.
>>>First of all, the Congress definitely has the constitutional power to regular health care and apply fines. It is still, nevertheless, probably a bad policy. >>>
The Congress has the power to "make regular" (using 18th century definition of "regulate") the trade of healthcare commerce (and commerce in general) across state lines. It has NO authority to regulate commerce that is completely and wholly within a state. It has NO authority to make me buy a health insurance from Mutual of Ohio. Or make me buy a Prius. Or a solar panel. Or anything else.
That mandate is unconstitutional. Under current tax code Congress may provide income tax deductions or credits for certain activities (like buying a Prius). It does not and never has had the authority to issue an + $950 income tax penalty for not buying a Prius. That too is unconstitutional.
And if you're still in doubt simply read the fucking Constitution for a change (if I sound frustrated, it's because I am): "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- That means I have a Right not to buy health insurance if I don't want to. - That means the power to mandate health insurance purchase is NOT given to the U.S. Congress - it's reserved to the Member State's Legislature, or the People.
>>>>>If 25 State Legislatures, acting on the People's direction, declare a U.S. law to be unconstitutional, then it should be nullified.
>>That would have taken care of the assault weapons ban about ten minutes after Clinton signed it into law.
Well... not ten minutes. More like 2-3 years of debate in the various legislatures until they agreed to make the law "unconstitution", but yes it is likely would have been nullified. For one thing it violates the second amendment. If you don't like amendment 2's allowance of arms for the people, then create amendment 29 to repeal it, or limit it. I'd be okay with that - at least it would follow proper procedure rather than ram through unconstitutional limits. (Or you could pass the ban at the state level - one state at a time.)
For another thing, there's no reason to ban assault weapons, and besides - What's an "assault weapon"? My hunting rifle could be considered an assault weapon, if it was in the hands of a terrorist, like that psychiatrist who attacked an army base and killed many. The law was bad law because the term "assault weapon" is nebulous and has no real meaning. Almost any gun would be banned under it.
And most importantly, if the People have instructed their Legislatures to declare said law to be nullified, then that IS the will of the people. Who are you or I to force a Congressional law upon the People that they do not want???
The only people who think its okay to ignore the will of the people is a Progressive.
>>>If only there was an institution where laws could be declared unconstitutional without having to wait for the government to violate your rights. >>>
You raise a very, very good point there. With our current system, you first have to wait until some government arrests you for a crime (for example: owning a gun in Washington DC). Then you have to file in court to defend yourself against this unconstitutional law. In most cases you'll lose, but if you're lucky it can rise to the level of the United States' government court who may or may not declare it unconstitutional.
That process took ~30 years to overturn D.C.'s unconstitutional banning of guns. With my proposed amendment, there'd be no need to wait. You and your neighbors could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional". Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided.
My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not 30), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or waste time/money in the courtroom.
What do you think has more influence? A media that represents all viewpoints (from extreme communist to extreme anarchist) on the television, radio, and internet, and which people can choose to hear or ignore at their own whim...........or the progressive government that controls every person eight hours per day, for 13 years, during their brain's formative years, and fills them with such things as "government is good," "more government is even better," "the founding fathers were a bunch of slave-owning thugs who wanted to keep everyone repressed," and "the constitution is just a piece of paper - you can ignore it".
I choose the latter. Government has more influence. And yes I actually was taught those things in my middle and high school; not all at once but gradually over time. It took about ten years of self-education (i.e. reading the founders actual documents, plus studying political history) to erase them from my head.
If you're new to my own personal concept of "corporations are dangerous" and "government is even worse", I recommend listening to Walter E. Williams' lectures on his website. He's a professor in Washington D.C. and one of the most brilliant men currently alive.
>>>Well we were deficit positive in 2000. How did we look when he took office?
No we were deficit positive in 1999 (i.e. we had a surplus). In 2000 the dot-com market crash caused the surplus to disappear and the deficit returned. The national debt was $60,000 per home.
It rose to $100,000 per home during Bush's eight years (+$5,000 per year). And became $120,000 per home after just one year of Obama. It's projected to be $200,000 by the end of Obama's eight years (+12,000 per year)
Bush was a big spender, but Obama is about 2.5 times worse.
Incorrect. As many people have pointed out, senators don't work for the states anymore. They are best describes as "25 people's senators". The actual state governments no longer have any representation in D.C. and therefore no way to block unconstitutional laws from passing. In effect the state governments have become powerless, and that allows Congress to become an entity with practically no restraint on its power. There is virtually nothing to stop Congress from assuming full jurisdiction even inside our own private homes.
.
>>>Dozens of laws are compared to constitutional muster every day. Moving that to the vote of several thousand lazy people will just mean that justice doesn't happen for most. >>>
The U.S. government passes a bill, then signs the bill into law, then rubberstamps it "constitutional". It is illogical to have the U.S. government self-policing itself in this fashion. It is more logical to give the task to the States, since they were the ones who created the Constitution in the first place, and also because they would stop Washington DC's out-of-control spending and growing tyranny (over the last 80 years).
Also I think it's a mistake to describe State Legislators as "lazy". They are no more lazy than the U.S. Legislators, and are certainly more attune to the People's needs. Heck, my legislator lives on the same street as I do, and he is VERY attentive to my opinions.
In contrast my U.S.-level Congressman lives thousands of miles away, and doesn't even hear me (ignores my emails).
>>>OMG! People are negotiating on a proposed law, trying to make it acceptable to more people! This must be stopped!
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT (invalid logic). I didn't say they shouldn't change the healthcare bill during negotiations. I was merely explaining that, because the bill is changing from week-to-week, it's understandable why I did not know it had changed from $2500 to $950. You said (rudely) that I should "check the facts" but I have a fulltime 50-hour per week job, which means I cannot possibly keep up with every change, and neither should you expect me too.
>>>Congress has Constitutional authority to pretty much tax anyone for anything.
Yes tax. Not fine. I can see the 1040EZ form now: "If you do not have health insurance, please fine yourself $950." If that's not an example of a government trampling liberty, then I don't know what is. What will they fine us with next? "If you do not own a Prius or similar hybrid, please fine yourself $500." - "If you do not have a solar panel on your roof, please fine yourself $1000."
It's control. Trying to force us to buy stuff we don't want. Like a master over a serf.
I'm ignoring the rest of your rudeness about "teabaggers" (hate speech?). Please gain some maturity when talking to other adults, else you'll simply be dismissed as a juvenile.
Because even when the 17th Amendment did not exist, and the State Governments had direct representatives in the Senate, the U.S. government still passed unconstitutional laws (Sedition Act, Fugitive Slave Act, Income Tax Act). Repealing the 17th is a good idea, but that alone is not enough. There needs to be a non-Washington DC entity that can declare laws "unconstitutional" and nullify them. That entity is the Member States themselves, and it can only happen via my proposed amendment.
The way things stand now, with the U.S. government self-policing itself, is as illogical as letting Microsoft run its own antitrust trial. ("We find that Microsoft is not guilty," spoke the Microsoft CEO and acting judge.)
So basically I think we need BOTH - a repeal of the 17th to restore the Senate to being the States' House, and a new 28th amendment to give States the power to nullify unconstitutional laws and "check" the tyranny that Congress has become.
>>>Or, to put this another way, my state legislators have a closer relationship with me than their federal counterparts. However, my federal legislators have more power themselves than my state legislators. >>>
You have the second sentence backwards. MOST powers are reserved, by the Bill of Rights' tenth amendment, to the State governments. So not only do you have a closer relationship with your state legislator (one voice out of a few thousand), but also more influence over the power of said government, since the State capitol is only a few miles away from where you live.
At least that's how it would work if the Constitution was a Supreme Law of the land, instead of just a piece of paper that everybody in Washington ignores. Things are out of balance such that Congress is not only the *least* representative body (you are just one of millions), but also legislates every facet of your life, even your health insurance (buy some or get fined) and your toilet (low flow and doesn't flush properly).
The purpose of the Proposed Amendment is to restore checks and balances between Washington DC and the States. It would "check" Congressional power and return it back to the local State level, where citizens have the greatest influence.
Without the proposed amendment, there will be essentially no Constitution (it's ignored) and practically no limit to what Washington DC can do.
>>>1) If you opened up such a package [with child porn or obscene material], immediately notify the police. Then drive the package to the nearest police office and leave it there. >>>
Many citizens who receive porn or drugs in the mail, when they do the honest thing and tell the police, end up arrested for possession. You. Cannot. Trust. Police. Or the government in general. Better to destroy the evidence and pretend you never received anything.
"You have the right to remain silent....." - USE IT. You also have the right to refuse searches. No warrant; no search. No warrant; no search.
>>>If only there was an institution [senate.gov] where the states could have a voice on Federal legislation.....
No such body has existed since 1917. The State governments no longer have any voice in the central government. Every representative in Washington is representing the people, not the State governments, and therefore there's essentially nothing to stop the central government from passing unconstitutional laws.
And even when the Senators were still selected directly by the 50 government legislatures, there was still a need for the States to nullify unconstitutional laws. They did it with the Sedition Act and again with the Fugitive Slave Act, and that power needs to be formalized via an Amendment:
If 25 State Legislatures, acting on the People's direction, declare a U.S. law to be unconstitutional, then it should be nullified. The States would act as an independent, non-Washington DC entity to stop its current practice of trying to control every little facet of citizens' lives (like fining you if you don't buy health insurance).
>>>Or what if I stand on the Maryland side of the Mason-Dixon line and throw trash into Pennsylvania? Am I subject to Pennsylvania's anti-littering law? You bet. >>>
No. Only if you cross the border. Pennsylvania police can not enter into a foreign states' territory to arrest you.
Now they could call-up their Maryland buddies and ask for extradition, and they are likely to get help as the MD police arrest you, but what if you fled all the way to California? Nope. It's unlikely that PA and CA have any kind of extradition agreement, and just as unlikely that California police would want to drag your butt across 4000 miles (roundtrip) to deliver you.
There's your belief, and there's the law, and the law recognizes that non-residents are generally not subject to the laws of a foreign State. Else we'd all be forced to pay income taxes to all 50 States, not just 1.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the business market is as important as it used to be. Computers have become like appliances, which people use for their entertainment, and Apple's goal should be to put one Mac into the hands of every person. If they do that, they will sell FAR more units (~110 million homes times 2 adult per home) than what business would buy.
That's what made the Commodore=64 the world's number one selling computer. It flopped in the business world, but it still managed to sell 30 million units by focusing on providing entertainment for the home user. Apple is wise to keep its focus on that home market.
>>>no full time admin - Macs save you a small fortune.
Well let's see. I just bought an AMD X2 IBM PC-compatible for $300 plus 6% tax == 318. Out of curiosity I compared the equivalent Mac (3000 megahertz, 3 gig of RAM) to see what it would have cost - about $1500 plus 6% tax == 1590.
So that's about $1270 difference..... let's say $1000 to keep the math easy. Times 30 office workers (small office) yields $30,000 more money spent on the Macs.
Remind me again how Macs will save a fortune, because I'm not seeing it???
Oh and I don't buy the argument that Mac are less crashprone. That was true back in the days of Windows 3/95/98/DOS kludge, but since XP (NT 5.1) has become the standard, the PC-compatibles are as stable as any Mac. My NT-PC typically stays on 2-3 months before it crashes. That's as good as my OS X Mac.
>>>Oh, yeah... well how would you feel if you were a country that was just trying to provide the most wholesome kind of social system possible, and all your people were using the internet for was bad-mouthing your attempts
>>>
Please.
We're discussing Iran, not Barak Obama's healthcare bill
>>>I thought it was Bush that thought the Constitution was just a piece of paper, and he only set foot in public schools for photo ops.
Almost every president since 1900 has been lousy, walking all over the Constitution as if it didn't exist. Rep or Dem - it didn't matter.
.
>>> And pretty much everyone agrees that government is better than the alternative, if not, there would be places without government, and there aren't.
The world is not black-and-white. In between anarchy (no government) and tyranny (government controls virtually all things), there's plenty of room. Our government should be restrained by the Constitution, like shackles on a prisoner, so that it cannot grow and become a tyranny. When the Constitution is ignored, then the central government grows without limit, and individual freedom shrinks to near-nothing.
.
>>>So to imply government is bad just makes it clear that your assumptions are so far from the average person
Perhaps. I defer to someone smarter than me, who was definitely not an average person. In fact he was our second smartest president (by IQ): "If it were possible, we would have no government. It is only to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." And: "No man has a right to harm another, and that is all the government should restrain him." - Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson believes that government was a necessary evil,
therefore it should exist, but be kept as weak/small as possible.
I agree with him. If that makes me "borderline insane", well at least I'm in good company.
I have.
But the man who wrote those Federalist Papers, later realized he made some errors, and came to embrace the concept of State Nullification of unconstitutional laws as a "check" against Washington DC's central government. (My proposed 28th amendment.)
And history has shown that, rather than fight with one another, the three branches typically cooperate to get laws passed. Congress passes the bill, the Executive signs it into law, and then the Supreme Court typically rubberstamps the law as "constitutional" to keep their friends in Congress and the White House happy.
Our government was very well-designed, but we've seen that it has errors, such that Washington DC now runs practically every facet of our private lives. That was NOT the original intent when they rebelled against the British Parliament (another organization that was running virtually everything).
>>>So, the implementation of social security, and the fines and penalties for not paying it on any income, is unconstitutional? Gee, though the supreme court already ruled on that...
>>>
No. SSI is a tax (per 1930s Supreme Court ruling). Not paying the tax means getting fined - perfectly legal.
Healthcare is a product. Congress has never, ever fined somebody for not buying something, and for good reason. It's not constitutional. Congress can not fine somebody for refusing to buy a product; they were never granted that power.
It also sets up the dangerous precedent of Congress saying, if you don't buy a solar roof, we'll fine you. Or, if you don't buy a Government Motors car, we'll fine you. If you don't buy Comcast, Cox, or other Internet Service, we'll fine you. And so on.
It's like being treated as a Serf, not a Liberated citizen.
>>>Oh, and the US code of commerce, yes it very well CAN regulate commerce inside of a state.
Incorrect. The U.S. Constitution says "among" the States. That does not include the power to regulate within the States. Maybe you ought to read the Constitution sometime, especially Amendments 9 and 10. It's become clear that you never have.
As for drinking laws or speed limit laws, the State *voluntarily* complies with those U.S. laws. They are not required to. A State could just as easily make a drinking law equal to 0 if they desired (like German drinking laws).
.
>>>, it will be ASSUMED you are covered. this streamlines check-in and gets you to diagnosis, or surgery, faster
Not correct. Even though the services are prepaid (by government), the Canadian and UK hospitals have the longest waiting times in the 1st world. They have become LESS efficient, not more efficient.
>>>are you really willing to let children go uncovered
Children are not uncovered. They have SCHIP for anyone below age 18, to ensure children get healthcare even if the parents have no money.
Anyway you've clearly demonstrated that you don't believe in freedom.
You want to FORCE people into compliance ("prove you have 1/2 a million dollars for self-insurance").
You embrace tyranny - the opposite of liberty.
No idea.
Why is Obama/Pelosi/Reid proposing another $800 billion Stimulus bill when the first one clearly did not work? And we have no money to spend??? And China is refusing to loan us more?!?!? I think these people are insane, and you can never predict what insane people might do - like raise the fine from $950 back to the $2500 in the original draft.
I'm hoping there won't be any fine at all, but I'm not holding my breath. The U.S. government is heading towards bankruptcy like the German government of the 1920s did.
>>>I suggest a tatoo or other permanent mark (or RFID) indicating your status of do-not-treat so hospitals
Yeah that will go over really well in the U.S. They'll call it the "Mark of the Beast" that is described in the Bible.
I don't understand why I need to be FORCED to buy health insurance. I've got close to a million dollars - I can afford to pay my own bills directly, which are only ~$200 a year. Why take-away my right to continue paying my own bills??? That's anti-liberty.
>>>Since having a drivers license is all but mandatory
No it isn't. I've met many people who have ID Cards rather the DLs, and therefore don't drive, and don't have to buy car insurance. So the "mandate" is a mandate for only most people, but not all.
In contrast the health insurance mandate would be universal. You must buy it. No exceptions.
>>>I think you maybe a bit blind with the thought of "Only my way can save the Union!"
No I'm not. I already said your idea of repealing the 17th is a good idea. I just don't think it would fix the problem, because even when the Senate was directly selected by the State Legislators, unconstitutional laws still passed. Like the Sedition Act of the 1790s which forbade people from exercising free speech/press. The Senate did not stop that unconstitutional law, did they?
Therefore I think there needs to be a mechanism to "undo" laws after they've been signed by the president. One method is via the U.S. government's court, as we currently do. The second method is via the States (Nullification as Jefferson/Madison proposed, and was used by numerous states including Maine and Massachusetts).
.
>>>you could force ALL legislation passed by Congress to be reviewed by SCOTUS
No because SCOTUS is part of the Washington D.C. government. It is not impartial and often cooperates with the Congress to declare law "constitutional" even when they are clearly not. IMHO the SCOTUS can continue reviewing laws, but the primary review should be done by an entity outside of the DC Beltway that is not part of the central government. The only entity I can think of is the State Legislatures themselves.
I'd sooner put my faith in the ~10,000 elected state representatives, who are typically our neighbors just down the street and therefore hear our voices, than in 9 old men in a non-elected court.
.
>>>If you give the Federal Government too little power the Union will fall apart, Too much and the States themselves become nothing more than puppets. We need a real balance.
>>>
Which we no longer have. The "balance" is gone and Washington DC runs practically everything. Congress regulates how much corn, potatoes, and wheat you can grow (not relevant to me but relevant to my farming neighbors). Congress regulates how much water your toilet flushes or electricity your refrigerator uses. Congress regulates the cost of your telephone line (via the USF), or the speed of your internet. Congress even regulates that you MUST buy a certain product, or else be fined $950 a year. (Not passed yet, but the healthcare bill is virtually certain to pass this year.) Imagine the precedent that sets - Buy a hybrid car, or else we'll fine you. But a solar roof, or else we'll fine you.
Congress has usurped virtually all power to itself. It's turned into a tyranny of ~535 men.
.
>>>Giving the 25 least populous states (which accounts for less than 25% of the population) the ability to remove any and all legislation that the 25 most populous states want is not what a democracy is about.
>>>
Red herring. Most of the current unconstitutional laws would be nullified by our most populous states. For example the marijuana prohibition is already under attack by California, Washington, Maine, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. They've legalized marijuana usage, in direct opposition to the U.S. government. If my proposed amendment existed, these high-population states would certainly declare the law unconstitutional.
Also I think you've forgotten that we're not a Democracy (tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot). We're a Republic which is rule of law, and the law is clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
My proposed amendment would simply give this sentence teeth. Powers are reserved to the States (by the 10th), therefore the States should have the power to nullify unconstitutional laws (by the 28th). If Congress doesn't like that, they are welcome to rewrite the law and pass it a second time (as they typically do), or amend the constitution to give themselves new powers.
The point is that Congress will, once again, be chained by the Constituti
>>>Which is why the SCOTUS has such an important job in being the checks and balances that prevents this from happening.
But the SCOTUS is part of the central government. That is the U.S. government self-policing itself, and as illogical as Microsoft deciding for itself whether or not it violated antitrust laws ("Microsoft is not guilty," declared the Microsoft CEO, acting as judge and jury).
The entity that decides whether or not U.S. governmental laws are unconstitutional should not be a branch of the U.S. government itself. It should be a body outside of the Washington Beltway. It should be the Member States, acting to enforce the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, on behalf of their own citizens.
>>>They don't; by signing on to Article 4 of the constitution, the states give the Federal legislature an unilateral and perpetual right to impose laws that trump each individual state's laws.
>>>
False.
To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41)
He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
If you're still confused, just read the Supreme Law for yourself, which makes clear most powers belong to the State governments, not Congress: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means Federal Legislature can only pass laws that it has been given power to legislate. All other powers are reserved to the Member States.
>>>your logic in arriving there is, in my opinion, very bad.
My comment about how drivers insurance not being mandatory, because you don't have to drive (like my Amish neighbors, or most people who live inside a city) was not my logic. It came directly from Judge Napolitano, who of course was a lawyer prior to being a judge. I figure a lawyer/judge knows his way around logic, having practiced the law all his life.
>>>First of all, the Congress definitely has the constitutional power to regular health care and apply fines. It is still, nevertheless, probably a bad policy.
>>>
The Congress has the power to "make regular" (using 18th century definition of "regulate") the trade of healthcare commerce (and commerce in general) across state lines. It has NO authority to regulate commerce that is completely and wholly within a state. It has NO authority to make me buy a health insurance from Mutual of Ohio. Or make me buy a Prius. Or a solar panel. Or anything else.
That mandate is unconstitutional. Under current tax code Congress may provide income tax deductions or credits for certain activities (like buying a Prius). It does not and never has had the authority to issue an + $950 income tax penalty for not buying a Prius. That too is unconstitutional.
And if you're still in doubt simply read the fucking Constitution for a change (if I sound frustrated, it's because I am): "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- That means I have a Right not to buy health insurance if I don't want to. - That means the power to mandate health insurance purchase is NOT given to the U.S. Congress - it's reserved to the Member State's Legislature, or the People.
>>>>>If 25 State Legislatures, acting on the People's direction, declare a U.S. law to be unconstitutional, then it should be nullified.
>>That would have taken care of the assault weapons ban about ten minutes after Clinton signed it into law.
Well... not ten minutes. More like 2-3 years of debate in the various legislatures until they agreed to make the law "unconstitution", but yes it is likely would have been nullified. For one thing it violates the second amendment. If you don't like amendment 2's allowance of arms for the people, then create amendment 29 to repeal it, or limit it. I'd be okay with that - at least it would follow proper procedure rather than ram through unconstitutional limits. (Or you could pass the ban at the state level - one state at a time.)
For another thing, there's no reason to ban assault weapons, and besides - What's an "assault weapon"? My hunting rifle could be considered an assault weapon, if it was in the hands of a terrorist, like that psychiatrist who attacked an army base and killed many. The law was bad law because the term "assault weapon" is nebulous and has no real meaning. Almost any gun would be banned under it.
And most importantly, if the People have instructed their Legislatures to declare said law to be nullified, then that IS the will of the people. Who are you or I to force a Congressional law upon the People that they do not want???
The only people who think its okay to ignore the will of the people is a Progressive.
>>>If only there was an institution where laws could be declared unconstitutional without having to wait for the government to violate your rights.
>>>
You raise a very, very good point there. With our current system, you first have to wait until some government arrests you for a crime (for example: owning a gun in Washington DC). Then you have to file in court to defend yourself against this unconstitutional law. In most cases you'll lose, but if you're lucky it can rise to the level of the United States' government court who may or may not declare it unconstitutional.
That process took ~30 years to overturn D.C.'s unconstitutional banning of guns. With my proposed amendment, there'd be no need to wait. You and your neighbors could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional". Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided.
My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not 30), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or waste time/money in the courtroom.
What do you think has more influence? A media that represents all viewpoints (from extreme communist to extreme anarchist) on the television, radio, and internet, and which people can choose to hear or ignore at their own whim...... .....or the progressive government that controls every person eight hours per day, for 13 years, during their brain's formative years, and fills them with such things as "government is good," "more government is even better," "the founding fathers were a bunch of slave-owning thugs who wanted to keep everyone repressed," and "the constitution is just a piece of paper - you can ignore it".
I choose the latter. Government has more influence. And yes I actually was taught those things in my middle and high school; not all at once but gradually over time. It took about ten years of self-education (i.e. reading the founders actual documents, plus studying political history) to erase them from my head.
If you're new to my own personal concept of "corporations are dangerous" and "government is even worse", I recommend listening to Walter E. Williams' lectures on his website. He's a professor in Washington D.C. and one of the most brilliant men currently alive.
>>>Well we were deficit positive in 2000. How did we look when he took office?
No we were deficit positive in 1999 (i.e. we had a surplus). In 2000 the dot-com market crash caused the surplus to disappear and the deficit returned. The national debt was $60,000 per home.
It rose to $100,000 per home during Bush's eight years (+$5,000 per year).
And became $120,000 per home after just one year of Obama.
It's projected to be $200,000 by the end of Obama's eight years (+12,000 per year)
Bush was a big spender, but Obama is about 2.5 times worse.
>>>Or 25 state senators
Incorrect. As many people have pointed out, senators don't work for the states anymore. They are best describes as "25 people's senators". The actual state governments no longer have any representation in D.C. and therefore no way to block unconstitutional laws from passing. In effect the state governments have become powerless, and that allows Congress to become an entity with practically no restraint on its power. There is virtually nothing to stop Congress from assuming full jurisdiction even inside our own private homes.
.
>>>Dozens of laws are compared to constitutional muster every day. Moving that to the vote of several thousand lazy people will just mean that justice doesn't happen for most.
>>>
The U.S. government passes a bill, then signs the bill into law, then rubberstamps it "constitutional". It is illogical to have the U.S. government self-policing itself in this fashion. It is more logical to give the task to the States, since they were the ones who created the Constitution in the first place, and also because they would stop Washington DC's out-of-control spending and growing tyranny (over the last 80 years).
Also I think it's a mistake to describe State Legislators as "lazy". They are no more lazy than the U.S. Legislators, and are certainly more attune to the People's needs. Heck, my legislator lives on the same street as I do, and he is VERY attentive to my opinions.
In contrast my U.S.-level Congressman lives thousands of miles away, and doesn't even hear me (ignores my emails).
>>>OMG! People are negotiating on a proposed law, trying to make it acceptable to more people! This must be stopped!
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT (invalid logic). I didn't say they shouldn't change the healthcare bill during negotiations. I was merely explaining that, because the bill is changing from week-to-week, it's understandable why I did not know it had changed from $2500 to $950. You said (rudely) that I should "check the facts" but I have a fulltime 50-hour per week job, which means I cannot possibly keep up with every change, and neither should you expect me too.
>>>Congress has Constitutional authority to pretty much tax anyone for anything.
Yes tax. Not fine. I can see the 1040EZ form now: "If you do not have health insurance, please fine yourself $950." If that's not an example of a government trampling liberty, then I don't know what is. What will they fine us with next? "If you do not own a Prius or similar hybrid, please fine yourself $500." - "If you do not have a solar panel on your roof, please fine yourself $1000."
It's control. Trying to force us to buy stuff we don't want. Like a master over a serf.
I'm ignoring the rest of your rudeness about "teabaggers" (hate speech?).
Please gain some maturity when talking to other adults,
else you'll simply be dismissed as a juvenile.
>>>Why not then just repeal the 17th amendment?
Because even when the 17th Amendment did not exist, and the State Governments had direct representatives in the Senate, the U.S. government still passed unconstitutional laws (Sedition Act, Fugitive Slave Act, Income Tax Act). Repealing the 17th is a good idea, but that alone is not enough. There needs to be a non-Washington DC entity that can declare laws "unconstitutional" and nullify them. That entity is the Member States themselves, and it can only happen via my proposed amendment.
The way things stand now, with the U.S. government self-policing itself, is as illogical as letting Microsoft run its own antitrust trial. ("We find that Microsoft is not guilty," spoke the Microsoft CEO and acting judge.)
So basically I think we need BOTH - a repeal of the 17th to restore the Senate to being the States' House, and a new 28th amendment to give States the power to nullify unconstitutional laws and "check" the tyranny that Congress has become.
>>>Or, to put this another way, my state legislators have a closer relationship with me than their federal counterparts. However, my federal legislators have more power themselves than my state legislators.
>>>
You have the second sentence backwards. MOST powers are reserved, by the Bill of Rights' tenth amendment, to the State governments. So not only do you have a closer relationship with your state legislator (one voice out of a few thousand), but also more influence over the power of said government, since the State capitol is only a few miles away from where you live.
At least that's how it would work if the Constitution was a Supreme Law of the land, instead of just a piece of paper that everybody in Washington ignores. Things are out of balance such that Congress is not only the *least* representative body (you are just one of millions), but also legislates every facet of your life, even your health insurance (buy some or get fined) and your toilet (low flow and doesn't flush properly).
The purpose of the Proposed Amendment is to restore checks and balances between Washington DC and the States. It would "check" Congressional power and return it back to the local State level, where citizens have the greatest influence.
Without the proposed amendment, there will be essentially no Constitution (it's ignored) and practically no limit to what Washington DC can do.
>>>1) If you opened up such a package [with child porn or obscene material], immediately notify the police. Then drive the package to the nearest police office and leave it there.
>>>
Many citizens who receive porn or drugs in the mail, when they do the honest thing and tell the police, end up arrested for possession. You. Cannot. Trust. Police. Or the government in general. Better to destroy the evidence and pretend you never received anything.
"You have the right to remain silent....." - USE IT. You also have the right to refuse searches. No warrant; no search. No warrant; no search.
>>>If only there was an institution [senate.gov] where the states could have a voice on Federal legislation.....
No such body has existed since 1917. The State governments no longer have any voice in the central government. Every representative in Washington is representing the people, not the State governments, and therefore there's essentially nothing to stop the central government from passing unconstitutional laws.
And even when the Senators were still selected directly by the 50 government legislatures, there was still a need for the States to nullify unconstitutional laws. They did it with the Sedition Act and again with the Fugitive Slave Act, and that power needs to be formalized via an Amendment:
If 25 State Legislatures, acting on the People's direction, declare a U.S. law to be unconstitutional, then it should be nullified. The States would act as an independent, non-Washington DC entity to stop its current practice of trying to control every little facet of citizens' lives (like fining you if you don't buy health insurance).
>>>Or what if I stand on the Maryland side of the Mason-Dixon line and throw trash into Pennsylvania? Am I subject to Pennsylvania's anti-littering law? You bet.
>>>
No. Only if you cross the border. Pennsylvania police can not enter into a foreign states' territory to arrest you.
Now they could call-up their Maryland buddies and ask for extradition, and they are likely to get help as the MD police arrest you, but what if you fled all the way to California? Nope. It's unlikely that PA and CA have any kind of extradition agreement, and just as unlikely that California police would want to drag your butt across 4000 miles (roundtrip) to deliver you.
There's your belief, and there's the law, and the law recognizes that non-residents are generally not subject to the laws of a foreign State. Else we'd all be forced to pay income taxes to all 50 States, not just 1.