You know, Congress really botched it up. It has stepped over the line and must be called to task. When these politicians, from their gilded halls, declared that I must buy something, they violated the very essence of what it means to be an American. The government doesn’t have the right to force me to buy anything.
I understand their thinking. It’s in the public’s best interests, but what is to stop them from saying I must purchase anything they “deem” to be in the best interest of the country? They could make me buy broccoli because they think I should eat healthier.
Just plain not American.
And let's not even talk about freedom of religion. That is going to force me to buy things I find morally repugnant.
So when Congress passed, and President George Washington signed, the Militia Act of 1792 that, as part of it, could force me to buy a gun, they crossed a line.
Next thing you know, they might require me to buy insurance. Oh wait, President John Adams already did that in 1798 with “An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen,” forcing sailors on privately-owned ships to buy insurance.
Man, the founders must be spinning in their graves.
Oh, wait, they were founders.
Jason Theriault, Auburn
Report a correction
Constitutional Scholars
Isn't is funny that all of these constitutional scholars are smart enough to point out the unconstitutionality of the health care law and yet not one of them is smart enough to suggest a credible solution to the problem of uninsured citizens, sky high insurance premiums, the unavailability of insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, loss of health insurance when you lose your job etc.. Oh wait someone did suggest a solution. It was the Heritage Foundation who came up with the same plan they now call Obamacare before they disowned it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Republian sillism
Its fun to see the Republicans, who claim to love the Constitution and the founders, admit that Oh! they were just silly old men who didn't understand anything. Ours is a living breathing Constitution that has to change as we Republicans change the social contract that it represents. We need to let everyone know that greed is more important than need.
Since the Constitution does give Congress the authority to make you buy anything that it is in the interests of the country for you to buy, refusing is not American. Its an alien philosophy which threatens the survival of this country; that reputates the sacrifices of millions of men and women who have given their lives to create and maintain a UNITED NATION.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Get some new material, pal.
Jonnie heard this greed/need BS a couple weeks ago and latched onto it like a junkyard dog on a T-bone. The alien philosophy belongs to him, his mentors and handlers, and whitehouse.gov.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.BS
The alien philosophy is Randism which came from a Russian emigree modified by Austrian Economics which is obviously of European origin. I have derived my political philosophy only from the Constitution as written and the Amendments passed since.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Odd...
in the many times I've read the Constitution, I can't recall seeing the words that would support your contention, "Since the Constitution does give Congress the authority to make you buy anything that it is in the interests of the country for you to buy, refusing is not American. " Care to show me where they are written?
You are correct in stating that "Ours is a living breathing Constitution", and there is a prescribed, legal and accepted method for altering its contents to accommodate changing times and philosophies. I have yet to see either the constitutional allowance for mandating the purchase of health care insurance or the statutory process for amending the Constitution to allow it.
And as for your final statement, I and my fellow veterans swore an oath to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION which provides the rights and freedoms for all citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...even those who never served and those who would prefer to place this country on a path to the failed principles of socialism.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.as to you last statement
so did I.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.First, I was making fun
of people who try to read literally the Constitution with reference to a living breathing Constitution (which I do not support). As the author of the letter mentions one of the first acts of the US Congress was to pass the Militia Act which required every eligible male to buy a mustket and accessories. he wrote, ratified, and implemented the Constitution so they must surely have thoght that they had the power under the military articles in Section 1. And they did. Just as the commerce clause gives the Congress the power to require citizens to buy anything necessary to provide for the general welfare/economy.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Your first point is
Your first point is confusing: Did you mean his point that Congress can force you to buy things, or that refusing is Un-American?
Now, as for socialism - Hate to break it to you, but all government activities are socialist. Pooling resources for a common task under the control of government is socialism.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Both
No all government activity is not socialism or socialist. Socialism has one meaning and one meaning alone - ownership of the means of production by the people. Nothing we are discussing here has anything to do with ownership or the means of production. Now all government action is collective action and there is absolutely nothing wrong with collective action in fact its what is meant by "WE the people".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yes it is.
Ok, even using your definition, it is definitively socialism.
Example - the military.
Military protection is a service. The military is controlled by the government. They are the only ones allowed to provide it.
How is that not a perfect fit to your definition?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.While Frank Sinatra sings,
While Frank Sinatra sings, "Stormy Weather", the flies and the spiders get along together...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.A conversation with someone who does not share a common
language is difficult and in this case impossible. Collective action i.e. republican government is not socialistic. The military has nothing to do with the means of production and therefore can not be socialistic. The military is not an economic system and therefore can't be socialistic. A government is not an economic system and therefore can not be socialistic, but a government can take actions which are socialistic if the action assigns ownership of the means of production to the people. The GM bailout was a form of socialism called syndicalism (means of productions are owned and controlled by unionized workers another example is a company stock 401K if it owns more than 50% of the stock). Socialism was an economic theory developed in the mid-1800's by many economists in reaction to capitalist industrialization. The US Constitution can not be socialistic because a) the US was not industrialized at the time it was written, b) its a political compact not an economic theory, c) no where does it authorize the public ownership of the means of production.
You are referring to "collective action" which the military certainly is.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Dictionary.com defines
Dictionary.com defines socialism:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
So it doesn't have to be an economic system.
But regardless of how we define it, you missed the point I was making about the military. Military protection is a service. Having an armed force that takes orders form our government is a service. Blackwater or really even any security guard company would be an example of the private industry equivalent.
So let's look at the definition, and line up my example to it:
"vesting of the ownership and control " - Government owns and control the military
"of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc.," - the product is Military services. They protect the interests of the United States with force.
" in the community as a whole." The Government is owned by all citizens.
So, again, how is it not socialism? Yes, it is collective action, but it is also socialist.
And while the US constitution was around before the theories on Socialism doesn't mean it isn't socialist. I mean, evolution was taking place before Darwin codified it. Any service that the government provides could be provided by private industry. Therefore, if it producing anything, be it a service or an actual item, it is socialist.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What?????
a system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole is an economic system ( and I think is exactly the idea of my definition although not worded so well). That's what ownership and control of the means of production and distribution is. Its not a birthday party or a political system or a procedure for refining gold. Its an economic system that defines the ownership and control of economic factors (usually called inputs) capital, land, equipment, labor etc. Three centuries ago it was called "political economy" because the political system determined the allocation, ownership, and control of all economic factors. Now the two are separated because the political system does not necessarily determine the economic system.
Your analogy to the military is a intermixing of non-analogous objects. Private military action is an oxymoron. Private companies can perform services similiar to what a military might provide but that does not make them military. The military is not a service. The Product is not military services. All objects are not products. All actions are not services. The military is the government. And no the government is not owned by the people. It is not owned by the government. It is one of two government responsibilities as defined in Article I of the Constitution. The government, in a republican form of government and one defined by the US Constitution, is the delegated power of the people. Your logic is fundamentally illogical and a classic statement of the ultra-capitalist re-definition of society, the re-writting of history, and the capitalist attack on republican i.e. Constitutional goverment. If it is oqned it can be sold, that in itself is an economic exchange. Governement is not owned, can not be sold is not an economic factor. This is all nonsensical analogies to capitalist terminology and it just doesn't apply and it corrupts how people think.
And no socialism can't exist before the conditions for its existence (industrial capitalism post 1860 in the US post 1750 in Europe) exist.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.First off - "Private military
First off - "Private military action is an oxymoron" - Yeah, ask Honduras how that worked for them in 1910 when a banana company staged a coup d’état.
How about this, instead of just state a bunch of stuff you hold as fact, explain why. Like why is what the military does not a service. It has value, we pay for it.
Like, your point about "It is one of two government responsibilities as defined in Article I of the Constitution." It says Congress is supposed to "To raise and support Armies". How could that not be contracted out. Congress doesn't try and make fighter jets, so obviously, parts of raising an army are already private, why is it such a huge leap for you to realize they could outsource the whole thing to blackwater, and be done with it while still meeting all constitutional requirements.
And how do people not own the government? I pay for it, and just like a stockholder in any company(who are the people who own it) I vote for who makes the decisions.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.PS
Ps "And no socialism can't exist before the conditions for its existence (industrial capitalism post 1860 in the US post 1750 in Europe) exist."
Let me report the definition:
Dictionary.com defines socialism:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
Where does it any anything about industrial capitalism?
It doesn't. While Industrial Capitalism lead to the formation of the definition of socialism, that doesn't mean socialism didn't exist before it. Socialism is a description, a definition of a phenomenon. That doesn't mean it didn't exist before hand, or that things didn't share characteristics with it before it was defined.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well stated, Steve. Great
Well stated, Steve. Great post.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Do you have...
...auto insurance?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The Midnight Whiner asks:
What about Social Security and Medicare? Huh? Huh? C'mon, you Republicans.
Those programs are funded by employment taxes. Wink, wink. That's the fairy-tale we've heard since the 1930's. Recent reductions in those taxes, to help "working people", display the fraud for all to see. The reality is, they are paid out of the general fund like everything else, and those taxes are just cash-cows for DC.
If the authors, whoever they may be, of the ACA had created a tax to fund it, instead of a premium, we wouldn't be having the current discussion about the Constitutionality of the mandate. We could instead focus on all the law's other controversial aspects, which are legion.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No more mooching
Anybody who says they don't want health insurance should be required to carry a card that says in the event they are injured in an accident or have a health incident they are to be left bleeding in the road until they come up with the cash for their treatment. Furthermore it should be for life. The way insurance works is that those who are healthy pay premiums and that money is used to care for those that are sick. So if you don't pay when you are healthy it should disqualify you period. The same goes for people who don't want to pay for maternity benefits when they will never collect for that. Other people end up paying for their care who are not collecting for what they have. Insurance is not a savings account it is a pool of money used to care for sick people. Don't want any? Great, but I don't want my insurance premium paying for you. Oh and by the way there will never be a law mandating you to eat broccoli because it is not a requirement for survival while for the majority of humans health care is.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The problem
The reason you can't refuse people, or make it so they can refuse, is that then if opens the door to people not getting treatment that they should get.
Lets say another Jason Theriault had it on record with the hospital that is he was found unconscious, he was to be left dead in the street. Well, then let say I'm in a car accident, and they do a search for me, and somehow the record gets crossed. Well, I'm SOL.
Put it this way - the state paid benefits to 19,000 people who shouldn't have been eligible. Do you want to trust them to be able to handle life or death decisions like whether or not to provide care?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.no different
Thegovernment requires that we have auto insurance... how is This any different?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Auto insurance
is a state mandate and not a federal mandate. Always has been.The difference is where the requirement originates. It’s the various states, including Maine, that require auto insurance, and they do so within their powers of the U.S. Constitution.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The government doesn't
The government doesn't require anyone to own a car. The auto insurance requirement is a consequence of having made that choice; to own a car.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I agree-partially
The auto insurance example is bad.
Federal Government doesn't require it - states do
Operating a car is optional
ect.
Fact of the matter is that the service(health care) cannot be refused by Hospitals. They are forced to take you, regardless of your ability to pay. Acknowledging that fact seems to be the biggest issue here. Hoisting up a system where some people who plan ahead and act responsibly are punished, while those who act poorly profit is just stupid.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Just to point out
I think the author hit it right on the head.
He is also fantastically smart, a masterful writer, and devastatingly handsome.
Also Modest.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So who is this other Jason
So who is this other Jason Theriault?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.=)
Whoever agreed, you are awesome.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I think everyone gets an
I think everyone gets an automatic agree for posting. You know, like if you posted it, you must agree with yourself.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Next thing you know he'll be
Next thing you know he'll be doing LTTE signings at Wendy's during lunch hour. 0O:-)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No way
This is Lewiston/Auburn. All the real action is at Wal-Mart.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I considered that, but I
I considered that, but I didn't think you'd want to compete with the panhandlers.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No Contest
The panhandlers are no competition for the author of this letter. While "Please help -House burned down" is succinct and to the point, it doesn't convey the same je ne sais quoi, the unquenchable charm and extreme handsomeness that the author possesses.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Man, aren't we lit up today.
Man, aren't we lit up today. Not sure where this is all headed, but I've got the parrot waxing the plank, just in case.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I, I mean, the Author
I, I mean, the Author got a full night's sleep last night. None of his beautiful and exceptional children woke him up in the middle of the night.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This looks like a trap, but
This looks like a trap, but here goes: Are they babies or just not good sleepers?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No trap
No trap. And one of each(one baby, one not good sleeper who likes to crawl into bed with us at 2am).
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I empathize.
I empathize.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Social Security
And if they weren't handing it out to all those that never paid into ti there might be enough for those that did. It was never meant to be a welfare check but when it was turned into a "general fund" it was used for whatever our wonderful leaders wanted to dip into it for and now some that never paid get more from it then those that did.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Now?
"now some that never paid get more from it then those that did"
Umm, pretty sure that has been the case since its inception. I agree that it has been used as a general fund per see, but I think complaining about that now is like sending back a steak for being overcooked when all that is left is the bone.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And Congress passed the
And Congress passed the Social Security Act and Medicare Act, requiring people to pay for their retirement and health care, you didn't see any republicans protesting and challenging that, right?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.