Originally Posted by Conrad
1) "beyond its design brief." Great phrasing, btw!
2) So, if a State wanted to impose these same regulations, it may actually be Federally Constitutional because that imposition would be left up to the individual State.
3) If I break that law, they don't tax me, they fine me. If I don't drive, they neither fine nor tax me. They are saying that I must buy a product (insurance, I know it's really a service, but get over it) based on my own decision to drive.
4) That methodology is NOT what this enormous law enacted.
5) National health care is mentioned as a step toward Universal ID carding, global citizenry, and defaulting on the debts to the banks (e.g. Federal Reserve/Bank of England) as property. By birth certificate, under the terms from 1933, the population is collateral. I would not say that the Iron Mountain Report is necessarily good information, but the co-incidence is alarming.
6) don't get the idea that I think everything FDR did in the New Deal was appropriate or consititutional or whatever. The primary point about FDR in the film was that he was anti-imperialism. It's too bad that an example of Big Government comes from FDR as well.
7) (OMIGOSH that was lengthy...sorry...my mind just kept daisy chaining from concept to concept that Dave touched on. My bad.)
1) well, I'm of the mind that the Constitution pretty much is a design brief...its so rare in this world to have a convention of independant states sit down and litterally hash out an agreement...to litterally design from naught a political machine which hasnt appeared from any political evolution. I doubt the Consitution figures much in Washington, because in a sense I hadnt realized til late...the Federal Government HAS Evolved. I think the trigger was innocent enough...when your fighting a war, you have to be on alert all the time...But its the way that AFTER the Civil war, the Constituition didnt seem to be the absolute...more of a guideline...and I love how the Government pretend its a guideline FOR THE PEOPLE...when its nothing of the sort! its a Guideline FOR THEM, and one they constantly ignore...and have to...like I said, I think the structure would collapse if a Constitutionalist were ellected President
2) Yes I recognise that also. Remember that I live in a world where health care is part of our Tax. My point is not that such a scheme shouldnt be done...but firstly, that its being done without clarity on the true nature...and secondly, its being introduced by an unauthorized "government" with the sole aim of using the proceeds to maintain an illegitamate Tyrany over fifty REAL Governments!
3) we are the same...and its the same system. I dont have a problem with that either...the point is, thats not a money maker, its a form of punishment under the law. They cant claim Tax is anything like that.
4) Indeed...Obama is not out to make a National Health Service by using public Funds. Neither is he out to force people to give money to insurers. His aim is to create a new citizen wide income for a Federal Government that should exist in its current state (pardon the pun, I meant no reference to D.C
) The Supreme Court babbled because it is part of the problem. It is part of an overinflated gorup of politicians, and relient on some Hub that represents far more then a Union...but is something in its own right..which according to the consitution, it should not be.
5) You mean international. Look at Europe and the debates between England and Germany at present...Iowa should be having the same debate with Washington D.C. These are NOT County Councils! they are Governments in their own right! "Nationalizing" anything by the Government beyond Transport maintainence, Imports/Exports (theoretically if beyond continental America) and The Military is outrageous...they should not be discussing health, they should not be discussing education...and I would devevole the tax system back to the State and let the State and Federal Banks sort that one out.
6) people make mistakes...Im afraid that the person in the office cant act with their own personal traits against the consitution, because, just like a monarch, they come and go...and there is no promising a later person in the office wont missuse their innocent beginings. I dont know enough to say how it would have been possible to pop the Federal Expansion after the civil war...but someone somehow should have found a pin