- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 6, 2012 at 9:59 pm #602400
HMC RichParticipantI love how the Obama administration just casts aside the Constitution whenever it is convenient or they don’t like it.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nine-state-ags-cite-21-illegal-actions-obama-administration
Furthermore, it is not acceptable for either party to do so.
March 6, 2012 at 11:00 pm #750035
kootchmanMemberLiberals don’t like it. It’s a transient, inconvenient obstacle. They thought majority meant power … they don’t understand the constitution is not there to expand rights or entitlements…that’s the job of states and local government. The constitution is the document that limits the power of the federal government. Excluding from it, “powers not expressly enumerated” ((forbidden fruit to temporary presidents and congresses) The “wailings of its not democratic if the majority doesn’t rule” has limits…. the constitution rules. That is why changing it is so hard… it’s supposed to be. I assure you the far right wing will do the same…. ever vigilant. Now we have to bully back….to restore constitutional order.
March 6, 2012 at 11:18 pm #750036
dhgParticipantTrampling the Constitution? Environmental laws are unconstitutional? You think it a shame that Catholic-run services do not have the right to discriminate, the right to decide what health care is provided to their female employees? that’s the best ya got?
The Patriot Act provides for highly intrusive government snooping into our lives. It’s far more sweeping that merely discriminating again female health care. But sure, go for it. Defend the right of Mormons to discriminate against blacks and gays, the right of Catholic bishops to dictate how we live our lives. You’ll not get much traction with it.
March 6, 2012 at 11:38 pm #750037
WorldCitizenParticipantcsnnews.com, huh?
Quality journalism source.
People actually read this garbage.
I do enjoy the comments after the articles, though.
March 7, 2012 at 1:37 am #750038
cadburyParticipantMarch 7, 2012 at 1:59 am #750039
kootchmanMemberIn the words of the Great One… Well, there you go again….. the Catholic church is practicing it’s long standing, fundemental tenet of faith… it is not a woman’s health issue as hard as you try to frame it that way. It’s violation of the First Amendment. The Catholic church is not opposing your right to legal access to birth control… they are not going to fund it. That’s not discrimination. The issue goes away with the repeal of Obamacare doesn’t it? The question is do YOU have the right to force the Catholic Church to abandon a tent of faith? We are not letting the issue be framed as a “health right” or gender discrimination… cause it isn’t. They can drop health care entirely… and save money in the process… then what have you gained? Please show me where the Bishops are telling you how to run your lives… anywhere. What Catholic tenet of faith are you forced to follow? None. Don’t like it? Don’t work for them. Yea… actually the federal government, even The Messiah has to stay within the limits congress has mandated in the authorizing EPA legislation… and if the courts are overturning them… they are unconstitutional. EPA has limits. The EPA has to live within it’ confines. Take pause… over half the country has filed suit against this administration… 37 states have petitioned the courts . Way to bring us together …. that’s his high water mark.
March 7, 2012 at 3:42 am #750040
JoBParticipantgeez guys..
there doesn’t seem to be a taxpayer dollar you aren’t willing to spend to make a little election hoopla…
if this were the gong show
your ears would still be ringing
March 7, 2012 at 5:57 am #750041
jamminjMemberthe best comment from the article:
“you people are just f***ing Morons”
getting desperate it seems for the repugs.
March 7, 2012 at 6:02 am #750042
jamminjMember“The Catholic church is not opposing your right to legal access to birth control… they are not going to fund it.”
The catholic church also opposed the war in the middle east, therefore I advise them not to fund that as well, and please don’t charge my Catholic children for that. The Catholic church also opposes all death penalties… I would like to withdraw my taxes that go towards any executions. thank you. refund please.
March 7, 2012 at 6:15 am #750043
jamminjMemberThe church and the war in iraq (2007):
“The time has come to confess our mistakes and wrongdoing and withdraw our troops” from Iraq,
“I’m troubled that our commander in chief (Bush) neither shares this prayer nor listens to his people.”
They called the president (Bush) a “naive politician” and “morally bankrupt” and said it was their duty to rally their congregations to protest this war.
Kootch: the question is do YOU have the right to force the Catholic Church to abandon a tent of faith?
obviously from the previous administration… YES.
March 7, 2012 at 6:49 am #750044
dhgParticipantHealth care should be viewed as a right and it should be government funded. It is in all other developed countries. But leaving that aside, and leaving aside your desire to see poor people dead in the streets, there are many settled examples of the faithful forced to bend to government’s will. Taxes are spent on many things that some people find abhorrent such as instruments of war. If catholic employers don’t have to include birth control in health plans, I shouldn’t have to contribute taxes to blackwater, ge or other war profiteers.
March 7, 2012 at 5:15 pm #750045
DBPMemberRich: Thanks for the link.
I have some criticisms of it, BUT . . . since everyone’s pig-piling you already (‘cept for kootch) let’s see if we can get this thing going in a different direction.
Two questions.
Question 1:
From the list in the article that you posted, what do you think is the most egregious Presidential breech of our Constitutional freedom and why is it so bad?
Question 2:
As you conceded from the first, both sides (Left and Right) are guilty of flouting the Constitution. However, the Founders anticipated that this would happen, and that’s why they interposed the Supreme Court between the President and the citizenry.
So . . . Do you feel that the Supreme Court is no longer doing its job? Why?
Â
March 7, 2012 at 7:49 pm #750046
HMC RichParticipantLast first. The Supreme Court is doing its job but only takes on so many cases. It has or will rule on some of these cases.
But they are not the last word either. After a decision, congress can draft legislation changing laws. I believe the question is how much power can a President have in making mandates. Also, as read in the article, public pressure, courts of appeals have stopped some of these items pushed by the White House.
Question 1. A side bar first. One of the most costly decisions by the government deals with their decision on the Yucca Mountain revocation of licensing from the Department of Energy. From the report….
DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice; SC and Washington State filed suit, as a result, contesting the unconstitutional action; American people have paid more than $31 billion (including interest) through percentages of electric rate fees towards the project and taxpayers have footed an addition $200 million in legal feeds and over $2 billion in judgments against the DOE for breaking contracts associated with Yucca Mountain.
As far as egregious breeches….FCC wanting to impose Net Neutrality on web sites. Fortunately overruled in the appellate courts. Look at societies that are not a free as us. When the public erupts, what do the Chinese, Iranians and other regimes do when trouble arises. The lock down the internet stopping the free flow of information.
Also, DOJ wanting to get rid of voter identification laws in South Carolina and Arizona. Again, the DOJ overstepping its authority by wanting states to have people prove they are legal residents. Why, so more illegals who get government assistance can possibly vote?
Finally, two items that go against the Constitution. 1) Obamacare. Forcing citizens to buy private health insurance and if they do not, they get fined. Whether you want government healthcare or not, the government cannot mandate each person in this country to buy private insurance. Unless the court can find a reason, this will fail. 2) And because of this, forcing religious institutions to offer services or goods that go against the religious institutions teachings. Ironically, the President just went and asked Black churches to form groups to get him re-elected which is also against the law concerning tax exempt status.
As far as health care goes, The Federal Governments role should be limited. States can experiment with many activities. Unless the laws and constitution are changed, it really can’t happen. For those who want national health care, you need to change the constitution somehow.
March 7, 2012 at 7:57 pm #750047
kootchmanMemberObamacare.
It is so bad because it shows the profound lack of understanding about the fundamental role of the Constitution by my fellow citizen travelers. The constitution is a document that was designed to specifically tell the federal government what powers it has. If it isn’t there, they don’t have it. Those other powers of legislation belong to the states. Seattle, can legislate all the loony leftist ideas it has. We have a dominant liberal culture. Topeka feels very differently and will legislate otherwise. As long as those pieces of legislation do not conflict with the specific rights of the individual or as in the first amendent the practice of religions. Separation of church and state was designed not to keep religion out of government… although that has been our custom… it was to protect religion from the overreach of the state.
Is the Supreme Court doing it’s job? No. The Democratic Party is trumpeting packing the court as a second term objective. I am delighted we have Scalia, Thomas, Roberts. etc. The Supreme Court is charged with determining if legislation is constitutional… not poring over the document to find or invent rights or entitlements that were not expressly enumerated.
Remember the last time we socially engineered through the constitution… the Volstead Act… and how did that work? It was a disaster. Yet, interestingly, in “dry counties” throughout the conservative south… local legislation, reflecting local views, does not permit selling alcohol … fine with me. Interestingly, wouldn’t ya know it .. Washington State was a leading proponent of the Volstead Act. .. trying to control and impose itself on individual behaviors. If you are going to treat the Constitution as we do congress… a political prize …. subject to political whim and power… we have lost the foundation of our society. No one can sleep easy.. because precedent goes out the window,… we might as well resign ourselves to the insecurity of a document in flux based on political appointees. The thing about a cudgel…. if you lose your grip in a fight…it comes back at ya in the hands of your adversary.
March 7, 2012 at 8:18 pm #750048
DBPMemberYeah, Rich. You’re probably right on the issue of the govt. not being able to force individuals to buy insurance from private companies. I would have been one of those people too, and frankly, I resented it. I wanted the “robust public option” that Jim McDermott promised us . . .
In the main, it seems you are making a good case for the existing balance of power between the courts, Congress, and the Prez. So, according to you, the system is working properly, right? (Please correct me if I’m mischaracterizing your comments.)
On the birth control issue, what did you think of the compromise I suggested on the Romney photo thread?
My compromise was this:
Religious orgs don’t have to pay for contraception or anything else they have a problem with. However, they do have to contribute an equivalent amount to the plan that can then be earmarked to pay for other, non-controversial coverage. That way, religious folks can keep their consciences intact and still pay their fair share.
—It would be kind of like our system for dealing with conscientious objectors. During times of a military draft, COs are allowed to “do their duty” by serving on the homefront or in other non-combat capacities.
<anecdote>
I have a CO friend in Olympia, a Quaker. During World War II, he was assigned duty as a “smoke jumper.”
“When I told other guys I was a pacifist and refused to fire a gun, they called me a sissy and a coward. But when they found out what I had to do instead of firing a gun, they shut right up.”
Note: Smoke jumpers parachute onto mountainsides directly in the path of raging forest fires.
</anecdote>
March 7, 2012 at 8:32 pm #750049
kootchmanMemberO c’mon DBP… that is like handing crack to a 12 year old to avoid getting busted as a distributing felonious adult. If you put the kid on the corner… you are just as guilty. Asking the church to fund contraceptives, sterilizations, or abortions through proxy is not a compromise. It’s political cover. The Weasel In Chief tried that one already. Admit it, reverse it and let’s get on with the economy. Job will vote for him anyway.
March 7, 2012 at 9:55 pm #750050
DBPMemberYes, all compromise is a form of “political cover,” actually. You get something you really want; you give up something you don’t need. You focus on what you got and try to forget about what you gave up. That’s how it works.
Sure . . . if you say: “I need EVERYTHING and I’m not giving up ANYTHING,” —you might win in the end, but you’re also taking a big risk.
In case you haven’t noticed, the hold of the Catholic Church on the hearts and minds of ordinary people has been slipping for some time now. In fact, ever since they said “No compromise!” to an insignificant pipsqueak named Martin Luther . . .
(Oops!)
Well, the church had to split up after that little boo-boo, but at least the Vatican still had its dignity. Right?
March 7, 2012 at 10:36 pm #750051
kootchmanMemberThe church pays no income tax. The church does not support the war. Well this is not a popularity contest DBP… it’s a tenet of faith. And as they are as you admit, a minority, (23% of the population) ever the greater reason to protect their minority rights. The First Amendment. You are a moral relativist. That is fine. There may be a day when Captain Kirk returns and we find out Tribbles are the Creator… but until that day… the First Amendment stands. compromises are not inherently “good things”… they are just compromises. But you are incorrect, factually, the Catholic church is actually growing… viva la Mexico.
March 7, 2012 at 11:47 pm #750052
DBPMemberA moral relativist would be someone who says that what’s right and wrong always depends on the context. That’s not me; I believe there are some absolute rights and wrongs.
But I also know two things:
1) I live in a world where not everyone believes the same way I do about what’s right and what’s wrong.
2) In this world, I am dependent upon the goodwill and cooperation of others — even those who may disagree with me on moral questions.
Therefore, I try to be very sparing with the “moral absolutes.”
I am not always for compromise, but whenever I can get something good by compromising on tactics — without compromising on principle — I will do that. In this case, I don’t see the President asking anyone to compromise their principles, but intelligent men may disagree.
**************************************************************************************
I didn’t say the Catholic Church was declining in absolute numbers. I said the Church (read: the Vatican) was declining in moral influence among the so-called faithful. Which it is.
In fact, it’s probably at an all-time low, and for good reason. At a time when children are starving to death because their parents can’t feed them, it is a shameful thing for the Pope or ANYONE ELSE to say to these people: “You shouldn’t use contraception, because it’s against God’s will. You should be having MORE babies, not fewer.”
There are only three possible conclusions to be drawn from a statement like that:
1) God doesn’t want people to have sex unless they intend to have a baby every time they do.
2) God wants children to starve to death.
3) The Pope is a fool.
Now then . . . Knowing what I know about God, and knowing what I know about the Pope, I’m going to have go with #3.
March 8, 2012 at 12:30 am #750053
kootchmanMemberAh.. but the church does something about those beliefs. It feeds animists, Buddhists, Muslim, secular.. etc. Calling the pope a fool is a great way to start the cooperation thing going. Especially useful in a world “where I depend upon the goodwill and cooperation of others”… that’s a goodwill gesture? OK then… back to the corners and come out swinging. Browse through Catholic Charities web sites… the social justice movement is an essential part of the Catholic faith… at every level. The Vatican has not been shy, particularly to its North American church about the spiritual destitution of rampant consumerism. Ya got a problem with them not willing to pay for birth control… it’s a small thing in the greater context. A very small thing. The Catholic church has been present at every social justice movement in this country during this century. This is one disagreement, It is not JUST the Catholic church that is in opposition… almost every faith based institution had noted the assault and condemned it…. with rare exceptions. They know a stalking horse when they see it… the left got called on it. Or not.
March 8, 2012 at 3:17 pm #750054
mtnfreakParticipantAny other employer – public, government, non-profit – would not be allowed to use their tenets of faith as justification for refusing to follow the law regarding its employees.
Why should any religious organization – be exempted?
I believe the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people. Not the organizations. My Constitutional rights should not be revoked when I step into my office. My religious beliefs should not be usurped by my employer’s – and my employer’s religious beliefs should not be allowed to limit the health care that my government says I’m entitled to.
March 8, 2012 at 3:30 pm #750055
redblackParticipantregarding obamacare, i want to back up to the basic premise in this argument: the ability for people to see doctors. because despite all of the rhetoric, this is literally a life-and-death argument. and we have a de facto health care “system” in this country that is for-profit, and it doesn’t allow all americans to participate.
insurance companies have become huge. some have revenues bigger than most states’ GDP’s. shouldn’t the federal government be big enough and have enough authority to scrutinize their practices, since states often can’t fight them on a level playing field? and ultimately, when the fight is between an insurance company and the government, who do you think the government is representing?
how do conservatives propose that we cover the 40 million people who either can’t afford insurance, don’t have employer-provided benefits, or who make too much money to qualify for medicaid but still can’t afford insurance?
medicaid is funded through block grants to the states. if the government requires that insurance companies cover the indigent, doesn’t that reduce “entitlements?”
i know you think that health care is not a right, but do you want poor people spreading diseases or dying in the streets?
i heard the previous president say that poor people and illegal immigrants can go to emergency rooms for primary care any old time they please. but the last time i had to visit harborview, i was still handed a bill. if a poor person is treated because he can’t be turned away, and is released without paying, who pays for that?
since health care and health insurance is 1/6 of america’s GDP, why do you think that the federal government has no business regulating this industry?
if it’s a states’ rights issue, why have the states largely done nothing about it?
and lastly – but most importantly – how many of you conservatives don’t have insurance? and since i know none of you will say, “i don’t,” did you buy it on the open market, or do you have an employer-provided group plan?
March 8, 2012 at 4:35 pm #750056
JoBParticipantkootch..
“it’s a small thing in the greater context. A very small thing.”
this is a small thing only to those who don’t require the medications that are used for birth control…
or who don’t require any medication that could possibly be conceived as being against the “scruples” of their employer.
this small thing is creating a hole big enough to drive a truck through..
that moral exemption thing that is wide enough to deny women even referral to life saving health care if it somehow threatens the “morality” of the caregiver responsible for the referral.
You talk about the catholic church supporting humanitarian causes?
I would ask how humanitarian it is to allow your “morals” to determine every individual’s access to adequate health care?
because this “small” issue isn’t just confined to the employees of the catholic church…
a fact your bishops were well aware of when they made this a public religious crusade…
come to think of it.. political crusades haven’t exactly been the high point of Catholicism, have they?
It’s way past time that religious organizations reminded themselves that their mission is to save souls… not legislate morality.
March 8, 2012 at 4:49 pm #750057
JoBParticipantHMCRich…
just a question, but who do you think is making you aware that the feds are trampling on the constitution right now?
and why do you think they are doing it?
Do you stop to wonder why they are choosing this time and these “egregious” breaches
when they stood cheering as the United States embraced kidnapping US citizens and depositing them in foreign regimes known to use torture as a means of gaining information?
or when Dick Cheney assured us that waterboarding was humane?
or ?????
its not that the list couldn’t go on and on..
it’s just that it wouldn’t make a difference how many instances i cited…
the rest of the world actually considered prosecuting our President and Vice-President for war crimes
and only the “might” of these great United States stopped them…
but if the press didn’t make a fuss here
it didn’t happen
and now the press is
so we need to pay attention?
it might be time to take a closer look at the vested interests of those who are feeding the press their soundbites instead of jumping gleefully on the blame train.
to be honest
I expect better reasoning
even from Republicans
i can even remember when i got it
when a political debate challenged the mind
and made you question what you believed in
now.. those were the days…
March 8, 2012 at 5:06 pm #750058
HMC RichParticipantHi Kootch. I still think the Supreme Court is OK. I am not happy with all of the frivolous lawsuits and activism clogging up the lower courts. That is broken and needs reform.
Redblack. In the Preamble the term, “Promote the General Welfare” does not mean the Federal Government should provide healthcare. No matter how you feel, and I have empathy, believe me, it is not constitutional. The Administration wants to call it a tax. If considered a tax it may slip under the door and found constitutional, but we know it is not a tax.
Also, I have for the past three years been on and off health care plans. Medical Services are much cheaper when you are not on a plan, but major health problems are super duper expensive. Lets see. I did use COBRA briefly, but COBRA is EXPENSIVE!!!!!, then went to Lifewise, then I went to an HMO. I could have qualified for some of the State Plans for a bit but did not.
No, insurance should have been for high dollar issues, operations, costly medications and not for every day exams etc. This is where the medical profession and the insurance companies have screwed the consumer.
In our state children of families with lower incomes can get Apple Health. Adults of lower income can get on the States Insurance plans. SCHIP is available across the nation in all states. Our state has a lot of coverage. https://www.washingtonconnection.org/home/explorecategories.go?locale=en_US&category=HC
I know it is not perfect. But the States are the engines that must drive healthcare. That is also a difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. State vs Federal. Not that I am in full support of plans that require all to pay. In fact I seem to remember the Federal Government not allowing insurance companies to be in every state. Why? Now if that has changed, good.
Finally, Obamacare steals our rights. It is a life controlling document that gives so much power to HHS. Remember the little girl whose lunch was deemed not appropriate and was given chicken nuggets? Obamacare is about control. Seniors will be thrown aside. In fact contraceptives for non retirement people will be considered more important than medications for the “non-productive” members of society.
I didn’t vote on it, but the people who did didn’t read it either.
Sorry DBP, I will answer later.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.