'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
In Defense of Dissent on Health Care Reform | Washington Examiner
Shared via AddThis
Posts
Impeach President Trump, again
3 years ago
Monday, August 10, 2009
In Defense of Dissent on Health Care Reform
The techniques used by one side are not always appreciated when used against them. I think everyone could do well to take a deep breath and remember your mother told you it wasn't polite to call someone names.
In Defense of Dissent on Health Care Reform | Washington Examiner
Shared via AddThis
In Defense of Dissent on Health Care Reform | Washington Examiner
Shared via AddThis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thomas Jefferson was a Federalist, a common man's man, one who believed in the rule of law and a government for the people.
ReplyDeleteNow how is supporting corporations that kill American Citizens Jeffersonian?
Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic Republican.
ReplyDeleteThat is the party he founded, which is the modern Democratic Party.
ReplyDeleteJefferson was not a member of The Federalist Party, as I assume you interpreted my comment; he was a Federalist i.e. he supported ratification of The Constitution and was compelled to follow it unambiguously.
My mistake. The dual meaning makes discussion tricky.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you are talking about strict and unambiguous support of the Constitution, then a Jeffersonian or a Federalist would realize that there is no power in the Constitution that would allow the government to do anything to a corporation that is obeying the law.
I'm trying to figure out which article of the Constitution unambiguously allows the federal government to provide health care and health insurance to consumers. Maybe it's close to the article that has that sneaky penumbral right to privacy?
ReplyDeleteArticle I Section 8 clauses 1 and 18 of The Constitution of The United States of America state "Congress shall have the power To... provide for the...general Welfare of The United States;... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers..."
ReplyDelete"One interpretation is that it gives Congress broad power to legislate in the public interest. Such a view is inconsistent with the concept of a limited constitution, however. A second view, promoted by Alexander Hamilton, suggested that Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare was additional to its other powers. A third view, represented by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that the phrase was simply a summary or general description of the specific powers and that it gave Congress no additional power."
ReplyDeleteI'm merely being a gadfly devil's advocate. You pointed to Jefferson as a paragon of unambiguous interpretation of the Constitution, yet his position would seem not to allow federally provided healthcare.
My true point - in light of over two hundred years of Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court, some of it dubious at best, and given the nature of the world we now inhabit, I think it is a dicey proposition, one which I would never presume for myself, to state how the founders would view many of the issues of the day. Some scholars may be willing to do that; I confess my depth of knowing the minds of the founders is not adequate to allow me to do so. I view with extreme skepticism most attempts by others.
I don't really care about the debate going on in the comments.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I do find utterly hilarious is that when women feel that they should have the right to vote like other people they protest and it's now widely accepted they're equal in every way. When black people believe they're being treated unfairly in many different ways they "peacefully" protest and changes are made. When people protested Vietnam they had a beef and they spoke out against it, these were so-called "peaceful" protests. When gay people think that they deserve the right to marriage they protest about it "peacefully". When people don't agree with the Iraq War we see Hillary Clinton shouting at the top of her lungs about the "unjustice". It's the American way. Remember, peaceful doesn't actually mean peaceful as in quiet crowds, it just means non-belligerent they were causing no physical damage, but then when we move along to town hall meetings and tea-parties suddenly the same rules don't apply, those people are "unamerican" according to Nancy, they're dressed too well to be regular folks. It's all planned by right-wing extremists in order to sway public opinion. Apparantly all those rallies for black rights, anti-war, gay rights, and other activities were ENTIRELY spontaneous, no planning necessary. The people at these town hall meetings and tea-parties are engaging in "peaceful protest" by the standards the liberals have set for us for so many years and yet they're being attacked as morons for their beliefs.
Protest is a weapon. The question is what makes these protests different from what those liberals call their right to challenge the powers that be. They're no more (and even less so) violent and offensive than those anti-Vietnam rallies or the civil rights activists rallies, essentially there is no difference except for that this time... it's the conservatives with major beef.
It is a weapon that conservatives have not needed to use for quite some time, mostly because we normally win. Yes, we. I think the demorats are beginning to see JUST how annoying and effective "peaceful protest" really is. The one thing conservatives do is play by the rules they set, the liberals can't even do that without whining.
And Jay, the point wasn't that Thomas Jefferson would or would not have supported the health care reform, it was that he believed the people should have the right to stand up and say something if it was on their mind. It's the same belief that you used to have before Republicans started doing it.
ReplyDelete