The Judge just said that Joe Wilson was right

[Dieseler]

I got no link.
Was on Cavuto, however you spell his name and said that it is unconstitutional for the Government NOT to cover any person residing in the U.S.
Persons does include Illegal Aliens as well.
Well there ya go.

I just call him The Judge, I think we all know who I'm talking about.

[Matt Collins]

Huh? Not to cover what? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please rephrase it.

[sarahgop]

deathcare

[dannno]

//

[TinCanToNA]

Huh? Not to cover what? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please rephrase it.

The Health Care bill(s). It would be Unconstitutional to not cover every person residing in the United States under such a bill, according to the Judge. Still calls the bill itself Unconstitutional.

[Matt Collins]

The Health Care bill(s). It would be Unconstitutional to not cover every person residing in the United States under such a bill, according to the Judge. Still calls the bill itself Unconstitutional.Under the General Welfare Clause that would make sense. Any welfare has to be for everyone, not just a select few.

[TinCanToNA]

Under the General Welfare Clause that would make sense. Any welfare has to be for everyone, not just a select few.

That was the Constitutional argument the Judge was making. Native Americans, slaves and freed slaves, and so forth all had special circumstances, but still should be covered by the use of the word "persons" instead of "citizens" when appropriate (non-voting measures, etc.).

Does not negate the fact that the "Universal Health Care" bill(s) do not fall under the General Welfare Clause, and are Unconstitutional.

[Matt Collins]

Does not negate the fact that the "Universal Health Care" bill(s) do not fall under the General Welfare Clause, and are Unconstitutional.Correct.

[Dieseler]

Thanks for the help in deciphering my incoherent post.
I guess the gist is or rather will be, is that when the Non Constitutional Bill is passed it will then be Un Constitutional not to cover all Persons residing within the U.S.

Is that correct?

[TinCanToNA]

Thanks for the help in deciphering my incoherent post.
I guess the gist is or rather will be, is that when the Non Constitutional Bill is passed it will then be Un Constitutional not to cover all Persons residing within the U.S.

Is that correct?

Yes.

The fact that the bill is Unconstitutional is our (literal) interpretation of the Constitution. The interpretation used to determine legality of issues has long since been made "progressive" and neither the words nor the intentions of the Founders no longer hold any meaning in modern legal discourse. We are in a System of Men (and two Women), not a System of Laws, and the corruption shows more and more as time goes on. They will interpret the bill itself as Constitutional (thus negating the literal words and intentions of the Founders), and strike down any caveats that exclude non-citizens, also on the grounds of their progressive interpretation of the Constitution.

[Dieseler]

Yes.

The fact that the bill is Unconstitutional is our (literal) interpretation of the Constitution. The interpretation used to determine legality of issues has long since been made "progressive" and neither the words nor the intentions of the Founders no longer hold any meaning in modern legal discourse. We are in a System of Men (and two Women), not a System of Laws, and the corruption shows more and more as time goes on. They will interpret the bill itself as Constitutional (thus negating the literal words and intentions of the Founders), and strike down any caveats that exclude non-citizens, also on the grounds of their progressive interpretation of the Constitution.

Thank you.

[Matt Collins]

The fact that the bill is Unconstitutional is our (literal) interpretation of the Constitution.Incorrect. The Constitution does not need to be interpreted. The document means what the words written down say they mean.


They will interpret the bill itself as Constitutional (thus negating the literal words and intentions of the Founders), and strike down any caveats that exclude non-citizens, also on the grounds of their progressive interpretation of the Constitution.They are wrong plain and simple.

Looking for original intent is a fallacy. We should be seeking original meaning of the words at the time they were written. That is the only logical way.

[disorderlyvision]

We already cover everyone it is called "the emergency room"

[TinCanToNA]

Incorrect. The Constitution does not need to be interpreted. The document means what the words written down say they mean.

They are wrong plain and simple.

Looking for original intent is a fallacy. We should be seeking original meaning of the words at the time they were written. That is the only logical way.

We're saying the same thing, in different ways. However, strictly speaking, all language must be interpreted in some way, because things only have meaning because we agree that they do (otherwise phonetic sounds or alphanumeric characters are irrelevant gibberish). The Judge's favorite example is the use of the word "regulate" which meant something quite different, contextually, in the 1700's than it does now. The common current translation means to oversee, supervise, or control, while the common (and intended) meaning in the Constitution meant "to keep regular." It is important what the original meaning and intent was, otherwise what's the point? The meanings of words change over time, as will the interpretations of words to new situations, but the original intent of something was exactly one thing and cannot change over time. Ostensibly, the original intent and the original meaning of the words both mean the same thing.