It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Hampshire Dem Discredits U.S. Constitution

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

New Hampshire Dem Discredits U.S. Constitution


www.marchreport.com

www.marchreport.com...-08-28-A33
New Hampshire Dem Discredits U.S. Constitution
Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire) was asked recently by a talk-radio caller about the constitutionality of the Democrats' government-run healthcare plan. Her response has at least one constitutional expert wondering whether she has ever read the Constitution. "I would point out to you that in the Constitution it also does not say the government can build roads or should build roads," said Shea-Porter. "It also doesn't say the government should make sure the drugs are s
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.marchreport.com




posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Once again, people, we have clear evidence of the complete breakdown of public education. There are many teachers in Florida teaching History & Government without the proper undergraduate studies. But they are coaches, and it is thought that the two previously mentioned subjects are not important anyhow. What IS important is having a winning season of basketball or football, or even baseball.

So I guess they have teachers like this up north too.

And since M of C are ignorant on these matters, well, all the merrier!

www.marchreport.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Health care reform, like Social Security and Medicaid, are allowed for under the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution. Many if not most Constitutional scholars agree on this.

It has become fashionable for some people to claim the federal government should only build roads and deliver mail (if even that). People holding these views consider themselves superior to all others and extremely knowledgeable about the Constitution. They abound on ATS and the internet.

The congresswoman is stating a view held by many Constitutional scholars.

It's interesting to note that Barack Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

People who think only in terms of black and white tend to become fundamentalists on the subject.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


I would go farther and say "the Constitution" is the most misused word of 2009. Its like a cop-out; when someone challenges one's views, all they have to do is say "read the Constitution" and they think that ends the entire discussion.

Those who cliam to know the Constitution don't know it at all. They simply abuse it more than others.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Agreed. However many laws contain inherently unconstitutional stipulations. One could argue that the General Welfare clause is what lead to the Patriot act, however, once one reads the legislation it is clear that it is a free ride to government control of our free speech and a repudiation of our 4th amendment rights.

Same with the FISA amendments. I doubt this health care legislation is free of these stipulations.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
If the quote in the article is accurate, the Democratic party should be ashamed..., but then, we already know the Republican party doesn't give a rat's behind about the intent or spirit of the law as set forth n the Constitution. In fact, I wonder about some here on our board lately.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
reply to post by Sestias
 


I would go farther and say "the Constitution" is the most misused word of 2009. Its like a cop-out; when someone challenges one's views, all they have to do is say "read the Constitution" and they think that ends the entire discussion.


I've noticed that a lot too. I think it probably counts as a thought terminating cliche, or a very similar phenomenon.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 30-8-2009 by dugganj83]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Politicians are the lowest of the low. These people truly are scum. They only refer to the constitution when they need to, otherwise they throw out ramblings like this.

The constitution was founded on basic beliefs- yet they are trying to throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing by nit-picking one item and turning it around on the public.


ridiculous....

[edit on 8/30/2009 by AceOfAces]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dugganj83
 


You hit it on the head. Its like "socialism" and "communism." You disagree with someone, call them either one of those and it ends the debate right there.

I mean, nobody can question the Constitution, so why not refer to it when a disagreement is involved?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


I forgot to add:

Though the General Welfare clause DOES allow for health-care reform, including single payer, it is NOT in the General Welfare interest of the US to institute programs that would further the deep debt hole we're in. If such legislation drives our deficit further up, and threatens the stability of the dollar, and hence our economy, then it is by nature counter the General Welfare of the People of the United States, and should at LEAST be placed on hold until we can reform our monetary policy and PAY DOWN OUR DEBT.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
When I was in school the one teacher who did cover the Constitution did a three day workshop on it consisting of completely boring and forgettable work.

Honestly it should be a year long course in our rights, the history of why we have this wonderful document and the possible ways to break our constitutional rights.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo
 


Actually. I think the "Read the constitution" guys (the ones who don't know what their talking about.) are in second on that one.

I've known that the big heads on Fox News, and many of the hardcore conservatives here on ATS enjoy the use of the word facist. 95% of the time I see it said, it is used incorrectly.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


Fascist is another one of those words used incorrectly. Its funny, the people who use it the most, if they ran the show, would undoubtedly be fascists themselves.

The right-wingers who constantly throw the word fascism around are really ironic in that sense.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
WOW!
This thread is rapidly filling with partisan commentary from many people who are completely clueless about either the Constitution or Facism!
Therein lies the problem with America - a bunch of know-it-alls who haven't a clue!
They play right into the hands of the left versus right dichotomy that will eventually kill this country. Pat yourselves on the back and give me a great big BAH-BAH-BAH!!! Oh, and don't worry, this truck isn't going to take you anywhere bad like a slughterhouse, honestly - just climb aboard.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


ABSOLUTELY WRONG... if not expressly putlined under the Constitution as an actual authority or prohibited, it falls under the Tenth Ammendment by default.

Under the Tenth Amendment, all welfare programs are unconstitutional without further amendments detailing the Gov's new power by 2/3rds vote in both houses or constitutional convention by 2/3rds state legistlatures.

The "clause" you speak of can be assumed for anything what so ever, it is not an expressed authority over the States.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





Health care reform, like Social Security and Medicaid, are allowed for under the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution. Many if not most Constitutional scholars agree on this.


No. No. No. There is no "general welfare clause." What is being claimed to be a "general welfare clause" is an introduction to the Enumerated Powers. If the first paragraph of Article 1 Section 8 was meant to be a "clause" to grant unlimited power the rest of the section would be unnecessary along with the 10th Amendment. A "general welfare clause" would also not be consistent with a document intended to provide the framework for a limited Federal Government.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
In the 1930's some people who objected to Social Security argued that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Likewise some people objected to Medicare on the same grounds.

Try to take away either program now -- I dare you.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
If the quote in the article is accurate, the Democratic party should be ashamed..., but then, we already know the Republican party doesn't give a rat's behind about the intent or spirit of the law as set forth n the Constitution. In fact, I wonder about some here on our board lately.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by Maxmars]


That's exactly my point! Neither party has our best interests in mind. Its a power grab and a game to them.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





Try to take away either program now -- I dare you.


Social Security is a giant Ponzi Scheme. Those being payed out today rely on those who are paying into it today. Unfortunately the only way to discontinue such a program is for the working generations to continue to pay into it until the current elder generation passes on.

The most effective way to maintain control of a Nation is not martially. This is why the Founders created a limited Federal Government that would not have the ability to create such "programs".




In the 1930's some people who objected to Social Security argued that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.


The Supreme Court has failed to overturn other legislation that they even admitted was unconstitutional. So just because the Supreme Court fails to overturn certain legislation does not mean it is not unconstitutional.







 
5

log in

join