The Pelosi Care Is 1992 Pages Long!

[mgifford]

Have any of you researched how many pages our original documents are written on? Did it take 1000 pages for the Constitution? 1500 pages to bring us the Bill of Rights?
What about the Declaration of Independance, 3000 pages?

I'm interested in these questions.

[Rurudyne]

"If you can't baffle them with brilliance, befuddle them with ********!" — unknown

The Dems are obviously fans of the latter.

Probably because they have none of the former.

[darknessesedge]

Have any of you researched how many pages our original documents are written on? Did it take 1000 pages for the Constitution? 1500 pages to bring us the Bill of Rights?
What about the Declaration of Independance, 3000 pages?

I'm interested in these questions.

he face lift procedures are quicker than reading this bill.

[HoracioMendez]

One of the problems with the constitution is that there's so much room for interpretation because it's so deliberately short and terse. That isn't how law should be. Do you have any good reasons the bill shouldn't be that long?

[Rurudyne]

One of the problems with the constitution is that there's so much room for interpretation because it's so deliberately short and terse. That isn't how law should be. Do you have any good reasons the bill shouldn't be that long?
No delegated power for it.

Cuts the page count to Zero.

[HoracioMendez]

No delegated power for it.

Cuts the page count to Zero.

Well that's a different argument entirely, and I agree with it.

[mgifford]

One of the problems with the constitution is that there's so much room for interpretation because it's so deliberately short and terse. That isn't how law should be. Do you have any good reasons the bill shouldn't be that long?

Problems with the Constitution? LOL! Who in the world are you?
I didn't say these documents should be that long. I asked if anyone knows how long they are.

[mgifford]

he face lift procedures are quicker than reading this bill.

She has Botox in her face the size of a horse's ass.

[Physics Hunter]

What bastards. 1992 is a reference to Hillary Care!

Reminds me more of 1984.

[mgifford]

What bastards. 1992 is a reference to Hillary Care!

Reminds me more of 1984.

Yes, George Orwell would be proud..

[Physics Hunter]

Yes, George Orwell would be proud..


I was serious about both of those! ;)

[rodeo]

One of the problems with the constitution is that there's so much room for interpretation because it's so deliberately short and terse. That isn't how law should be. Do you have any good reasons the bill shouldn't be that long?

1 - None of the people voting on it will actually read it.
2 - That much legaleeze is guaran - damn - teed to be so full of conflicting language, codes, sections, segments and clauses that it will be left up to interpretation. In short - Confusion is a bad way to make law.
3 - The only thing that can come out of almost 2000 pages of regulation is a massive overabundance of regulation.
4 - The Constitution is a beautiful document written by people far smarter than any of us and certainly well ahead of the Peloser/DingyHarry/MMM MMM MMM Obama contingent. That short/terse document serves as the foundation for the freeest/grandest nation on the planet (at least it does when it's actually paid attention to).

Now - Tell my why in God's name you want any Congress creating 1900+ pages of mass confusion and then asking you to base your health and well being on that document.

[mgifford]

I was serious about both of those! ;)

Yes sir & I am too. I thought you meant the 1984 book. Had Newt & the gang not come in & put the squash to Hillary Care, we'd already be a socialist nation years ago.

[Trip]

One of the problems with the constitution is that there's so much room for interpretation because it's so deliberately short and terse. That isn't how law should be. Do you have any good reasons the bill shouldn't be that long?

Oh, I do! I DO!


United States Constitution, Article I "Legislative Power Vested In Congress", Section 9 "Limits on Congress", paragraph 3:


No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"GENERAL WELFARE"

"General welfare" is not individual welfare and is specifically written to not involve such.


The words "general welfare" (or even welfare) appears only twice in the Constitution, first in the preamble and second in Article 1, Section 8:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The "general welfare" clause was not an independent grant of power. It was preceding the list of enumerated powers. Furthermore the entire phrase is ""general Welfare of the United States". This was to dealing with the welfare of each individual state, the United States being the whole, and not the welfare of each individual citizen within those States.

The meaning of the word "Welfare" at the time is important to its application to the several States. The 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language shows how "Welfare" was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

Quite obviously definition #1, above, could not possibly represent what Congress is entitled to do. Congress cannot reasonably effect our personal misfortune, nor our sickness, nor our heath, nor the common blessings we enjoy in life. Definition 1 is a statement of one's personal status and by no means any sort of "general welfare".

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

In fact, Article 1, Section 8 is applied to STATES and not individually as shown by the full phrase, "general Welfare OF THE UNITED STATES" and this is further shown by its pairing with "common defense".

We don't have government subsidizing each of us having guns, do we?

[Physics Hunter]

Yes sir & I am too. I thought you meant the 1984 book. Had Newt & the gang not come in & put the squash to Hillary Care, we'd already be a socialist nation years ago.

You got it, Orwell. But I also meant that they are doing tossing a bone to the first time they tried this in 1992.

Just did not want the rest of the thread to think I was joking.

[mgifford]

Wasn't it Pelosi who said the "Declaration" contains about 2000 pages?

[HoracioMendez]

Oh, I do! I DO!


United States Constitution, Article I "Legislative Power Vested In Congress", Section 9 "Limits on Congress", paragraph 3:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"GENERAL WELFARE"

"General welfare" is not individual welfare and is specifically written to not involve such.


The words "general welfare" (or even welfare) appears only twice in the Constitution, first in the preamble and second in Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
The "general welfare" clause was not an independent grant of power. It was preceding the list of enumerated powers. Furthermore the entire phrase is ""general Welfare of the United States". This was to dealing with the welfare of each individual state, the United States being the whole, and not the welfare of each individual citizen within those States.

The meaning of the word "Welfare" at the time is important to its application to the several States. The 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language shows how "Welfare" was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:
WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.
Quite obviously definition #1, above, could not possibly represent what Congress is entitled to do. Congress cannot reasonably effect our personal misfortune, nor our sickness, nor our heath, nor the common blessings we enjoy in life. Definition 1 is a statement of one's personal status and by no means any sort of "general welfare".

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

In fact, Article 1, Section 8 is applied to STATES and not individually as shown by the full phrase, "general Welfare OF THE UNITED STATES" and this is further shown by its pairing with "common defense".

We don't have government subsidizing each of us having guns, do we?
You know, as much as I disagree with you a lot, I like reading your posts because they're generally well thought out and you put a lot of work into them. Good form.

If you look back though, I've already agreed that the congress clearly has no authority to intervene in Health care as they're attempting to do. That much seems obvious.

[Rurudyne]

Wasn't it Pelosi who said the "Declaration" contains about 2000 pages?
It does in the 51st to 58th States.

[mgifford]

You got it, Orwell. But I also meant that they are doing tossing a bone to the first time they tried this in 1992.

Just did not want the rest of the thread to think I was joking.

And I'm with you too. Her HC said "if you went to a doctor other than the one the goverment prescribed, paid him with your own money, you and your doctor would go to jail". We've come a long way since 1992 because decent Americans had a fit & rebuked her in mass. Now we're just lying down & taking it from Obama. The same thing of course.

[HoracioMendez]

1 - None of the people voting on it will actually read it.
2 - That much legaleeze is guaran - damn - teed to be so full of conflicting language, codes, sections, segments and clauses that it will be left up to interpretation. In short - Confusion is a bad way to make law.
3 - The only thing that can come out of almost 2000 pages of regulation is a massive overabundance of regulation.

These are all valid reasons, though I don't think Congress would read it if it were only 400 pages either. I just didn't see the point in comparing it to the constitution or DOI.

[mgifford]

It does in the 51st to 58th States.

Oh yeah! I remember those states.

[Physics Hunter]

And I'm with you too. Her HC said "if you went to a doctor other than the one the goverment prescribed, paid him with your own money, you and your doctor would go to jail". We've come a long way since 1992 because decent Americans had a fit & rebuked her in mass. Now we're just lying down & taking it from Obama. The same thing of course.

And you have to love the 3 year fuse on the whole thing.

[Trip]

You know, as much as I disagree with you a lot, I like reading your posts because they're generally well thought out and you put a lot of work into them. Good form.

If you look back though, I've already agreed that the congress clearly has no authority to intervene in Health care as they're attempting to do. That much seems obvious.

Yeah, you stated that over in the thread-that-shall-not-be-mentioned (Per Mod) and I apologized for misinterpreting your position (though you may have missed it because you responded when i was post-post editing).

And thanks for the compliment.

[MrBojangles2012]

Have any of you researched how many pages our original documents are written on? Did it take 1000 pages for the Constitution? 1500 pages to bring us the Bill of Rights?
What about the Declaration of Independance, 3000 pages?

I'm interested in these questions.


The Constitution and Bill of rights were very short, but also were broad and unspecific. At the time all laws were written by states. The Constitution was really only designed to create a federal government to oversee trade between the colonies.

[Rurudyne]

And you have to love the 3 year fuse on the whole thing.
The hilarious thing is, the 3 year wait is billed as a time to allow taxes to be levied and a war chest to be built up so as to defray costs and help keep long term expenses down.

But when has ANY Congress ever had it's hands on a pile of money that they haven't spent right away?

[mgifford]

The Constitution and Bill of rights were very short, but also were broad and unspecific. At the time all laws were written by states. The Constitution was really only designed to create a federal government to oversee trade between the colonies.

How short?

[Physics Hunter]

The hilarious thing is, the 3 year wait is billed as a time to allow taxes to be levied and a war chest to be built up so as to defray costs and help keep long term expenses down.

But when has ANY Congress ever had it's hands on a pile of money that they haven't spent right away?


BINGO! You hit the Nail.

[rodeo]

Oh yeah! I remember those states.

Oh - Those 7 States...

The State of Confusion
The State of Paranoia
The State of Negligence
The State of Ignorance
The State of Arrogance
The State of Ineptitude
And the State of Inebriation....

(the last one is for when all else fails.)

[Physics Hunter]

Oh - Those 7 States...

The State of Confusion
The State of Paranoia
The State of Negligence
The State of Ignorance
The State of Arrogance
The State of Ineptitude
And the State of Inebriation....

(the last one is for when all else fails.)

Perhaps all of this hysteresis is about creating a New State... The State of Mysery!

[rodeo]

Maybe the State of being run the The State....

[Rurudyne]

Perhaps all of this hysteresis is about creating a New State... The State of Mysery!
Look! Up in DC!
Is it an omnipresent government?
Is it and omnipotent government?
No!
It's Stupor State!!!

[MrBojangles2012]

How short?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/constitution/index.cfm

Only about 7,000 words long, the U.S. Constitution is one of the shortest constitutions in the world. It is also the oldest written constitution still in effect.

The constitution was supposed to limit the power of the newly created Federal government, but they left serious loopholes to broaden executive power over time.

[MrBojangles2012]

The constitution was supposed to limit the power of the newly created Federal government, but they left serious loopholes to broaden executive power over time.

Specifically...

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

The "necessary and proper clause" has been used as a justification of a vast number of expansions in Federal power. The whole point of the constitution was to begin to limit states' rights.

[Physics Hunter]

Rowdies on Fri nite. But the book of common wisdom says you are not far off...

[muhadeeb99]

Specifically...



The "necessary and proper clause" has been used as a justification of a vast number of expansions in Federal power. The whole point of the constitution was to begin to limit states' rights.

The "necessary and proper clause" was supposed to be at the behest for the American public's satisfaction to assure that Federal power would not get out of hand.

[muhadeeb99]

All in all the Constitution and Bill of Rights were a liberal attempt to circumvent the hardships of the early days of British rule. The liberal attempt has since been perverted by near adoption of the iron thumb of power elitism that now exists. The power elite have sullied their responsibility to the American people of all races. For a long time those who are in power have abrogated their constituencies right of proper representation. Instead they have decided that they know better. They may know better but that exists in their own mind. In other words there is a major disconnect with their voting public.

From then till now the definitions have reversed and massaged to the point of absurdity.

[opsyscw]

I've followed the discussion on the HEALTH care bill and have read several parts of it when linked. I've noticed that the HEALTH care bill discusses the funding, costs, control, management, taxes, penalities, and fines and punishments in great detail.

But I have not seen one word about what the the bill is intended to provide: better HEALTH.

Nope, not a word about our HEALTH itself.

Why is that?

[EnchantedFrog]

I've followed the discussion on the HEALTH care bill and have read several parts of it when linked. I've noticed that the HEALTH care bill discusses the funding, costs, control, management, taxes, penalities, and fines and punishments in great detail.

But I have not seen one word about what the the bill is intended to provide: better HEALTH.

Nope, not a word about our HEALTH itself.

Why is that?
Why?

Because the bill is not about health.

The bill is about power and control.

[opsyscw]

Why?

Because the bill is not about health.

The bill is about power and control.
Thats what I have been saying all along.

[Rurudyne]

Specifically...



The "necessary and proper clause" has been used as a justification of a vast number of expansions in Federal power. The whole point of the constitution was to begin to limit states' rights.
Untrue.

"necessary and proper" has become a parrot's mantra echoed by lawyers, as with so many other phrases, without meaning.

They ignore the construction and the context in order to misrepresent, misconstruct and abuse it.

Something may seem necessary but unless it is ALSO proper it cannot be legal.

As with the 10th Amendment this clause resolves around the foregoing Powers and the vested Powers and in fact these say much the exact same thing but from different sides of the looking glass.

The one says that Congress can craft laws necessary and proper to support the delegated Powers and the other limits all claims for powers TO the delegated Powers and those alone.

Our Constitution is also the work of the Antifederalist and in many important ways THEY WON THE DEBATES.

Just as they should have.

[MrBojangles2012]

Untrue.

"necessary and proper" has become a parrot's mantra echoed by lawyers, as with so many other phrases, without meaning.

They ignore the construction and the context in order to misrepresent, misconstruct and abuse it.

Something may seem necessary but unless it is ALSO proper it cannot be legal.

As with the 10th Amendment this clause resolves around the foregoing Powers and the vested Powers and in fact these say much the exact same thing but from different sides of the looking glass.

The one says that Congress can craft laws necessary and proper to support the delegated Powers and the other limits all claims for powers TO the delegated Powers and those alone.

Our Constitution is also the work of the Antifederalist and in many important ways THEY WON THE DEBATES.

Just as they should have.

Sorry man but you're pretty much completely wrong about all of this. I could dig out my american politics textbook to rattle off a list of examples, but I have a halloween party to get to.

[Rurudyne]

Sorry man but you're pretty much completely wrong about all of this. I could dig out my american politics textbook to rattle off a list of examples, but I have a halloween party to get to.
Quite the contrary.

The Court has abandoned the Constitution for what might be termed their margin notes.

If you will read Marbury v Madison you will find this passage:
Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.Simply, the enumeration of Powers for the purpose of enhancing the general Welfare demonstrate that those ARE the delegated Powers for same and the 10th Amendment demands that all other potential powers are reserved to those besides the federal.

The only alternative is that, again to properly employ Marbury's language, " The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage — is entirely without meaning — if such is to be the construction."

Which is to say if Congress possesses general power to promote the general welfare, as progressives and moderates essentially claim it does, then the enumeration of any specific Powers to that effect is simply meaningless, a literal surplusage of words.

Moreover, down in Article 1:Section 8 we find that Congress is actually granted — ONLY with respect to DC and such places as may be ceded in specific statute by a State for the likes of a military base — what is actually general legislative power. If the Congress has general power otherwise this would be a superfluity among superfluities as would the language in Article 4:Section 3, namely: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;".

Clearly, and again, if any powers are delegated at all then those are the only Powers possessed. "necessary and proper" ONLY relates to the Powers vested by the Constitution in the federal government. It has no bearing or operation on pretend powers assumed, or rather stolen, from those who lawfully retain them — the States or the people — until such time as they are specifically delegated in an Amendment process.

Moreover, returning to Marbury, we find this Statement that should be unremarkable:
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.... so that clearly we are not to respect any so-called "law" that relies on pretend authority.

But more to the point, Marbury revolved around the question of IF the Court could, in association with the Congress, accept a change in its own delegated jurisdiction as found in Article 3:Section 2 — the Judiciary Act has given the Court original jurisdiction over petitions involving the federal government whereas the Constitution only grants them such in matters of actual Cases (petitions and Cases are different from each other).

Thus Chief Justice Marshall wrote, as he turned away from the preliminaries in his opinion:
This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the commission or a copy of it from the record, and it only remains to be inquired:

Whether it can issue from this Court.The actual answer to the problem before the Court, if it could accept any alteration of its delegated jurisdiction by ordinary means (which would include such things as statutes, treaties, executive orders, or opinions of a court but not include extraordinary means, which is to say ONLY the amendment process) is found in this language:
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!The courts are to be ruled by the Constitution and not to be rulers over it.

Thus it is a fair restatement of what he wrote to say: Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only things like the past opinions of the Court.

They have no lawful power to practically alter its application, for that would be a form of amendment (and the amendment process allows the courts no role at all).

I'll cut it short here, but rest assured there is much more that could be said.

Maybe you should dig out some American Politics textbooks from, at a minimum, before FDR intentionally undertook to undermine the Republic which the Constitution authorized. Though those written before the 1890s would be better still.

[mgifford]

My point of this thread is that the Constitution, Declaration, & other of our original documents were written on just several pages. The SS act was only 32 pages & the Pelosi (bend over & grab em Americans) HC plan is almost two thousand pages. Are the Democrats for real?

[Rurudyne]

My point of this thread is that the Constitution, Declaration, & other of our original documents were written on just several pages. The SS act was only 32 pages & the Pelosi (bend over & grab em Americans) HC plan is almost two thousand pages. Are the Democrats for real?
Sadly so.

And it will, if my own experiences are any indication, take many, many walls'o'text to win even a few converts for lawful governance.

On the plus side, my style and conciseness have been steadily improving!

Which is to say that I can now say in half as much as I used to what I strongly suspect others could say in half as much yet again.:)

[mgifford]

Sadly so.

And it will, if my own experiences are any indication, take many, many walls'o'text to win even a few converts for lawful governance.

On the plus side, my style and conciseness have been steadily improving!

Which is to say that I can now say in half as much as I used to what I strongly suspect others could say in half as much yet again.:)

Amen to you. Isn't it a fact that when someone uses hundreds of pages to say something that could be said with one hundred pages, they're hiding something? It's time to rise up & kick these rats out of our WH & Congress as soon as posible.

[Rurudyne]

Amen to you. Isn't it a fact that when someone uses hundreds of pages to say something that could be said with one hundred pages, they're hiding something? It's time to rise up & kick these rats out of our WH & Congress as soon as posible.
I've heard it said that no clause, even matters of punctuation it sometimes seems, in a bill out of Congress these days is without some special interest looking for something and that's why when you go reading these things it's so easy to find stuff: you're literally looking for a needle in a needle-stack!

Which may also explain why these folks never read what their pet lawyers write for them ... they don't even want to know, just take credit and move on because the next election cycle is less than 2 years away.

In another thread, the one about Atlas Shrugged, I suggested the title "Prometheus Diddled" for a novel title and I'm thinking I might be onto something. The dictionary definition of "diddle" is literally rich with potential subtext and varied content for a novel about politicians and lawyers.

[mgifford]

I've heard it said that no clause, even matters of punctuation it sometimes seems, in a bill out of Congress these days is without some special interest looking for something and that's why when you go reading these things it's so easy to find stuff: you're literally looking for a needle in a needle-stack!

Which may also explain why these folks never read what their pet lawyers write for them ... they don't even want to know, just take credit and move on because the next election cycle is less than 2 years away.

In another thread, the one about Atlas Shrugged, I suggested the title "Prometheus Diddled" for a novel title and I'm thinking I might be onto something. The dictionary definition of "diddle" is literally rich with potential subtext and varied content for a novel about politicians and lawyers.

90% of lawyers are really giving the rest a bad name! In one of the infamous "bailout" debackles, a company was going to spend $400,000 on a new parking lot, but the word came down that they could get the money from the taxpayers in the "porkulus" plan. So they put their money they alread had set aside & took the porkulus money.

[LiberalZombie]

1992 was a good year.

Clinton's first year!

[LindaLR]

Have any of you researched how many pages our original documents are written on? Did it take 1000 pages for the Constitution? 1500 pages to bring us the Bill of Rights?
What about the Declaration of Independance, 3000 pages?

I'm interested in these questions.
Reminds me of the day windows used to take up a reasonable amount of bytes, with fairly tight code.. now..... you need one hard drive for windows and then another to do any thing else with !! lol, yes, i exagerate, but thats half the fun.
Its absolute RUBBISH.
Its all over the place, getting between you and your doc, and tax code and new agencies, and spend spend spend!
I dont think Bastiat's "The Law" was but a few short pages, yet as cogent and clear as any thing i hve ever read. I guess the staff of congress is not that competent.
Who would have imagined a whole American well paid staff, unable to produce a clear and cogent bill , when a mere frenchman could lay out an entire blueprint to freedom, without so much as a secretary.
THey all need to be FIRED.

[HoracioMendez]

Reminds me of the day windows used to take up a reasonable amount of bytes, with fairly tight code.. now..... you need one hard drive for windows and then another to do any thing else with !! lol, yes, i exagerate, but thats half the fun.
Its absolute RUBBISH.
Its all over the place, getting between you and your doc, and tax code and new agencies, and spend spend spend!
I dont think Bastiat's "The Law" was but a few short pages, yet as cogent and clear as any thing i hve ever read. I guess the staff of congress is not that competent.
Who would have imagined a whole American well paid staff, unable to produce a clear and cogent bill , when a mere frenchman could lay out an entire blueprint to freedom, without so much as a secretary.
THey all need to be FIRED.
And yet it took Churchill six ****ing volumes just to write a few years history. What a horrible writer that guy must be. Same goes for Edward Gibbon.

[mgifford]

Reminds me of the day windows used to take up a reasonable amount of bytes, with fairly tight code.. now..... you need one hard drive for windows and then another to do any thing else with !! lol, yes, i exagerate, but thats half the fun.
Its absolute RUBBISH.
Its all over the place, getting between you and your doc, and tax code and new agencies, and spend spend spend!
I dont think Bastiat's "The Law" was but a few short pages, yet as cogent and clear as any thing i hve ever read. I guess the staff of congress is not that competent.
Who would have imagined a whole American well paid staff, unable to produce a clear and cogent bill , when a mere frenchman could lay out an entire blueprint to freedom, without so much as a secretary.
THey all need to be FIRED.

I agree. The thing is that the politicians want the bill to be long, then they only give the signers a nites notice to sign. Then again, they will add several hundred pages of "pork roast & pork sholder, maybe even a few pork dongs just before signing". My friend, why do we put up with these rats?????????????????????????????????

[Rurudyne]

And yet it took Churchill six ****ing volumes just to write a few years history. What a horrible writer that guy must be. Same goes for Edward Gibbon.
People are more complex than laws.

And actually, laws that are so complex that ordinary people cannot understand them are injurious. If you need, as a matter of course, a lawyer to talk to other lawyers something has gone dreadfully wrong already.

[mgifford]

PS. The liberal socialists will now come out of the woodwork to plug for their friends on the hill.

[HoracioMendez]

People are more complex than laws.

And actually, laws that are so complex that ordinary people cannot understand them are injurious. If you need, as a matter of course, a lawyer to talk to other lawyers something has gone dreadfully wrong already.

And any health care bill would be necessarily much more complicated than the constitution, because it would actually have to address small details. I agree that the law is too complicated though.

[LindaLR]

And yet it took Churchill six ****ing volumes just to write a few years history. What a horrible writer that guy must be. Same goes for Edward Gibbon.

? you have a point? or just want to display your expertise in profanity?

[LindaLR]

And any health care bill would be necessarily much more complicated than the constitution, because it would actually have to address small details. I agree that the law is too complicated though.
Then WHY do you pretend to defend it? What do you gain?

[HoracioMendez]

? you have a point? or just want to display your expertise in profanity?
Different types of documents require different lengths. Just because the constitution is relatively short says nothing about how long a healthcare bill should be. That is my point.

If you have any pointers on how to improve my skill in profanity though, it's always appreciated.

[LindaLR]

I agree. The thing is that the politicians want the bill to be long, then they only give the signers a nites notice to sign. Then again, they will add several hundred pages of "pork roast & pork sholder, maybe even a few pork dongs just before signing". My friend, why do we put up with these rats?????????????????????????????????
We keep voting for them because we think they are going to magically wake up one day and act responsibly, and in the Country's best interest....... instead of their own?
heck if i know! Baffles the devil out of me why Nevada would even give harry reid a second glance,, much less continue to reelect him time after time.

[Rurudyne]

And any health care bill would be necessarily much more complicated than the constitution, because it would actually have to address small details. I agree that the law is too complicated though.
You're right. There is, of course, a natural difference between Law delegating a power and a bill designed to carry a delegated Power — or rather: some other bill designed to carry a delegated Power — into execution.

Still, since lawyers get to write the rules for all the rest of us, maybe we should get to write the rules for lawyers. It would only be fair. For a start: I propose that all trial lawyers be forced to adopt funny legal or professional names by which they will be known. Also that they are only able to run for office as "Sensible", "Slightly Silly", "Silly" and "Very Silly".

[HoracioMendez]

Then WHY do you pretend to defend it? What do you gain?
I'm a mathematician by training, so I enjoy arguing the logic of an argument no matter what side I happen to be on. The fact that I agree with the fact that the bill is perhaps too long and complex has nothing to do with my arguments here. I don't think others here appreciate this though, and it doesn't seem to jive well with usual political arguments. Oh well, I can't help myself.

[HoracioMendez]

You're right. There is, of course, a natural difference between Law delegating a power and a bill designed to carry a delegated Power — or rather: some other bill designed to carry a delegated Power — into execution.

Still, since lawyers get to write the rules for all the rest of us, maybe we should get to write the rules for lawyers. It would only be fair. For a start: I propose that all trial lawyers be forced to adopt funny legal or professional names by which they will be known. Also that they are only able to run for office as "Sensible", "Slightly Silly", "Silly" and "Very Silly".

Now this I can get behind. I would like to add that they be made to wear funny hats, as well as those combination fake glasses, nose and moustache things people wear.

[LindaLR]

Different types of documents require different lengths. Just because the constitution is relatively short says nothing about how long a healthcare bill should be. That is my point.

If you have any pointers on how to improve my skill in profanity though, it's always appreciated.
Ah, so a health care bill which includes major changes to tax code, which include many changes to our very lives should be miles of paper long, incomprehensible and convoluted, and we should not have any debate on it as a nation,, just pass what ever lobbyists, staff, lawyers andl members of radical groups fel like putting in the bill.
Have any one we actually elected had ONE MOMENT of pen to paper on this? After all, when asked, they have no clue whats in it.

alas, I have no tips on profanity for you.

[mgifford]

We keep voting for them because we think they are going to magically wake up one day and act responsibly, and in the Country's best interest....... instead of their own?
heck if i know! Baffles the devil out of me why Nevada would even give harry reid a second glance,, much less continue to reelect him time after time.

I really believe that Obama, Reid, Pelosi & the gang of thieves may in the near future finally show "ignorant" America their true colors.

[LindaLR]

I'm a mathematician by training, so I enjoy arguing the logic of an argument no matter what side I happen to be on. The fact that I agree with the fact that the bill is perhaps too long and complex has nothing to do with my arguments here. I don't think others here appreciate this though, and it doesn't seem to jive well with usual political arguments. Oh well, I can't help myself.

relative relativity i guess. if you cant help yourself, then who can you help!!!:))

[mgifford]

The "Federal Tax Code" is 66,000 pages, SURPRISE!

[HoracioMendez]

Ah, so a health care bill which includes major changes to tax code, which include many changes to our very lives should be miles of paper long, incomprehensible and convoluted, and we should not have any debate on it as a nation,, just pass what ever lobbyists, staff, lawyers andl members of radical groups fel like putting in the bill.
Have any one we actually elected had ONE MOMENT of pen to paper on this? After all, when asked, they have no clue whats in it.

alas, I have no tips on profanity for you.
Please don't read things into my argument that aren't there. I think my last post to you should clear up my position a bit here.

[Rurudyne]

The "Federal Tax Code" is 66,000 pages, SURPRISE!
You must have an old copy.

I hear it's over 70K pages.

[mgifford]

You must have an old copy.

I hear it's over 70K pages.

Yes, this was a few years ago when we discussed it.

[LindaLR]

I really believe that Obama, Reid, Pelosi & the gang of thieves may in the near future finally show "ignorant" America their true colors.

Well, thankfully, as dumb as we are, we are having small effect on the issues as the WH keeps holding Bill Clinton's finger up to the air to see which way the wind drifts.. lol
If it werent for us ignorant masses, we would be jammedup to our eyebrows in Free Gubmint health care three months ago!! wheeeeee!
You can almost see Nancy about to roto-till herself right into the ground with anger at meeting resistance. :) makes it all worth while.

[mgifford]

Well, thankfully, as dumb as we are, we are having small effect on the issues as the WH keeps holding Bill Clinton's finger up to the air to see which way the wind drifts.. lol
If it werent for us ignorant masses, we would be jammedup to our eyebrows in Free Gubmint health care three months ago!! wheeeeee!
You can almost see Nancy about to roto-till herself right into the ground with anger at meeting resistance. :) makes it all worth while.

YUP! Man alive, what a job cultivating around that "Botoxed" face.

[LindaLR]

Please don't read things into my argument that aren't there. I think my last post to you should clear up my position a bit here.
No, you take a position, then try to say you didnt mean it. Hard to take your self indulgent flailings seriously if you just want to consider an argument a mathamatical adventure. Pffft


Q: What does the zero say to the the eight?
A: Nice belt!

[HoracioMendez]

No, you take a position, then try to say you didnt mean it. Hard to take your self indulgent flailings seriously if you just want to consider an argument a mathamatical adventure. Pffft


Q: What does the zero say to the the eight?
A: Nice belt!
If you read carefully, I've never said I agree with a 2000 page bill. Considering an argument as simply a game of logic can be pretty fun actually, since you don't have the emotional side of actually investing your opinion into the argument.

And I have to say, I got a chuckle out of that joke.

[LindaLR]

If you read carefully, I've never said I agree with a 2000 page bill. Considering an argument as simply a game of logic can be pretty fun actually, since you don't have the emotional side of actually investing your opinion into the argument.

And I have to say, I got a chuckle out of that joke.

Nor skin in the game.

[mgifford]

Neal Boortz told before how many pages the FairTax Bill contains, but all I remember is, it's only a few compared to Pelosi's grabage heap. I am FairTax all the way, I hope it soon passes, but politicians won't allow it to pass & take all that much power & control from them. Boortz said he was speaking with a Democrat about "will the FairTax pass in the future" a few years ago?

The Democrat said "yes, but only when we're in power". If all Americans ever just realize tthat the politicians are interested in one thing & that's their control & power, we could again have a proud America.

[abbi]

Have any of you researched how many pages our original documents are written on? Did it take 1000 pages for the Constitution? 1500 pages to bring us the Bill of Rights?
What about the Declaration of Independance, 3000 pages?

I'm interested in these questions.

Thank you for asking... I've been trying to get this out for all to see. Here's the new bill, yet for revision (AGAIN).. It has been noted, this is a major job killer, tax hikes up the butt and death panels back in: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

[abbi]

If you're available, here's another option:

This is major and not much time to throw our arms up against it...

Patriots,
Rep Michele Bachmann, R-MN has just announced a “storm the capitol” next Thursday, November 5th at 12:00 Noon.
This appears to be in conjunction with Vets For Freedom action that is occurring the same day…….see PFA homepage.
Any and everyone that can make it to the US Capitol, Washington, DC to meet Rep Bachmann on the Capitol steps at 12:00 noon is desperately needed.
The goal is have hundreds or thousands show up and walk with Rep Bachman through the US Capitol advising Representatives to reject the House of Representatives Healthcare Bill………
If the HealthCare Bill Pelosi announced on Wednesday is passed, Rep Bachmann said, “it will be the crown jewel of socialism” in America…….everyone will be forced into a single payer, government run healthcare program…….
I am personally urging, pleading, for everyone to give this request the most serious consideration….if you can possibly be in DC and meet Rep Bachmann on the US Capitol steps at 12:00 Noon, please, please do it…..

A link to support the above..
http://logisticsmonster.com/2009/10/...mber-5th-2009/ (http://logisticsmonster.com/2009/10/30/michelle-bachman-a-call-to-storm-the-capitol-on-november-5th-2009/)

[tmedlin]

If you're available, here's another option:

This is major and not much time to throw our arms up against it...

Patriots,
Rep Michele Bachmann, R-MN has just announced a “storm the capitol” next Thursday, November 5th at 12:00 Noon.
This appears to be in conjunction with Vets For Freedom action that is occurring the same day…….see PFA homepage.
Any and everyone that can make it to the US Capitol, Washington, DC to meet Rep Bachmann on the Capitol steps at 12:00 noon is desperately needed.
The goal is have hundreds or thousands show up and walk with Rep Bachman through the US Capitol advising Representatives to reject the House of Representatives Healthcare Bill………
If the HealthCare Bill Pelosi announced on Wednesday is passed, Rep Bachmann said, “it will be the crown jewel of socialism” in America…….everyone will be forced into a single payer, government run healthcare program…….
I am personally urging, pleading, for everyone to give this request the most serious consideration….if you can possibly be in DC and meet Rep Bachmann on the US Capitol steps at 12:00 Noon, please, please do it…..

A link to support the above..
http://logisticsmonster.com/2009/10/...mber-5th-2009/ (http://logisticsmonster.com/2009/10/30/michelle-bachman-a-call-to-storm-the-capitol-on-november-5th-2009/)
I'm getting people from NC together to go. Going to start a new thread specifically for this.

[Rurudyne]

Bump for any comments or refutation attempts:
Sorry man but you're pretty much completely wrong about all of this. I could dig out my american politics textbook to rattle off a list of examples, but I have a halloween party to get to.
Quite the contrary.

The Court has abandoned the Constitution for what might be termed their margin notes.

If you will read Marbury v Madison you will find this passage:
Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.Simply, the enumeration of Powers for the purpose of enhancing the general Welfare demonstrate that those ARE the delegated Powers for same and the 10th Amendment demands that all other potential powers are reserved to those besides the federal.

The only alternative is that, again to properly employ Marbury's language, " The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage — is entirely without meaning — if such is to be the construction."

Which is to say if Congress possesses general power to promote the general welfare, as progressives and moderates essentially claim it does, then the enumeration of any specific Powers to that effect is simply meaningless, a literal surplusage of words.

Moreover, down in Article 1:Section 8 we find that Congress is actually granted — ONLY with respect to DC and such places as may be ceded in specific statute by a State for the likes of a military base — what is actually general legislative power. If the Congress has general power otherwise this would be a superfluity among superfluities as would the language in Article 4:Section 3, namely: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;".

Clearly, and again, if any powers are delegated at all then those are the only Powers possessed. "necessary and proper" ONLY relates to the Powers vested by the Constitution in the federal government. It has no bearing or operation on pretend powers assumed, or rather stolen, from those who lawfully retain them — the States or the people — until such time as they are specifically delegated in an Amendment process.

Moreover, returning to Marbury, we find this Statement that should be unremarkable:
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.... so that clearly we are not to respect any so-called "law" that relies on pretend authority.

But more to the point, Marbury revolved around the question of IF the Court could, in association with the Congress, accept a change in its own delegated jurisdiction as found in Article 3:Section 2 — the Judiciary Act had given the Court original jurisdiction over petitions involving the federal government whereas the Constitution only grants them such in matters of actual Cases (petitions and Cases are different from each other).

Thus Chief Justice Marshall wrote, as he turned away from the preliminaries in his opinion:
This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the commission or a copy of it from the record, and it only remains to be inquired:

Whether it can issue from this Court.The actual answer to the problem before the Court, if it could accept any alteration of its delegated jurisdiction by ordinary means (which would include such things as statutes, treaties, executive orders, or opinions of a court but not include extraordinary means, which is to say ONLY the amendment process) is found in this language:
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!The courts are to be ruled by the Constitution and not to be rulers over it.

Thus it is a fair restatement of what he wrote to say: Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only things like the past opinions of the Court.

They have no lawful power to practically alter its application, for that would be a form of amendment (and the amendment process allows the courts no role at all).

I'll cut it short here, but rest assured there is much more that could be said.

Maybe you should dig out some American Politics textbooks from, at a minimum, before FDR intentionally undertook to undermine the Republic which the Constitution authorized. Though those written before the 1890s would be better still.

[OIVORY]

Have any of you researched how many pages our original documents are written on? Did it take 1000 pages for the Constitution? 1500 pages to bring us the Bill of Rights?
What about the Declaration of Independance, 3000 pages?

I'm interested in these questions.

Uh, I think it is 2,200 pages long. (if you put two words on each page)

The total word count of the US Constitution is 4,440 and it is the shortest constitution of any country in the world. (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-us-constitution-facts.html)

[AvgGuyIA]

One of the problems with the constitution is that there's so much room for interpretation because it's so deliberately short and terse. That isn't how law should be. Do you have any good reasons the bill shouldn't be that long?
Re-read the first seven words of your paragraph. Incredible. :rolleyes: