Christianity: The TRUE "Entitlement Mentality" in the United States

j s j:

My faith in God and His Way leads me to live in a certain way. That said, it is not in a way to discriminate against people no matter their beliefs or lack of them.

I'm taught the He is the center and we are to congregate to Him. He is the Way and we are to follow His Way. I don't see His Way in the RCC. I see the way of men being glorified and called His Way when it is their way. Jesus Christ did not even own His own home when He came to free us from the sins of this life, one of which is greed, another is the pride of life, of thinking we are the equal of God. I have been told that many RCC Catholics believe the pope is God on earth and must be obeyed, and his rulings come from God.

I don't see it and I reject them and their teachings out right. God is God and we are men and women Created by Him for His pleasure. We serve Him not men and women so they can become idols and cost us our salvation.

I believe in birth control, I believe in people having the freedoms to choose how they will live.

Thanks cowboy, You always say something that makes me feel better.

I'm tired lately from even some of my neighbors who think being a Christian entitles them to the best seat, the front of the line, special priviledges all over my community. I grew up believing that being a christian and accepting God's grace did not entitle me but rather obligated me to live in a Christlike way to the best of my ability. It does not elevate me above anyone and certainly does not grant me the priviledge of evaluating anyone elses christianity.

Requiring health coverage, or even including birth control within that coverage in no way forces anyone to take advantage of the offerings. Those who do not believe in birth control are still quite free to decline the use of these things.

No one is forcing the Catholic church or any other religion/faith to use birth control of any sort. The law is simply requiring that outside the sphere of the church, out within the public domain, this must be offered along with comprehensive health insurance coverage. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

I do believe the Christian 10 commandments cover something about telling lies and baring false witness. Those doing the complaining might want to look into that. They can be found in Exodus 20:1-17

Not everyone is Christian, and not all Christians are the same.

daMamma, you're making an arguement with a crowd that is anti-choice for women, period. These religious institutions, and I mean all of them, are patriarchal in nature, that is why they have covered up for generations incest, rape, domestic violence, and white-collar criminals.

I know. But I keep hoping that someday, somehow reality and common sense will sink in. Just a little bit.

I know, me too. Keep it up, and I'll do my part.

But I keep hoping that someday, somehow reality and common sense will sink in. Just a little bit.

It won't. The right wing brain is impermeable to fact or reason.

But, in the instance of birth control and contraception, those aren't even issues that can be traced back to the scripture itself.

True. They can however, be traced to Saint Augustine who somehow got this notion that sex was so corrupting, the only justification for having it was to create new souls. We also have to keep in mind that at the time of Saint Augustine, the belief was that it was the MAN who implanted the woman with a fully whole soul. She contributed nothing to the make-up of the soul except to be the oven in which it incubated till birth. They even depicted sperm as tiny little men. So to waste these souls was akin to murder. And her being barren or miscarrying was akin to being like a hostile plot of land.

Obviously genetic science has revealed that to be untrue.

It is also worthwhile to note that the Church has a habit of revising their doctrines. Remember when eating meat on a Friday was a sin? And all the unbaptized babies in Limbo?

Why not this stance on birth control?

Entitlements seem to be clearly in most peoples mind an issue of the poor. Though the biggest entitlements are for the very wealthy. Thus this whole entitlement issue comes from the top and is spread to the bottom through false advertising that it is only an issue of the poor. Our politicians loved putting Martha in jail for that which they are free to do without legal issues. We talk of the poor paying more taxes when we cannot even get fair taxation from the most wealthy that would not miss that extra contribution to a country in debt.

jumpshotjarrod

This reminded me of the mindset which still exists for some around race.

Too true; whether it is race or sexual-orientation, the "haves" always claim that when other groups are seeking equality that they want "special privileges," denying that the majority group is the one who has always grabbed the lion's share of rights and resources.

Conscientious objectors still served.

People in WWII were able to get out of military service entirely by claiming conscientious objector status. They were granted exemption from a law because of their religion.

Again, they still served:

You asked where a law allows an exemption for religious reasons. The conscientious objectors were allowed an exemption from mandatory military service based on their religious beliefs.

And they were forced to provide an alternative public service.

They were granted a legal exemption from something they saw as immoral because of their beliefs.

If an entity CHOOSES to offer it, then they are expected to follow the same laws that everyone else who chooses to offer health insurance has to follow.

They should be given the same rights conscientious objectors were and be allowed to offer a plan without birth control.

CommisarCain

I believe this is the second time I've seen you use the defense of the conscious objector. You keep ignoring the comments used to show you that's a fallacy. You might want to rethink your defense.

The administration just did. If they get federal dollars, then they play by federal rules. simple

couldn't agree more mstanley, to advocate for an exemption is to advocate for Sharia Law, to take public money, then use it to not only promote religious ideals, but to use it to prevent others from enjoying their freedom, is a clear violation of seperation of church and state.

use it to prevent others from enjoying their freedom

That isn't the issue, the issue is who should be responsible to pay for it. I've always felt that if someone is providing insurance, then they should be able to choose what they will cover. Based on some people's view, then our companies should be required to provide our car insurance too.

SCtexan, exactly, the Taxpayers are funding this (I am paying for it), a national healthcare plan, and as such should not be based on the religious preferences of any group, but rather the medical norm and laws of the United States. Car insurance is not setup in a way that a huge percentage of folks get it as part of a job, so not really similar. In summary this is issue is yet another reason for a single payer healthcare system, but as it relates to this discussion, it is favoring a religious institution with public funds, a very slippery slope.

Paul, I'm afraid you lost me.

the Taxpayers are funding this

Are you wanting any group that may get some federal funding to be basically taken over by the government and forced to act as the government wants? I think that is a slippery slope.

No, just to not be exempt from laws/or protcols everyone else has to live by. What makes Catholics or any religious group better to the point special favor or rules are required, that trump the law of the land, it's a version of Sharia Law, where we are contemplating allowing only one particular religious institution to dictate the health policy for a publically funded plan. In being forced to act as the government wants is called following the law. The slippery slope part is you could make an argument to subvert or ignore the law based solely on religious principle, because we have given it precedence here, like killing gays, or stoning adulterers, etc.

Obama and the socialist democrats are making it clear..either your liberal or a christian..either your liberal or a American but you cant be both.

What a ridiculous comment that shows a paranoid victim mentality. There are plenty of Christians that are Liberals. Being a Liberal or Conservative doesn't automatically make you a Christian or non-Christian.

Creating law which they've never been granted the authority to make: that is NOT constitutional. Violating a specifically written part of the Constitution in order to do it: also NOT a constitutional action.

But, the law was passed legally

No, actually there was no authority to make any such law. It holds all the validity of me saying: it is now law that news vine names cannot start with the letter j. You are now in violation.

Nope, just someone that has actually read it. Unfortunately, that seems all too rare.

There are lots of Constitutional Professors, Constitutional scholars, court justices, etc....and guess what, they disagree on most subjects.

If you disagree with me, then feel free to cite the part of the Constitution granting that authority.

The power to regulate insterstate commerce.

Has nothing to do with the subject. If there was something giving them the authority to force people to engage in it, then you might have a point. The fact is that no such thing exists.

No one's being forced

You've so quickly forgotten the subject.

I see that you still haven't come up with any part of the Constitution granting this authority.

The issue is of course that people ARE BEING FORCED to pay (out of their own pockets) for things that they oppose.

This isn't about contraception any more than Nixon's War On Drugs is about drugs. It's about political power over you, and whether it is either moral, or legal.

It's clearly not legal. You can decide for yourself whether it's moral for politicians to control your body, and the fruits of your own labor.

True........

The premium covers the cost of these products, so in essence, they are paying for it. The cost of insurance for these institution, such as Notre Dame, will go up to cover the added claims. Nothing is free.

So you want all the hospitals, schools (all levels), etc. just to close their doors?

No one is being forced to offer health insurance

Maybe, that's the answer. They drop all insurance so they don't have to pay for something that is against a core belief. They could also give each employee a couple of hundred dollars to go buy their own insurance. How do you think that would work?

Why should the government dictate what should even be in a policy being purchased by a free person or entity? If I want to only offer catastrophic care policy to my employees, why can't I? Why must I have a 60 year old woman carry child birth insurance when she could have a better personal care policy with that piece left out. Just an example. I think every one should have an a la carte choice for their care.

I understand where the government is giving the authority, I'm questioning: should it be.

And the local Jewish or Muslim group that services the community or run an educational facility will need to start serving pork rather than beef since it is healthier, right?

jump, it's a little tongue in check joke. After all, this White House is pushing a food agenda too.

I just don't like that government can force someone to do something like this. Which of course includes Obama-care in general. I recognize that a pool of users might be cheaper, but my freedom of choice and self determination is more important, to me, especially when what many of us fear is that government will have to start picking winners and losers in the health business, but I guess is another thread.

Please know, you're now moving the goalposts of the argument. For what it's worth, I already directly addressed this new argument you've floated in #15.9.

Actually, you avoided it in 15.9. You STILL haven't actually addressed it.

jarrod, you've still provided nothing granting Congress any authority to make such a law. Maybe you didn't understand my request.

You said it was constitutional and created legally. All I'm asking for is to cite the part of the Constitution that grants the authority. If it is constitutional, then by definition it will be there.

jump, if you don't care, here's the Constitutional reference:Section 1: Legislative power vested in Congress

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

And I already did that.

No, you've ignored what I asked for and provided something that has nothing to do with my request.

My claim is that no such thing exists in the Constitution. Your claim is that such a thing DOES exist in the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

There's my evidence for it not existing. Now let's see your evidence.

I don't think anything's going to satisfy Ringo, but you're free to give it a shot.

Actually, I already told you all that needs done to satisfy me: cite the part of the Constitution giving this authority. A simple quote will do.

So far, you've elected NOT to back up your statement.

Now you can say "nuh uh" and we can end up exactly where we started.... wonderful.

It isn't my fault that you have no desire to back up your claim.

LOL good luck JSJ

No luck required, just simply answering instead of creating a new question.

I'm Ringo...the Constitution is Very specific...Congress, the Senate and the House can make and pass legislation eg federal rules, federal regulations, federal Laws, that are used as the criteria for the American public to abide by.

To say that the Constitution Does not specify that Congress has the Sole Authority to do so is the same as saying that there is No Authority for Congress in the Constitution.

It is not a 'new' question, many people refuse to acknowledge the Authority of Congress and the Congressional ability to create, pass and implement .....legislation.... though many try to say it is a 'new' question. Been argued over since the beginning, led to the Civil War...and then the 'question' was Resolved.

Now, it is more like nitpicking or slice and dicing to reach the same conclusion...that Congress Does Not have the Authority granted under the Constitution and Ratified by the States.

The States AG's would be in Federal Court and eventually the Supreme Court if a Congressional Law is passed that they don't agree with, and they have and will. It is the venue when enough States AG's don't agree with their Congressional people.

I'm Ringo...the Constitution is Very specific...Congress, the Senate and the House can make and pass legislation eg federal rules, federal regulations, federal Laws, that are used as the criteria for the American public to abide by.

Yes, and the Constitution is also specific about what rules they have the authority to create. This isn't in there.

If you disagree, feel free to cite that part of the Constitution.

Why? if you know it cite it...I did my part. :)

You need only scroll up to 15.34 to see the answer. You still haven't cited anything that contradicts my statement.

I'm Ringo,.... That is the Whole Constitution ....not a Part that you say exists.,,

I cited the legislative authority of Congress US Constitution Section #1... that is in the Constitution which was Ratified by the US States and has been upheld Ever since... to make laws which you asked for in #15.30

You said it was constitutional and created legally. All I'm asking for is to cite the part of the Constitution that grants the authority. If it is constitutional, then by definition it will be there.

I'm Ringo,.... That is the Whole Constitution ....not a Part that you say exists.,,

You clearly didn't bother to actually read my posts. I'm saying that it DOESN'T exist. I provided a link to the whole thing so that anyone else that is honestly interested can read it and also see that it doesn't exist.

I cited the legislative authority of Congress US Constitution Section #1... that is in the Constitution which was Ratified by the US States and has been upheld Ever since... to make laws which you asked for in #15.30

But you have NEVER cited what I requested. You STILL have not. If you think that such a thing exists, then why don't you cite it?

From your pocket edition:

Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
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.

This all comes from the right wing penchant that they believe they can divine the Constitution without actually knowing what's in it (and what's NOT in it). I run into this wall many, many times. It certainly is futile because no amount of evidence will shake them from their unsupported yet unshakeable belief in their constitutional claims makes them true.

jump :) ....everytime, they say nuhuh, I go uhuh...:) Either they will acknowledge that Congress makes laws or they are not living in the US. simple. I've had people say it's the President...or the Supreme Court...I haven't met anyone that says the Military does ...yet....LOL Though I expect too the way some people write comments.

Too many people don't understand how the Amendments folded into the framework of the original Constitution either. They think it's a Separate part of the Constitution. Too many people don't understand how the Supreme Court clarifies both Constitutional law and Congressional law.

We are so very, very lucky that the people that Wrote the Constitution allowed it to be a Framework to grow with the Nation, to be tweaked as needed by ratification of 2/3 of the states or clarified by the Supreme Court. A marvelous piece of work indeed. And that we were born in the United States. :)

As I said, nothing is going to satisfy Ringo.

I only requested one thing: the part of the Constitution granting this particular authority. The only situation where nothing could satisfy me is there not being any such thing. You've danced away from it long enough, it's nice of you to finally admit that you couldn't come up with anything.

This all comes from the right wing wing penchant that they believe they can divine the Constitution without actually knowing what's in it

While your statement is a very accurate depiction of what jarrod and mstanley are putting forth, I don't think either of them is actually right wing.

I only requested one thing: the part of the Constitution granting this particular authority.

You've been told exactly where the authority comes from to the very clause. You just choose to believe that the commerce clause doesn't work that way despite 200 years of constitutional rulings that says it does have the power to regulate interstate commerce (even if some of the activity occurs entirely within a state as was the case with Gibbons v Ogden, 1824). As far as the ACA goes, the question of whether Congress overreached it's authority will be settled by the SCOTUS within the year, but I wouldn't pin your hopes on a decision that conforms to your belief.

You've been told exactly where the authority comes from

Nobody has done it yet. They've tried to create their own question and then answered that, but that doesn't answer MINE.

It is no different than:
Person A) what is the purpose of mitochondria?
Person B) 7-4=3

You just choose to believe that the commerce clause doesn't work that way despite 200 years of constitutional rulings that says it does have the power to regulate interstate commerce

Of course the Constitution places the authority for regulation of interstate commerce in the hands of the federal government. That doesn't change the fact that we're not talking about either regulation or interstate commerce.

According to Constitutional experts, that's EXACTLY what we're talking about

No, according to YOU, and you've provided ample evidence that you are certainly no expert on the Constitution.

Is the President not a Constitutional expert....? cuz he seems to agree with me

Nope, he seems a bit weak on Constitutional knowledge. You'll also notice the fact that he hasn't taken the time to weigh in on our discussion.

How do you feel about the justices that disagree with your premise?

I notice that you have STILL failed to come up with anything in the Constitution granting the authority to mandate employer healthcare decisions.

So what you're saying is that you STILL cannot come up with anything in the Constitution granting this authority.

Actually, I had the Constitution. You're the one that took one look at it and couldn't come up with anything.

You still haven't. It isn't a very long document....wonder why you still cannot find the section you claim exists.

Then there is the pesky fact that without the authority to make the law, the law isn't actually valid. Congress is bound by the Constitution despite your apparent belief that the Constitution is bound by Congress.

I'm Ringo, in the US, Congress, the Senate and the House legislate laws. The reason Congress makes laws is because the US states elect Senators and Representatives to go to Washington DC and legislate laws. Just like the legislators do in each of the states.

In the States, each state has a State Constitution to give authority to the elected legislators to do so. In the US, the Constitution gives authority to the elected Congressional legislators to do so.

What you are advocating is that the Constitution of the United States Does Not give authority to the duly elected Senators and Representatives from each state to enact laws.

Therefore, there is no elected person capable of enacting legislation that islaw in the United States. Since there are hundreds of thousands of Public Laws in Thomas Library of Congress, all are null and void in the context that you are espousing.

One pesky problem, without law in a society there is chaos. Since there isn't chaos in the US then there is law and the Public Laws of the US are legitimate and the Congress of the US has the authority to legislate the laws.

What you are advocating is that the Constitution of the United States Does Not give authority to the duly elected Senators and Representatives from each state to enact laws.

Therefore, there is no elected person capable of enacting legislation that islaw in the United States. Since there are hundreds of thousands of Public Laws in Thomas Library of Congress, all are null and void in the context that you are espousing.

What an excellent demonstration that you didn't comprehend anything that was posted.

What you are advocating

You type this, and then come up with a load of bull that has nothing to do with anything I stated or advocate.

It's sad to see that you have now fallen so far as blatantly making @!$%# up about others.

Careful... I'm Ringo.... careful in choice of words directed at me. I've respected your right to comment and I've quoted the Section I of the Constitution that was written stating the authority of Congress to make laws. If you choose to ignore Section I of the Constitution ....so be it. However, I do not choose to ignore that Section.

I'm Ringo Creating law which they've never been granted the authority to make: that is NOT constitutional. Violating a specifically written part of the Constitution in order to do it: also NOT a constitutional action.

#15.2 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 8:07 PM CST

Careful... I'm Ringo.... careful in choice of words directed at me

Well thank you for having so much to 'contribute' to the subject.

Ignoring the Constitution does not make something constitutional, it just means that you've ignored the Constitution.

Your statement makes no more sense than saying 'In the absense of a guilty verdict in a court of law, then for all intents and purposes, the victim was never murdered.'

Your comparison assumes a crime was already committed, and that we're simply looking for the culprit. My statement is regards to whether or not a crime was committed to begin with. Nice try though.

The comparison is based on something unconstitutional not really being unconstitutional as long as nobody ever comes and rules it so, and a murder never really being a murder as long as nobody ever convicts someone for it.

By your 'logic', rounding up jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc and sending them to work/death camps would be "for all intents and purposes" constitutional until a ruling is made.

I'm Ringo, address the topic... either the Constitution gives authority to Congress to make laws or the Constitution does not. Section I of the Constitution does give the authority to Congress to make laws. Therefore, Any law that the Congress makes and the President signs is Public Law.

I'm Ringo, address the topic...

So you can issue orders, but still completely unable to actually back up your claim. Interesting

either the Constitution gives authority to Congress to make laws or the Constitution does not. Section I of the Constitution does give the authority to Congress to make laws.

Gives the authority to make SPECIFIC laws, which have never included this. If you ever bother to actually read it, you'll notice the fact that they are not granted the authority to make any law they want.

I'm Ringo, not an order, a suggestion...as in stay on topic less someone gets too carried away and forgets about CoH as in Respect others opinions.

And ... Yes, the Congress can make 'any' law and any Specific law....they want ....As Long as the Senate and House Agree, by Majority.... to pass the legislation to make it a law.

It is the why they have to agree. If they don't agree, zilch. Even if they Do agree, the President has to sign off on the legislation. If he doesn't then, 2/3 of Congress have to agree to override the veto.

The US Constitution is the greatest, well written document in history for governing a society because of the simplistic defined way the Founding Fathers choose to write it. They made it a Framework that could be expanded upon as the Nation grew.

and you're not willing to make even the slightest attempt to actually explain why :-)

I've already explained it. I'm sorry that you're unwilling to actually READ the Constitution.

And ... Yes, the Congress can make 'any' law and any Specific law....they want ....As Long as the Senate and House Agree, by Majority.... to pass the legislation to make it a law.

So, mstanley, you're unaware of how American law works. If a 'law' is made without Constitutional authority, then it has all the validity of me coming up with a law right here in my kitchen.

No, I am not 'unaware' of How American law works or is made. I've explained in detail and referenced the Constitutional Section that is applicable as well as the process of enacting Federal law.

Yes,....Anyone that is a US Citizen can write up a law and send it to their Congressional person to sponser to the Congress. The stipulations are that 1) it has to be written in Congressional legislative format 2 ) that the Congressional person than signs off and submits the writing to Congress with or without other signatures to the legislation known as co-sponsers.

People have done that and probably are doing so as we write and will do so in the future. It is the reason for elected representatives to Congress. :)

"Nuh uh" = Explanation?

Your math isn't very good. I know you want to just keep pretending it exists without ever backing it up (which is pretty hard to do for something that doesn't exist, so I understand why you hesitate)

In the meantime, we'll just keep throwing "nuh-uhs" into the river.......

And it's sad that is the best you can do.

I'm Ringo, so are you going to write up a law to send to your Congressional person? just wondering.

I'm Ringo, so are you going to write up a law to send to your Congressional person? just wondering.

Why bother, since you think I can go ahead and make laws I don't have the authority to make anyway. Okay, law one: newsvine names containing the letter 'e' are now illegal and punishable by up to 10 years.

Congrats, you're a now a felon.

Gypsies were one of the groups targeted by the Nazi regime. Did you really not know that?

I didn't say you had the Authority, your Congressional Representative can submit it to Congress and if they pass it and the President signs it..well there you go. It's a law, so I'm not a felon yet. :)

Yes, I'm Ringo, I know the history of the German Reich, my grandparents helped relocate several families from Austria to Indiana,..... my father was a Combat Engineer in Europe, he saw first hand the 'camps' and my uncle was a navigator on a plane that bombed Berlin...and the Klan burned a cross in my grandparents yard, they didn't like Catholics either

I didn't say you had the Authority

I never said you did. But, using your idea, I don't NEED authority. As soon as I stated it was law, it is now law unless it gets overturned in the courts.

Ah jarrod, nice to see you back with nothing to support your argument, STILL. Let me know if you ever actually come up with anything.

No, it doesn't work like that, I also wrote that you had to send it to your Congressional Person to introduce into legislation. It is How it works in the process of making a law. Well, unless you get elected to the Congress from your state. Then you can do it yourself. :)

You're the one that thinks laws created without any authority are still binding, not me. I think that's pretty silly, but there are obviously a few people like Lassen and jarrod that share your irrational belief.

So what you're saying is that you STILL don't have anything to support your claim. That isn't surprising since there is no such thing in the Constitution.

No, I think what is being said to you is that your "defense" for your position verges on self-refuting. Your arguments, though, must surely be appealing to others who are just as doggedly intent to ignore the facts on the ground and instead simply believe as you believe as a reflection of personal fiat.

I provided the Constitution as proof that what you claim exists is not actually found there. That's pretty solid.

Now you claiming that it exist, despite both the ease with which someone can actually read it and your inability to cite your extra little part, shows your argument to have less substance than a thin fog.

Your ignoring of what the Constitution provides for in terms of the authority for determining what the Constitution itself requires, despite having those facts repeatedly provided to you, is proof that your yourself don't believe your stated position. You're just throwing a virtual tantrum to try to get your way, in the face of all the real evidence on the ground that things simply aren't the way you want them to be. You've very well-established yourself as someone who doggedly holds to an erroneous position, despite the evidence to the contrary presented to you. At this point, the best you can do is to wear the mantle proudly.

I'm Ringo #15.90 I Know that US Federal laws are binding created by US Constitutional Congressional Authority...

"irrational belief".....getting a tad personal aren't you? Careful, it's the weekend but Monday does roll around..:)

We're talking specifically about law created WITHOUT constitutional authority. That is no different than simply making up whatever law I want.

Sad to see that you still persist in your claim even though it is blatantly false. I did notice that despite several of you arguing the same position through nearly one hundred posts, not a single one of you has ever actually been able to cite this part of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to dictate company medical coverage.

Of course we cited the constitutional underpinnings of the law. You just refuse to acknowledge that we did, since that would mean you'd have to deal with the fact that you've been wrong all along, and that your perspective on this issue is faulty.

I'm Ringo, all laws that are signed, sealed and delivered are US Federal Public Laws and are listed in the Thomas Library of Congress.

If there is a law that is not a law please cite same.

walt :)

Of course we cited

Something that has nothing to do with the topic. Let me know when you finally come up with something that does.

mstanley, things that are not law are by their nature not law. "If there is a law that is not a law" makes no sense. We're talking about something that is only 'not a law'.

Something that has nothing to do with the topic.

Your repeated insistence that the proof of what people are telling you has "nothing to do with the topic" is ridiculous.

Let me know when you finally come up with something that does.

Why don't you let us know when you finally come up with a rational basis for denying what people have been telling you, in this thread and others - something other than you want to believe what you want to believe without regard to what is the actuality.

The difference, jarrod, is I used the Constitution itself for constitutionality, while you try to claim that something can be constitutional despite what the Constitution actually says.

You have still never cited anything granting the authority.

I'm Ringo, this is a Public Law passed by Congress and signed by the President...S.J.RES.22 December 19, 2011.

Are you saying that this is not a law (and why not?) or it is a Public Law of the United States.

The fact that there is nothing in the Constitution granting that authority.

If you find something that does grant such authority, then let me know. So far you've only avoided the topic.

Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate company health coverage granted?

Until you can answer THIS question, your argument is just smoke.

Article I, Section I of United States Constitution

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives

legislation
Definition

leg·is·la·tion
[ lèjji sláysh'n ]

NOUN

1.
making of laws: the process of writing and passing laws

2.
law or laws: a law or laws passed by an official body, especially a governmental assembly

[ Mid-17th century. < late Latin legis lation- "proposing of a law" < forms of lex "law" + latus, past participle of ferre "bring" ]

It was created so that it could be changed with the times. Until it has been amended to do something different, it doesn't.

Let me know if you ever come up with anything.

mstanley, that's nice that you're eager to answer a different question, but I cannot help but notice that you still haven't answered my question. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to make certain laws. They are quite clearly listed. You will NOT find this listed in there.

I'm Ringo,The Constitution grants Congress the authority to make certain laws.

The Constitution does not grant Only the authority to make ' Certain" Laws, the Constitution grants the authority to Make Laws ......as in All Laws that Congress wants too.

The word Certain does not appear in Article I Section I ..on Any copy of the US Constitution. It quite clearly states All legislative Powers herein granted

The Constitution does not grant Only the authority to make ' Certain" Laws, the Constitution grants the authority to Make Laws ......as in All Laws that Congress wants too.

That isn't even remotely close to what the Constitution says. Sounds like you need to read it sometime. Congress has the authority ONLY to pass laws within the scope of what was granted in the Constitution.

I'm Ringo, so find and cite the part of the Constitution that States that Congress can Make only Certain Laws.

Otherwise, Article One Section One...stands and it does not have the word 'certain' in it. Anywhere

The individuals whom the Constitution vested with the responsibility to interpret what the language means and how it should be applied

Federal appeals courts have disagreed, and it is going to the Supreme Court. The individuals of whom you speak DISAGREE on the subject.

Of course, that isn't surprising when you look back over their history of frequently ruling based on party stances instead of the Constitution.

Otherwise, Article One Section One...stands

I'm the one backing that.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

They have only the power to make laws regarding the powers herein granted. Those are easy to see if you'll read further down the Constitution.

The Powers of Congress: Article 1 Section 8 which is what I listed definitions for. Congress has vested authority and power to make laws...The word 'Certain' still isn't in the Constitution in this section either.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases

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.

Congress has authority to make laws....

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

herein granted.....do you notice that part?

uh,, yeah, that was in reference to the States ratifying the Constitution, the states granted the power and authority with ratification.... to Congress.

And if you'll bother to read the Constitution, maybe you'll notice the fact that Congress has been granted certain powers, NOT unlimited authority to make any law they want.

I notice that you have STILL not attempted to answer my question.

And upon the law being ruled Constitutional, you can continue to claim that it isn't.

Any person on Earth can make any ruling they want, there is a process for changing the Constitution, and that is NOT it. Without following the amendment process, this will continue to remain unconstitutional.

It's not a matter of how a person feels about it or how they think it should be, the simple fact is that it does not grant that authority.

I'm Ringo, Of course they have unlimited Authority. I've already addressed that, Congress has unlimited authority to legislate laws ...As Long As ..the Law meets the Required number of votes to pass Both Houses of Congress.

If you would take the time to review legislation in the Thomas Library of Congress from over the years, you would find all sorts of legislation that Never made it into Public Law. Because there were not enough votes to pass both Houses of Congress. And quite frankly some were really stupid.

I'm Ringo, Of course they have unlimited Authority. I've already addressed that, Congress has unlimited authority to legislate laws ...As Long As ..the Law meets the Required number of votes to pass Both Houses of Congress.

Which blatantly ignores the Constitution.

I'm Ringo, no it does not ignore the Constitution. It is the legislative process to make a law. It is in the Constitution as such. And the Constitution was ratified by the States. All's well. It's in writing, signed, sealed and delivered. :)

I'm Ringo, no it does not ignore the Constitution. It is the legislative process to make a law. It is in the Constitution as such. And the Constitution was ratified by the States. All's well. It's in writing, signed, sealed and delivered. :)

You blatantly ignored the Constitution.

, Of course they have unlimited Authority. I've already addressed that, Congress has unlimited authority to legislate laws ...As Long As ..the Law meets the Required number of votes to pass Both Houses of Congress.

Something found NOWHERE in the Constitution.

This statement very clearly exemplifies how quickly you'll dismiss the contents of the same Constitution that you claim to know so well and adhere to.

Ironic that you state my support of it as such while at the same time you're busy trying to ignore it in favor of unconstitutional acts by Congress.

jump, it appears that the Constitution is unconstitutional notwithstanding the fact that it is the Constitution of the United States and has been for some 235 years.

Moving Onward...IMO this article will achieve 1,000 comments discussing whether the US Constituion is wellll constitutional. LOL

Yeah, I commented on that on another article, that it is the most controversial political document ever. It makes you wonder why so many countries are adopting so many parts of it or wanting too. There are people all over the world reading it Online as we speak and probably saying to themselves This is what We want for our government. .... Must be Something good about it. right?

One day when I have a bit of time, I'm going to do some research on that topic. Though I've noticed historically speaking some parts of the Brits and French constitutions have worked their way into other countries Constitutions along with the US one. Now that would make for a contentious constitution IMO. :)

Suggestion:

Quit jumping to Ringo's comments, he has seen the proof time and again and is just baiting the rest of you with this "nope". Just drop it and let him do whatever.

Don, we know, both of us have been here awhile. The thing is that... to not answer leaves the other comment to be seen by the public without any refutation. It has become necessary to refute these disingenuous statements that are being made in a public forum.

It is not essential to have the other commenter agree that there may be an error in their writing but to ensure that Everyone that views the comments understands that there has been an error written. Especially when it comes to the Constitution. I personally am not going to stop when others keep writing comments about sections of the Constitution that are not in it. :)

yep, agreed on that too :)

Fine with me I just want anyone to get over exasperated and cross the line :)

oh, if that was going to happen it woulda been 20 or so comments ago.. Thanks for thinking of us though. :)

jump, it appears that the Constitution is unconstitutional notwithstanding the fact that it is the Constitution of the United States and has been for some 235 years.

Moving Onward...IMO this article will achieve 1,000 comments discussing whether the US Constituion is wellll constitutional. LOL

Well, you've taken it well over the 100 comment line with just that claim. I'm game to continue defending the Constitution for as long as you keep trying to alter it.

Just drop it and let him do whatever.

No: Don't. Don't grant an erroneous perspective an unrebutted soapbox. Ringo has firmly established the lack of merit in his own perspective by his "nuh-uh" approach to discussing it. Folks so inclined should simply reply to his messages, in this thread and others, relaying that fact, dismissing his comments on the basis of his well-demonstrated refusal to acknowledge the realities that many people have provided to him in this thread and others. His "tactic" here has effectively ruined his credibility on this issue, generally.

His "tactic"

Is referencing the Constitution for constitutionality. I'm sorry you are unable to see the sense in that, but it says a lot more about you than about me.

The "tactic" includes ignoring the authority for constitutionality, as explicitly outlined in the Constitution, and instead crowning yourself as the authority, throughout the ages, with regard to constitutionality.

I just checked... the word "Ringo" doesn't appear in the US Constitution. Your continued implication that you are the constitutional authority superior to the Supreme Court says a lot more about you than anyone else.

The "tactic" includes ignoring the authority for constitutionality

Yes, you've made it clear that your tactic is to completely disregard the Constitution.

I also notice the fact that you STILL are unable to answer my simple question.

Wrong again! My approach is to honor the Constitution and all it provides for, unlike you, only honoring the parts that serve your biased advocacy and trying to ignore the facts that undercut your perspective.

Everyone has answered your questions repeatedly. Your continued insistence that we haven't has gone past the point where it can be considered a respectable difference of opinion, to the point where it is practically an outright falsehood about what has been provided to you. If you cannot support your contentions except by continually denying that you've been provided the answers to the questions you've asked, then you're making very clear that you don't have a legitimate defense for your contentions.

Everyone has answered your questions repeatedly

Wrong again! Nobody, including you, has ever answered my question. Instead of actually answering, you just try to avoid it.

Your continued insistence that we haven't has gone past the point where it can be considered a respectable difference of opinion, to the point where it is practically an outright falsehood about what has been provided to you.

Your claim to have done something that you haven't is "practically an outright falsehood".

Don't worry, I didn't miss the fact that you are STILL unable to support your claim.

I'm Ringo, I did answer it. The process is written out in English in the Constitution on how and who and why laws are made.

You assert that Congress can only make Certain laws...... and that is the flaw in your comment.

I'm Ringo, I did answer it.

No, you have never answered my question. You have studiously AVOIDED answering it.....something that you have continued with post 15.147.

You assert that Congress can only make Certain laws...... and that is the flaw in your comment.

I stated the fact that Congress has only been granted authority to make certain laws. The Constitution specifically states what powers they have been granted. There is no honestly denying that fact.

There's is no word ...Certain....in the Constitution...in the context of the Congress being Vested and granted power and authority to make laws.

Which is the exact hook you are hanging your whole discussion on. The Founding Fathers did not write the Word Certain... either in the Original handwritten document nor the printed versions later.

There's is no word ...Certain....in the Constitution...in the context of the Congress being Vested and granted power and authority to make laws.

Which is the exact hook you are hanging your whole discussion on. The Founding Fathers did not write the Word Certain... either in the Original handwritten document nor the printed versions later.

I never claimed that it contained the word certain. But, if you've ever actually read the Constitution and know the meaning of the word certain, then you know that the only certain powers have been granted. It even specifically lists what has been granted.

Your desire to ignore the Constitution does nothing for your credibility in discussing constitutionality.

jarrod, I notice that you have STILL not answered my question. You claim it exists, but are utterly unwilling (and of course unable) to actually back it up with anything from the Constitution.

Instead of actually answering, you just try to avoid it.

Parroting back my legitimate criticism of your rhetoric doesn't actually make it true with regard to my rhetoric. The simple fact of the matter is that your question has been answered fully and comprehensively, and you simply are intent on denying it. Deny all you want; it takes us practically no effort whatsoever to repudiate your intransigence.

He can't accept it because his ideology dictates that it can't be accepted. What's plainly written in the Constitution and backed up by nearly 200 years of constitutional case law simply must not exist as it flies in the face of everything they've been indoctrinated to believe.

This is what you yourself wrote:

I'm Ringo

It was created so that it could be changed with the times. Until it has been amended to do something different, it doesn't.

Let me know if you ever come up with anything.

mstanley, that's nice that you're eager to answer a different question, but I cannot help but notice that you still haven't answered my question. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to make certain laws. They are quite clearly listed. You will NOT find this listed in there

#15.109 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:24 PM CST

There is no List of Laws that Congress can make in the Constitution.

The simple fact of the matter

Is that you've never answered the question. You lamely tried to avoid it by coming up with an entirely different question and answering it instead.

I've answered your question

Ah jarrod, yet another person that goes on and on about doing something without ever actually getting around to doing it

What's plainly written in the Constitution

Is what I'm advocating is the basis of constitutional, but what you for some reason oppose, Lassen.

There IS a list of powers granted to Congress despite your blatantly false claims to the contrary, mstanley

I'm Ringo. Comment #15.109 you specified that the Congress could only make certain laws your written words

...well the word... Powers is Different than the word....Laws...You said Laws..I was addressing that..now you've changed it to Powers...There are Powers listed.

So which is it that you contest? Powers or Laws? Or the fact that Congress can make and pass Laws?

If you had ever bothered to read it, then you would know that the laws they have been granted the authority to create are based on the powers listed in the Constitution. And despite your claims, none of the powers mentioned involve the authority to do anything they please.

I'm Ringo, not only have I read the Constitution, I've studied it...Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress of which is made up of ...each Congressional Representative and Senator..elected by their State citizens... the authority to legislate laws

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.

Well then, if you're still under the delusion that Congress has been given the power to do anything they damn well please, your 'study' wasn't worth even the ten minutes to just read down through it once.

It was nice of you to support my case by posting a little of the supportive bits of the Constitution.

I'm Ringo.....now now, getting personal again doesn't add to the discussion..

your 'study' wasn't worth even the ten minutes to just read down through it once.

Actually, it debunks your case. Congressional Senators and Representatives can make Public Law with the authority and powers granted by the Constitution

For instance: Senator Rand Paul introduced legislation to Defund the Government Printing office as soon as he could after being elected to the US Congress. Each Senator and Representative can and do submit legislation hoping that said legislation will become Public Law. It is the responsibility of their elected status to Congress.

Then the Elected officials to the Congress must get a majority to vote Yea to their legislation to pass said legislation. Then the legislation goes to the President to sign. It is the 'process' of making legislation the Public Law of the US. And that is the when, where, who, how and why the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act was passed...All legal. :)

Actually, it debunks your case

Demonstrating that either you are utterly failing to grasp what it said or you have no idea what case I'm making.

with the authority and powers granted by the Constitution

And then you go and help make my case for me

I'm Ringo, I made my case because Congess Can do anything they please...not yours because your's is that they cannot.

Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate company health coverage granted?

I made my case because Congress Can do anything they please

Not with that quote from the Constitution. That only makes my case......much like your utter inability to actually come up with anything in the Constitution to support YOUR claim.

Is what I'm advocating is the basis of constitutional, but what you for some reason oppose, Lassen.

I.R., you don't seem to even have the basic concept of how things are determined to "constitutional" or not. Believe it or not, you deciding it is not the way it happens. Congress passed the ACA and the President signed it into law. Nearly all the constitutional basis for that act rests in the commerce clause which gives Congress wide latitude to regulate at least interstate commerce. The private health insurance cartel engages in interstate commerce so it would fall under the jurisdiction of Congress. You can argue that you believe the law to be unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress exceeded its power under the commerce clause but you're actually arguing that Congress didn't have the constitutional basis to pass the law in the first place which is just utter nonsense. The constitutionality of the ACA will be decided by Summer in SCOTUS. I wouldn't predict how this heavily right wing court packed court will come down but that's where the decision is made, not inside you head.

Congress has the authority to make and pass legislation into Public Law... to mandate company health coverage or anything else they can agree on. There is nothing specific about what Laws that Congress can legislate. Only that they Can.

They can and did pass legislation and made Public Law about....lightbulbs too...

Congress has the authority to make and pass legislation into Public Law... to mandate company health coverage or anything else they can agree on. There is nothing specific about what Laws that Congress can legislate. Only that they Can.

And all you have to do to make is claim is blatantly ignore the actual Constitution.....which you've been doing quite regularly.

I've attempted to answer this question, you just don't like the answer.

No, you answered a new question you created, but ignored mine, jarrod. Nearly 200 posts in and you STILL haven't answered my simple question.

Why are you so adverse to citing the part of the Constitution that you claim exists? It isn't as if it is an enormous document and you have to search through to find it again.

Presumably, you've made no attempt to answer my question because your claim doesn't have any basis in reality.

Again, you're not the one who gets to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. You can say you don't believe it will be but your categorical pronouncements on the subject ring hollow.

The law is constitutional or not based on what is written in the Constitution. I notice the fact that you are STILL unable to find anything in the Constitution to support your claim.

So you still cannot answer my simple question?

Not surprising

I can't answer an irrational question which has no factual basis

You cannot answer because your claim is irrational and has no factual basis.

I'm Ringo, you keep saying the Constitution, so exactly Which Constitution are you discussing? Because when the Article and the Sections are specifically cited, you write that is wrong.

and there was the switch between authority and powers. Are not those two different words as written in the United States Constitution? or are you understanding that those two words are interchangeable?

I'm Ringo, you keep saying the Constitution, so exactly Which Constitution are you discussing?

The one that you've apparently never read....the real one.

Still haven't found anything in the Constitution to support your claim, I notice.

I'm Ringo.....now now, getting personal again doesn't add to the discussion..

It is a pretty standard part of the tactic Ringo has consistently used. Challenge something; reject proof provided; claim that proof wasn't provided; lather - rinse - repeat; and then every so often trying to defend the indefensible intransigence by getting personal. Nothing new here, but the daily danger that some casual reader will read what Ringo writes and believe it because we've become bored posting repudiations and corrections.

The law is constitutional or not based on what is written in the Constitution.

This is why Ringo can't be reasoned out of his false position because it's based on that false premise. He really has two false premises working in tandem: I'll get to the one that his sentence above involves later but address the other one which has been brought to his attention before and he chooses to ignore: it is his erroneous notion that if the Constitution doesn't specifically mention something specifically it can't be constitutional. He's been given several examples that directly contradict that notion and here's another one: the Constitution mentions no right of the people to "own" to "buy" or to "sell" arms. It specifically only mentions "bearing" arms, i.e. carrying them and it only mentions that in the context of a "well regulated militia." Yet, you'll never hear Ringo supporting the idea that there is no constitutional right to do all those things and the reason is this: his claim above that constitutionality is determined by the Constitution. It is not in any way. It is determined by courts and their interpretation of the Constitution. That is why the "right to bear arms" in a "well regulated militia" has been drastically broadened over the centuries to include all sorts of traffic in arms never even hinted at in the Constitution. The fact that he can't comprehend that basic truism of the way our judicial system operates means that it's futile to try to get him to understand anything else.

It is a pretty standard part of the tactic Ringo has consistently used. Challenge something; reject proof provided; claim that proof wasn't provided; lather - rinse - repeat; and then every so often trying to defend the indefensible intransigence by getting personal. Nothing new here, but the daily danger that some casual reader will read what Ringo writes and believe it because we've become bored posting repudiations and corrections.

Ah yes WaltDIS, why say anything intelligent about the topic when you can just troll instead.

Ah, you need your break time with your other little friends before finally getting around to answering my question, jarrod? That's okay

Ah yes WaltDIS, why say anything intelligent about the topic when you can just troll instead.

At last you've admitted what you've been doing on this subject for days now.

Lassen, thank you for demonstrating that you are as unfamiliar with other parts of the Constitution as you are with this part.

The right to bear arms in a militia.....something that is never mentioned. If you want to add or change stuff in the Constitution like you keep trying to do here, there is a process for that. But that is the ONLY way to change it.

jarrod, if you actually read both the Constitution and Lassen's post, then you would have no excuse to not notice the fact that it wasn't even true, let alone spot on.

If you bothered to read 188, you'd notice the fact that I have responded to Lassen's nonsense.

The right to bear arms in a militia.....something that is never mentioned.

It's great to have you hear, I.R. because it's not that common that someone with such an ignorance of the Constitution is willing to stick around and keep demonstrating it:

Article I, section 8, para. 16, U.S. Constitution:

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;

Amendment II, U.S. Constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

That is the entirety of all references to arms in the Constitution. Each of them only refers to providing arms ("arming"--a federal responsibility and power) and the keeping and bearing--a right of the people.

A strict reading of the document clearly indicates that nothing beyond people being able to keep and bear arms, only provided to them by the federal government and only to be used as part of the activities of a well-regulated militia is permitted by the Constution. Under I.R.'s personal interpretation of what's constitutional no other use and no other provenance of arms is allowed. It's absurd beyond absurdity but there it is nevertheless.

Sec 8 article 12 - 16

Army - found

Navy - found

Air Force - cannot find literal string

The authority to create an Air Force is a natural extension of what the passages in the Constitution mean, not what they say.

Yes, which means (like it or not, because this cuts both ways) it is not necessary to have specific language in the Constitution in order for Congress to pass laws and for those laws to pass constitutional muster. The Constitution was never intended to be encyclopedic as the framers and signers built in a method to change it and gave courts the power to interpret it:

Article III, Sec. 2 (emphasis added):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, ........

military - found

Article 3 section 2 is about trials by jury

Uh.... the power to raise a military force is not "found". It says "armies" and it says "navies" and it says "militia of ... States", not arbitrarily "military force".

SCTexan

Are you trying to say something or just muttering?

The Air Force was initially a part of the US Army. It didn't become it's own unit until 1947 in the National Security Act of 1947. So if Constitution gives the authority to have the Army then a spin off of the Army could be easily extrapolated.

That's the point... the authority to spin off the Air Force was extrapolated.

To have a valid discussion we'd have to take an article and what is practiced and how some interpret that power.

The biggest issue I can think of is the commerce clause. Some think it covers a very broad range, such as health care, and some less. It may be the vaguest part of the entire Constitution and most open to interpretation by the reader. It will come down to the current supreme court's interpretation. I say current because things can be revisited and changed in future courts.

IMO, the original planners wanted most of the power to stay in the state, close to the people and very limited powers given to the federal government. That was done so that an all powerful autocrat(s) couldn't mold the US into his/her/their image of what the US should be. Originally states could have such things as a state religion, it was OK under the constitution. Why is it that education didn't exist until 1979? Because it was up to the state to develop the educational priorities for it's citizens. If you didn't like what was going on in your state, you could move to one more suited to your personal priorities.

IMO, the original planners wanted most of the power to stay in the state

The founders wanted the power to stay within a scope within which communications from where things happen and where the government is based take less than few hours.

Article 3 section 2 is about trials by jury

It includes a stipulation of jury trial at the end of the enumeration of the powers of the federal judiciary.

IMO, the original planners wanted most of the power to stay in the state

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But the convention that ratified the document took pains make it clear that the Constitution was "supreme."
Article VI, Sec. 2 (emphasis added):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yes, amendment X was added later to satisfy those who felt that states should have powers that were not exclusively reserved for the federal government, but it is my opinion that the so-called "tenthers" are wrong to claim that that amendment prevents the federal government from legislating in areas that states have never gone. Furthermore, most "tenthers" ignore the wording "the people" as well as states in that amendment. How do people exercise their power separately from the states. The only way I can see is to vote for either state or federal representatives to do their bidding. If the states won't do it, then the people may exert their will by getting the federal government to act.

because it's not that common that someone with such an ignorance of the Constitution is willing to stick around and keep demonstrating it

Maybe not common, but that there are several of you doing it proves that it isn't that uncommon. But I'll stay to witness your demonstration.

A strict reading of the document clearly indicates that nothing beyond people being able to keep and bear arms, only provided to them by the federal government and only to be used as part of the activities of a well-regulated militia is permitted by the Constitution

Except for the little fact that no such thing is stated anywhere in the Constitution.

There is a United States Constitution which is the proper name for the topic in discussion. Proper deference should be given such a great document.

Belitting what is written is not worthy of either the document or the people that wrote it. Rewriting or reinterpreting what was written is demonstrating a disregard for the seriousness of the document in forming a 'more perfect union'. It is disregarding the sacrifices of all those that went before us, are doing so now and will do in the future. It is disregarding the cost of the why and how the document was written.

What is stated is not up for changing, either the intention, the meaning or the context of the United States of America's Constitution. Unless said changes are done by by 2/3 of the States of the United States by ratification of the process of an amendment. The only interpretation that can be made is by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Laws of the United States are clearly authorized by the States in the Union of the United States. The Powers are clearly authorized by the States in the Union of the United States. Congress is the designated holder of the authority and powers under, within and of the United States Constitution.

Any other personal interpretation is disregarding and offering up an opinion that the United States Constitution is invalid and inapplicable to the citizens of the United States of America.

Except for the little fact that no such thing is stated anywhere in the Constitution.

The right wing ability at self-deception is prodigious and limitless. It's really the only thing they're competent at.

Nice words, mstanley, but conflicting with your earlier statements. It would be nice if you've really changed to join me in recognizing the fact that our Constitution is the basis of American law.

The right wing ability at self-deception is prodigious and limitless. It's really the only thing they're competent at.

So you're saying you've joined the right-wing, Lassen? Well, birds of a feather, I guess

Don't look now, I.R. but you just admitted to being one. Again, I want to express my appreciation for your sticking around so long after your ridiculous notions of the Constitution were destroyed time and time again. Your willingness to be a punching bag has given us all great entertainment as well as insight into the bizarre workings of the right wing imagination.

I'm Ringo, no conflict going on with any of my statements...there is no disagreement about the US Constitution except by a few people who don't understand the history, the intent, the writing, how the US Constitution works and the final result of the US Constitution. But then I've found that most of those people are not US Constitutional scholars or US Constitutional lawyers. They depend on a High School class in Civics and government to be the foundation of their extent of their knowledge of the US Constitution and/or what someone else (who isn't a scholar or lawyer) tells them. :)

mstanley, I wouldn't blame the education system for any of this. All of the absurd ideas about the Constitution the right wing carries comes from extremist right wing propaganda mills (well, yes, this would include right wing private schools) who may or may not know better but crank out this crap by the tanker load on a daily basis. They do not use legal, constitutional or historical sources for their propaganda but only their ideology. It's faith-based constitutional gobbledygook.

Laseen, I'm not blaming the educational system, a Civics class is designed to start a teen on the path to learning about government not a be all end all deal, though a lot of people see it that way. That is where the problem starts, they Think they know when they should have Seen that it was the beginning not the end. sighhhh

Oh, yes on the propaganda deal, shove everything into a little package when the whole is too big for their comprehension. :) always a good one.

Don't look now, I.R. but you just admitted to being one.

No thanks. I don't go in for your authoritarian crap.

Your willingness to be a punching bag has given us all great entertainment as well as insight into the bizarre workings of the right wing imagination.

Yes, you've given us many insights into the workings of the right wing imagination.....like when you keep imagining parts of the Constitution that in fact do not exist.

All of the absurd ideas about the Constitution the right wing carries comes from extremist right wing propaganda mills (well, yes, this would include right wing private schools) who may or may not know better but crank out this crap by the tanker load on a daily basis. They do not use legal, constitutional or historical sources for their propaganda but only their ideology. It's faith-based constitutional gobbledygook.

Is that where you got the absurd idea that you can change the Constitution just by wishing it so, Lassen?

So what you're saying mstanley, is that you rely on what you remember from high school? Sad to say that your memory is faulty.

If only you had paid a bit more attention in civics class. Most 8th graders know more about the Constitution than you do, I.R.

If only you had paid a bit more attention in civics class. Most 8th graders know more about the Constitution than you do, I.R.

Then it must be really embarrassing that you know so much less than I do about the subject.

Then it must be really embarrassing that you know so much less than I do about the subject.

It would be if that were possible. But it's not.

Oh, you have amply demonstrated that your knowledge of the Constitution is far less than mine. Then you go on to claim that I know less than 8th graders.....

It's not surprising that you're so embarrassed.

I was going to write back that it's impossible to know less than nothing but I guess you have demonstrated that it is possible in your case.

I suppose it's kind of late to be asking this, but are you under the impression that the ACA requires or forces people to buy something? If so, that is yet another area of ignorance (and here I thought you'd already cornered all there were to be had). There is no requirement to buy anything in the ACA.

I was going to write back that it's impossible to know less than nothing but I guess you have demonstrated that it is possible in your case.

So, lacking anything intelligent to say, you resort to lame insults?

I suppose it's kind of late to be asking this

It's not even noon yet....I don't think that's very late.

Come on back if you're ever going to answer my question or actually contribute anything.

I'm Ringo, you know thats a good line, copying and pasting

Come on back if you're ever going to answer my question or actually contribute anything.

I don't go in for your authoritarian crap.

You must Ringo. You are the one that is telling everyone how much you think you know and also telling them how little they know. That's very authoritarian and also shows a complete fear that people won't believe you.

So what you're saying Don is that you jumped in without even having the sense to read the thread.

So, I.R. you're only now aware that the ACA does not require anyone to purchase anything? Wow. Your problem isn't just ignorance of the facts. It's deliberate and determined avoidance of them--not just about the Constitution and the ACA but everything.

No Ringo I've been following that's exactly why I said what I said.

It appears you didn't read the article very well, Lassen. That's your fault, not mine.

No Ringo I've been following

Oh, so then you know your statement was nonsense as soon as you posted it, Don. I'm not sure that really makes you look any better

No fella It was right on point. But I didn't say it to try an alive your feelings. Only to speak the truth about your comments and the way you come across. The only nonsense I've see are the ones you've written.

The only nonsense I've see

So you don't even read what you type before posting.

Whatever you say Ringo, you believe you're always right, which I'm sure you are. At least in your own mind.

Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing of any value, Don. I'm sure you're quite accomplished at that.

I'm wondering why so many posters these days are engaging in this tactic that Ringo demonstrated so well over these past several messages: Refusing to acknowledge the others have refuted what they wrote, either by claiming outright that no rebuttal was posted (even though even the most casual reader can just scroll up and see that one was) or that it was "nothing of any value" (as if the opinion regarding value of a comment from someone, who already established that they are opposed, carries any weight).

Is it that the several posters who are now regularly doing this think that such tactics "work" somehow? Or is there something else going on that isn't as clearly evident?

Ah WaltUU, trying to divert attention from the fact that you got caught fibbing earlier. I notice you still stick to the pathetic 'it's been answered(even though it hasn't)' tactic instead of ACTUALLY ever answering. That's okay, it's obvious you're incapable

Ringo, do try to follow CoH, an apology is in order to WaltUU.

I haven't fibbed, so there is nothing to be "caught" about. You're just making up nonsense to post in response to being called out on your continual intransigence to admit that your questions have already been answered, over and over again - desperately trying to distract attention away from how you've cynically chosen to try to defend your vacuous perspectives from the truth of the matter.

You've been caught. You're tactic is now well-known and so well-established that it identifies you.

do try to follow CoH

Yes, that is advice that you should definitely take, mstanley

an apology is in order to WaltUU

If you owe an apology to Walt, then go for it, no need to tell us first. I owe no such thing.

Ah yes Walt, because fibbing about your previous fibbing sure makes you look good. And if you believe that, then I have a discount rate moon colony to offer you.

And if you believe that, then I have a discount rate moon colony to offer you.

What's next Ringo? Accusing people's mothers of wearing Army boots?

Only if I happen know their mother is in the army. Do you have any problem with women in the Army?

WaltUU, it's known as comment spamming in answer to your question of #15.23...we need to get out of the discussion. Let staff handle it tomorrow.

Oh, spamming, so THAT'S what you've been doing, mstanley. That explains all your completely off-topic posts.

WaltUU, it's known as comment spamming in answer to your question of #15.23...we need to get out of the discussion. Let staff handle it tomorrow.

Fair enough, mstanley.

To be a Christian a person must love Jesus Christ. Jesus said people that love Him will obey his commands. John 14:23

A liberal does not love or obey Jesus or His Father.

A liberal can only pretend to be a Christian. I will bet you can not name one issue that a liberal and Jesus would agree on.

If a God's law conflicts with man's laws, a Christian would follow God's law. What does it profit a person if they gain the entire world but lose their soul for eternity? Hell offers plenty of time to think about what is better - the world's love or God's love. A liberal will always choose the world's love and a Christian will always choose God's love.

Hell offers plenty of time to think about what is better - the world's love or God's love. A liberal will always choose the world's love and a Christian will always choose God's love.

Bring out the fear!

If your God is all about Love, there is no place of eternal torment called Hell. Then again, it does help keep the fearful masses in line.

And who gets to interpret what God's Law is? Does your interpretation of the Bible trump everyone else's?

That what a person might call religious freedom. Do you want to force everyone else to agree with you or let them choose their religion on their own?

Jesus Christ is available to let each of us know what is true about His law. Just do not think for a minute that Jesus would contradict the teaching of the Bible.

It makes no sense to me that Jesus would approve of an atheist forcing their religious beliefs onto a Catholic person or vice versa.

FYI - I am not a Catholic, just a Christian. This is how I see it.

Gee, I wonder if deceit like that is consider part of "loving Jesus."

servant provides a good example of someone who has broken the third commandment by substituting his/her judgment for the god they say they worship. As they themselves often say, only this god knows what's in the hearts of people and only this god has the power to judge what's, yet they continually turn right around and condemn people they don't even know. This seems to be a peculiar feature of two of the world's largest religions: islam and christianity. They are far more alike in attitudes toward "others" than they are different.

@jumpshotjarred

Which is why the Federal Government should apply laws to all organizations, and not allow exemptions for just one specific religion ;)

So you would be ok with a law that said that all schools must teach the theory of creationism - not the theory of evalution - atheists can no longer get an exemption. atheists can no longer force their "no-god" religion on school children. It applies to all organizations right?

In your future all religions will have to obey the current religion of Congress members or the President? Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Which again, is one of the reasons that the Federal Government shouldn't allow an exemption for one specific religion, because doing so would be a DIRECT example of "respecting one religion".

Which is why Congress can not force atheism on Christians. Your atheist or other religious ideals must not forced on every other religion. Unless you want honor killings to be legal. Many members of my family would prefer honor killings. If Congress and the President agrees with some of my family then you would support their decision and follow the letter of the law? Once it is the law all organizations must follow it - right?

98% of Catholic women use(d) birth control - perhaps someone should tell them?

I am not forcing Catholic women to do anything, Jesus Christ and His Father is and government is. Maybe a step backward for women's rights. They no longer have right's to religious freedom to use birth control or at least pay for it.

Great, and the Church still maintains it's ministerial exception... meaning, the Church can preach whatever it wants. But, when the Church chooses to incorporate and/or file for nonprofit status, they are openly CHOOSING to follow the rules and laws which apply to ALL such organizations, institutions, and entities. Which, AGAIN, is why creating a special exemption for just Catholic organizations would be a violation of the Constitution.

The Congress and government can not force tax laws or any other laws on religions as long as the religious beliefs do not violate other parts of the Constitution. Congress shall pass NO law respecting religion according to the Constitution, but it NEVER says that religion shall pass NO law respecting Congress. Therefore, Congress (government) is limited by the Constitution. Unless you can show where in the Constitution that religions are required to give out birth control. You can not have a religion that allows slavery or denying another person to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness because it is already in the Constitution - THE SUPREME LAW of our land.

WOW................uhhh............

Nice article tho jumpshotjarrod.

In the meantime stop complaining.

There's the classic conservative holier than thou dismissal! I'm right, you'll never change my mind, I have it all figured and and there fore I have the right to impose my beliefs and opinions on others... so shut up! Have you ever noticed the religious right can never admit to a mistake? Even if they start denying others the right to speak...

I love the Vine, you get to see people expose their belief systems and hopelessly defend opinions as if they were reality based and factual, and pour there heart and soul into the defense of mythology and superstition used by their leadership to manipulate them and others as their proxies and remain one step removed from accountability of and any explanation of their their interprations... simply amazing!

Jesus was a liberal intellectual with humility... many would not know him if they were to meet him on the street today. And that is the epitome of irony I would say.

So much for love thy enemies...

Aho

There's the classic conservative holier than thou dismissal! I'm right, you'll never change my mind, I have it all figured and and there fore I have the right to impose my beliefs and opinions on others... so shut up!

Yes, but it's all a facade. These are the most insecure people you can ever meet. They aren't a bit fulfilled by their faith as evidenced by the massive intolerance for anyone who resists their ideas. They can't accept the fact that people reject their notions about god or gods. The rejection is considered a threat to them which is why they're always claiming victimhood for not being allowed free rein to control this country's policies. No one who is comfortable and at peace with what he believes needs to throw a tantrum as the right wing zealots do every time they're blocked.

Spot on...

Chuck, I am getting more and more that way myself. I am sick of fake Christians.

How much better for you statists if there was no religion -- no moral compass to get in the way of governmental authority to dictate every aspect of our lives!

Religion has nothing to do with morality nor did it invent it. Secondly, the government isn't forcing anyone to use birth control so your point is... well, pointless.

We have many limits on religious freedom: I believe living sacrifice is illegal, certainly if it's of a human. We don't give a religious exemption for killing on the basis of strong faith motivation (witness the right wing terrorists murdering abortion providers). Religion can't be a cover for plotting overthrow of the government (take note dominionists). I find it amusing, as always, that right wingers around the country are chomping at the bit to "outlaw" the non-threat of Sharia law and yet have tanker loads of manufactured outrage that the law can trump religious conviction to require women to have access to needed medication (oral contraceptives are used for many other purposes than pregnancy prevention but even if not, prevention of pregnancy may be life saving for a lot of women for whom pregnancy is a very high risk medical condition). IOW, here we are again witnessing right wingers insisting that one religion's views be honored and deferred to by the government over all others (or no religion). It's clearly a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment for the government to accede to this demand but since when did right wingers really give a @!$%# about the Constitution, about which most of them are totally ignorant.

I believe living sacrifice is illegal,

If a person goes to the top of a building and jumps off as a living sacrifice it's not a crime by the church, unless you can prove it was coerced (just had to go there). In any case, taking a life is depriving one of the right to live (then again, how do you view assisted suicide?). Not buying them a birth control pill isn't infringing on any right since they can go out buy it for themselves.

Do you deliberately twist things up thinking it gives you an advantage or do you really not know what I meant by human sacrifice?

Meaningless non-sequitor aside, the separation of church and state is well established. The only "ideology" being pushed is adhering to it. Once a church forms and organization that takes money from the public for a direct service rendered it must abide by the rules of every other employer.

And Brooks book is hogwash based on one metric the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey with a whole 3000 respondents. He's also paid shill for the American Enterprise Institute. That's your "well documented statistic". One uber-conservative's conclusions based on one study. The study doesn't even separate out giving to your church as separate from charitable giving even though a huge portion of that money is paying payrolls, advertising and building upkeep.

organization that takes money from the public for a direct service rendered it must abide by the rules of every other employer.

I suppose extortion fits well within the liberal ideology withholding funds from a hospital or religious organization to push an agenda is along the lines of extremism. You disgust me! Legislating ideology under the guise of fairness and the use of public monies is a slippery slope to say the least; please read what I had previously written that in the US; over half of all social capital is religious. Do you honestly think that the poor and underprivileged would be taken care of without the intervention of charity and the works of the church? Our economy is bankrupt now.

"Look it up."

Like at FalseNews, for example. Comment #26 is one of those 100% pure right wing horse@!$%# comments that's almost The Onion quality it's so whacky. It would be funny if it was meant as satire, but it aint. Once again, we see how impossible it is to parody the right wing since they do so good a job at making themselves look ridiculous.

I suppose extortion fits well within the liberal ideology withholding funds from a hospital or religious organization to push an agenda is along the lines of extremism. You disgust me! Legislating ideology under the guise of fairness and the use of public monies is a slippery slope to say the least; please read what I had previously written that in the US; over half of all social capital is religious. Do you honestly think that the poor and underprivileged would be taken care of without the intervention of charity and the works of the church? Our economy is bankrupt now.

WTH? Nobody is withholding anything. What are you talking about? I also read what you wrote. Read what I wrote. Your whole "social capital" argument is bogus and based one tiny study by a guy who isn't a sociologist or a statistician. Social capital is hugely complex and there's not even a metric agreed upon in sociology to even measure it. I also find it funny that your flaunting a concept that Marx had a massive hand in developing. And if you honestly think any church helps the poor in this country more than the social safety nets and government subsidies we have in this country you're delusional.

The ignorance of these responses is very telling.

Yep, a 100% saturated Falser, all right.

To Fox News apparently facts= ignorance.

Very telling.