Repeal and Replace, the elephant in the room: our free cheese faction

[Madison320]

Seriously, what the $#@!?

Both of those quotes say that people can and likely will use the power of government to steal from others if they have the ability, not that they should or that it's a good thing.

Here's my previous post in the same thread:




I have no idea how you're managing to divine support for "the idea of people voting for free stuff" out of this. It's the exact opposite of what I said.

So now you support the idea of only allowing net taxpayers to vote?

While we're on the topic do you agree that while republicans also vote for free stuff, it's the democratic party's core principle.

[DamianTV]

...

What happens if a large majority of the voters are the tyrants?

...

That is the reason our type of govt was a Republic and not a Democracy. Yes, both forms of govt have the potential to become ruinous to their own ends, but in a Democracy, you do have tyranny by the majority of the people against all minorities. Just depends on which issue will divide which people to which sides.

[TheCount]

So now you support the idea of only allowing net taxpayers to vote?

Totally neutral on it. As I said, I don't think that it would fix the things that you think that it would fix. I don't see the benefit.

While we're on the topic do you agree that while republicans also vote for free stuff, it's the democratic party's core principle.

No, I would say that it is the core principle of both parties, with the major difference being who gets the free stuff.

Republicans seem to think that the government itself should get the free stuff, whereas the Democrats think that the people should get free stuff. In both case the free stuff comes at the expense of the people.

[Madison320]

Totally neutral on it. As I said, I don't think that it would fix the things that you think that it would fix. I don't see the benefit.




No, I would say that it is the core principle of both parties, with the major difference being who gets the free stuff.

Republicans seem to think that the government itself should get the free stuff, whereas the Democrats think that the people should get free stuff. In both case the free stuff comes at the expense of the people.

Slick.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Slick.

Core principle.

[johnwk]

So now you support the idea of only allowing net taxpayers to vote?

While we're on the topic do you agree that while republicans also vote for free stuff, it's the democratic party's core principle.

I would like to see a “poll” in which only those who pay federal income tax, i.e., a poll in which the tax payer and only the tax payer is represented. Would they prefer our federal government adhereing to our federal Constitution and limiting its taxing and spending to finance the list which appears beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1?

The defined and limited powers listed beneath Article 1, Section 8. Clause 1, for which Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, is as follows:

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


The list does not include providing for the health-care needs of the people within the various United States.

JWK




"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, [to finance their health-care needs] to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).

[tod evans]

I would like to see a “poll” in which only those who pay federal income tax, i.e., a poll in which the tax payer and only the tax payer is represented.

I'd like to stipulate that government employees and pensioners do not "pay federal tax" when their check is drawn from the taxes of the productive...

That 'deduction' shown on their pay-stub is only there as a joke, to make them feel like a actual working man.

[Zippyjuan]

Constitution also says nothing about immigration or having an air force.

[johnwk]

Constitution also says nothing about immigration or having an air force.

There is no question our founders intended to authorize Congress with power to provide our country with a modern up-to-date military and equipment, which would include an air force.

What you are missing is, not only is the text of our Constitution to be followed, but its documented "legislative intent" as expressed during our Constitution's framing and ratification debates which gives context to its text.


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



Do the above powers not confirm our founders intended to provide for a modern up-to-date military and equipment, which would include an air force?


Stop being absurd!


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[Swordsmyth]

Constitution also says nothing about immigration or having an air force.

There is no question our founders intended to authorize Congress with power to provide our country with a modern up-to-date military and equipment, which would include an air force.

What you are missing is, not only is the text of our Constitution to be followed, but its documented "legislative intent" as expressed during our Constitution's framing and ratification debates which gives context to its text.


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



Do the above powers not confirm our founders intended to provide for a modern up-to-date military and equipment, which would include an air force?


Stop being absurd!


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

For Constitutional purposes an Air Force is just a different kind of Army.

[Zippyjuan]

I concede the point. The air force is legal. What about immigration? Is it listed in the Constitution? If not, does that mean that it is unconstitutional for the government to create laws governing immigration- allowing it or restricting it?

[Swordsmyth]

I concede the point. The air force is legal. What about immigration? Is it listed in the Constitution? If not, does that mean that it is unconstitutional for the government to create laws governing immigration- allowing it or restricting it?

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

[johnwk]

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

You beat me to the punch!

Good work!


JWK

[johnwk]

I concede the point. The air force is legal. What about immigration? Is it listed in the Constitution? If not, does that mean that it is unconstitutional for the government to create laws governing immigration- allowing it or restricting it?

How does that question relate to the subject of the thread which is, Repeal and Replace, the elephant in the room: our free cheese faction?


JWK

[Noob]

Maybe they should just take Medicaid out of the Obamacare repeal bill and put it in it's own bill.

[Madison320]

I would like to see a “poll” in which only those who pay federal income tax, i.e., a poll in which the tax payer and only the tax payer is represented. Would they prefer our federal government adhereing to our federal Constitution and limiting its taxing and spending to finance the list which appears beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1?

That would be interesting. One thing I know for sure is that, in general, the more tax you are forced to pay, the more you are likely to favor smaller government.

[Zippyjuan]

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

Referred to the importation of slaves, not immigration. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-9

Section 9 - The Meaning
Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808.

What was the point? The claim was raised that healthcare is not specifically listed in the Constitution. The Constitution doe not list every possible law or category of laws. Its intent was to establish the structure of government and determine how those people are to be selected (and in some cases removed) and what powers they should have. So if "not specifically listed in the Constitution" means illegal, then any laws concerning immigration (aside from the importation of slaves) must also be illegal since it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either.

[Swordsmyth]

Referred to the importation of slaves, not immigration. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-9

Read the words Zippy not some stupid "interpretation", slaves may be imported they do not MIGRATE, and migration is listed FIRST as the primary item being protected from restriction UNTIL 1808.

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

What was the point? The claim was raised that healthcare is not specifically listed in the Constitution. The Constitution doe not list every possible law or category of laws. Its intent was to establish the structure of government and determine how those people are to be selected (and in some cases removed) and what powers they should have. So if "not specifically listed in the Constitution" means illegal, then any laws concerning immigration (aside from the importation of slaves) must also be illegal since it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either.

Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)

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.

[Zippyjuan]

Read the words Zippy not some stupid "interpretation", slaves may be imported they do not MIGRATE, and migration is listed FIRST as the primary item being protected from restriction UNTIL 1808.

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.







Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.040cea14ee22

Why the Migration or Importation Clause of the Constitution does not imply any general federal power to restrict immigration


Some readers of my recent Reason op ed arguing that, under the original meaning of the Constitution, Congress had no general power over immigration, have written to me, pointing to the Migration or Importation Clause as evidence to the contrary. Some modern advocates of broad congressional power over immigration also cite it to support their position. But, at least under the original meaning of the Constitution, it does not.

The Migration or Importation Clause states that “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” In and of itself, the Clause does not grant Congress any additional authority. To the contrary, it is a limitation on power. However, it could be argued that the limitation on congressional power to prohibit “migration or importation” of persons until 1808 implies that Congress had such a power to begin with. The word “migration” suggests that that power extended to the prohibition of voluntary immigration, as well as the importation of slaves, which the Migration or Importation Clause was intended to protect.

But the inclusion of the term “migration” was not meant to imply a general federal power to restrict migration, but was a euphemism intended to bolster the pretense that the Constitution did not endorse slavery. As John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and coauthor of the Federalist Papers – pointed out in an 1819 letter discussing the Clause:

It will, I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery and of its discordance with the principles of the Revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence, viz.: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”

James Madison similarly argued that the Clause was intended to protect the slave trade against limitation prior to 1808, and that its phrasing was due to “scruples against admitting the term ‘slaves’ into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase ‘migration or importation of persons;’ the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the same term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country.” This suggests it is likely that the term “migration” was included only in order to avoid direct reference to slavery, and did not imply any general congressional power to restrict migration. In Federalist 42, Madison decried “[a]ttempts [that] have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it…as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.”

Even if the Clause does imply a power to limit the “migration” of some voluntary arrivals, it does not follow that Congress was assumed to have a general power to forbid immigration. In addition to the importation of slaves, indentured servants were also commonly brought into the country during the colonial era and the early republic. Unlike slaves, indentured servants came of their own free will, and therefore might not be described merely as “imported.” But their passage was paid for by employers in America, and the indentured servants were thereafter required to work for them for several years to pay off their debt. The transportation of indentured servants across the Atlantic on the basis of indenture contracts paid for by Americans was considered an international commercial transaction subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. Indeed, eighteenth century Americans often did in fact consider indentured servants to be “articles of commerce,” and therefore within the scope of the commerce power, even though their migration was voluntary.

During the Founding era, the Foreign Commerce Clause was generally interpreted to give Congress power to regulate the international shipment of articles of commerce (including slaves and indentured servants), but not to forbid mere migration, as such. Similarly, the interstate Commerce Clause was not understood to give Congress the power to forbid the migration of Americans from one state to another. The Constitution literally uses the same phrase to cover both, giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” What is true of the interstate commerce goose must also be true of the foreign commerce gander.

The migration provision of the Migration or Importation Clause therefore was likely either a euphemism intended to avoid referring to slaves, or a tool for preventing Congress from using the Foreign Commerce Clause to ban or heavily tax the in-migration of indentured servants until 1808. At the very least, its language does not require us to conclude that Congress had any general power to regulate migration, as opposed to a few subsets of migrants whose activities come within the scope of Congress’ other enumerated powers.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.040cea14ee22

Interpretative nonsense.
Slaves do not MIGRATE, IMPORTATION was mentioned separately, and to prohibit congress a power until 1808 is to give it to them after 1808.
Indentured servants don't help you because if congress can control them they can control any immigrants since they come of their own free will.

[Noob]

They are making changes to the bill and holdouts are now becoming yes votes.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news...are/495176001/

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/cbo-s...americans.html

[Noob]

Rand Paul opens door to backing healthcare bill on key hurdle

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...-on-key-hurdle

[Zippyjuan]

Rand Paul opens door to backing healthcare bill on key hurdle

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...-on-key-hurdle

From there:

With McCain absent and all other 99 senators voting, McConnell can only afford to lose one GOP senator.

[johnwk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.040cea14ee22

I see you have not commented on the article you posted. Why post an article if you are unwilling to articulate why you posted the article, and what exactly is one to glean from the article in reference to the present discussion?


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

I see you have not commented on the article you posted. Why post an article if you are unwilling to articulate why you posted the article, and what exactly is one to glean from the article in reference to the present discussion?


JWK

It was in response to Swordsmith's post which is why I quoted the post. I felt the article explained it.