Actually, they are taking it with your consent. The argument that if we don't provide insurance to those who can't afford healthcare, we're going to end up paying for it through increased this or that is based on a false premise, that being healthcare costs are fixed. They are not.

Most people have no idea how much their healthcare actually costs, and absolutely no idea they don't have to pay those costs. This was the beauty of the Healthcare Savings Account (HSA) that the doctors have been working so hard through Obamacare to kill. The doctors want money to go from you, to an insurer (either government or private) to them, with you knowing as little as possible. With HSA's, companies, who pay about 70% of all premium dollars in this country, would give that money directly to you to put in your HSA, and you could use that money, after a large deductible, to co-pay the insurance payouts. It was that $3,000-$5,000 deductible that had doctors terrified because they knew patients would start shopping around for better deals once they had to start paying out-of-pocket again. They might wonder if the $5,000 their doctor charges to fix a broken arm is what they want to pay after they find out another doc charges $1,000.

You have the freedom to shop your healthcare services around, and shop for the lowest price... a price that doesn't include paying extra to defray the costs of the uninsured, but most people choose to pay whatever is demanded.

Romneycare has the 10th ammendment to stand on, 0bamacare does not.

That does not mean Romney was right in supporting the state mandate. But it means people are wrong to equate the two plans.

Ann is right in this column by saying we are moving to communism thru insurance mandates. I think Obama is not targeting Romney or Santorum in this move. He is targeting the insurance companies.

Why did 0bama abandon the public option so quickly in the 0bamacare debate? Beause he does not need it. All he has to do is squeeze the insurers out of business and we will default to nationalized care. And that is his ultimate goal and strategy to get there. If he sets our path correctly for his goals it does not matter which flawed candidate he opposes in the election.

So, the 10th amenmendment voided unalienable rights with respect to state governments? My copy of Elliot's debates must be missing a few pages.

And apparently through the 10th amendment as well.

All that is true. Another major consideration is theft.

A hospital billing office tried to jack me for services not rendered. I had a simple wrist surgery to remove a ganglian cyst from my hand.
It was that lump carpenters get above the index finger near the wrist.
At the time, I was on an HMO. The surgeon happened to be the district administrator for the HMO.
He said the junk he pulled out looked so normal, he threw it in the trash. I was home in 4 hours.
When the billing info came to my house, there were charges for lab work and overnight stay.
I had to warn the insurance company not to pay. The hospital administration knew nothing about it.

Any time we run our money through insurance, state, and federal programs, thieves find the cracks.

Three cheers for Romneycare.

What if I, after seeing the horrible things that happened to my father.... in both the hospital and the nursing home [ both as good as they get! ] I decide I want to LIVE and DIE... naturally? I understand the world's infatuation with trying to live as long as possible. Why can't it be understood that some may want to just let their body do what it does? No doctors. No hospitals. Etc....

I can hear the naysayers screaming... "You are the EXACT REASON national health care is a good thing." Oh bullshit! I have yet to cost this country a damn penny. I have never taken unemployment, food stamps, welfare of any kind, and I haven't a clue why bio-diesel and alcohol makers get taxpayer money to make a product that causes our food prices to go up, and also contributes to world starvation.... not to mention, the whole green energy scam is a lie! The places our government wastes money are endless.

The nationalized health care we are now at war with... will not only cause your costs to go through the roof [ if you think it is bad now! ] and your well being is going to be turned over to the government. Boy... now that is exciting to think about.

The bottom line truth of the matter is that nationalized health care has nothing to with responsibility or getting costs under control... and everything to do with control of the people. If they really wanted to get costs down... they would enforce the borders. They would get out of our lives and the businesses that serve this nation. They would not be forcing the responsible to pay for the lifestyles of the UBNRESPONSIBLE! But what do we expect from the worthless excuse of a President who was elected strictly because he was black. Not only unqualified but also dangerous. Electing BH Obama was the equivalent of putting a sexual pervert in charge of the local daycare center. He is as anti-FREEDOM as anyone could dream.


Rev'runt Wright's words sum up BH Obama EXACTLY! Most of us knew this going in!

He soaked this all up and we are NOW witnessing the implementation!


Health Insurance was not a government invention. Taking it over and forcing America to pay the government FOR IT is a government idea straight out Liberalism and Communism.
These people who are hell bent on forcing the country to do this could not care less about quality health care or cost savings. They just want the takers to pay them back with votes.

What we need is a law that says no new legislation can pass without a majority of both parties voting in favor of it. Hopefully then nothing would get done. All old legislation can be reversed and rescinded with a simple majority. No laws should be mandated by the President. What they want to do in Massachusetts is their business... Move to another sate if you don't like the "Will of a majority of their people". I already know I will likely be writing books from prison if the US Supreme Court does not toss this whole fiasco as Unconstitutional.

This free birth control is such a crock.

How about insurance companies give me free bullets for my guns. Now there is a protection I can really use!

I guess you better move quickly before they will a 100% emigration tax to take your property on the way out.

50 cheers for EMTLA.

Not my point. I guess you didn't get my toothpaste metaphor. The ship is sinking and you think all we need to do is move the rudder( sorry, more metaphors )? I think we have a lot of bailing and a few big holes to patch first!

Again with the socialists! You're right, of course, there's no need to give up. I was feeling a little down about things when I wrote that post. 50% of the morons in this country still think Obama's doing a good job! It's taken more than a few years to bring us to the brink. And if I could channel Barbara Eden and blink Paul, or Gingrich into the White House I would. They are the only candidates still in the race willing to suggest taking some big steps. But we have this pesky election standing in the way. I'm all for a good fight, but our best boxers are still in the locker-room( again with the metaphors). I'll vote for Santorum on Super Tuesday, and say a prayer for a brokered convention.

I think it is clear that I understand all your metaphors. More importantly, I see no need for arguing in the alternative. The facts are plain and work for me.

But since you like metaphors -
It ought to be obvoius from posts. I am surely not saying only a rudder adjustment is necessary. I am saying the crest of over the wheelhouse. I am arguing that too many Republicans and faux conservatives have been bailing water in and not out. (You know, three cheers for R-care?). You can't really tell from my posts that I am arguing state-level socialism is not a cure for national socialism, but rather two stages of the same disease?

And out of which will come what?

Ryan or Rubio would be preferable to me. But I should check with you first. Are they socialists too?

Ann has a lot of guts to write this the second week after she praised Romney's blueprint for all this in her column titled "Three Cheers for Romneycare!"

Ann had an hysterical fit when she learned Newt made stick-figure drawings of himself 30 years ago in which he portrayed himself as the center of the Universe. So what?

But she loves Romneycare, the model upon which Obamacare is built.

Thank goodness for Thomas Sowell and Sarah Palin(who is rightly not sold on Romney's conservatism--particularly when it comes to his abortion flip-flops).

Who knows where Ann is coming from anymore? Assuming we really ever did know.

Why bother, it didn't stop you before?

I thought I explained the benchmark well enough that a fifth-grader would understand it. Have either of them voted for or signed a bill into law that would socialize medecine?

-----
You might consider whether your gripe is actually with me, or your conservative conscience, if you have one. Coulter says it's communism when Obama does it and conservatism when Romney does it. I say whatever is the preferred label, its the same when either of them does it. My position seems far more consistent, rational, and for lack of a better term, American.

There is a whole thread I started on this with a poll and everything. I don't see the difference in the principles between the US founding document and, for example, and the Massachusetts governing document. In fact, I believe there is at least one common author, named Adams, in addition to several key principles in common (especially with respect to making one person pay for the health insurance of another, or with respect to the contraception mandates, ordering one citizen to provide prodcts to another without charge - which sounds a great deal like the literal definition of slavery).

Maybe this wouldn't be an issue even Obama-phobia wasn't running so high (Obama Derangement Syndrome). At what other time in the last 50 years would there have any issue or question over a conservative calling someone who socialized medecine a socialist? What about Hugo-care? May I call Chavez a socialist in your presence?

Got anything of substance to say to that?

You keep inferring my support for Romney and Romneycare to paint me as a "socialist". My only support of either was in the narrow subject of insurance mandates, and their constitutional implementation at the state level. For this I have been repeatedly vilified as a "socialist" in your self-aggrandized opinions. You, on the other hand have supported Mr. Gingrich. Herewith I offer my fifth-grade understanding of Mr Gingrich's record:

1979 Elected to Congress from Georgia's 6th District
1979 Voted to create the Department of Education, under President Jimmy Carter( one of only 30 Republicans that helped to pass it)
1989 Becomes House Minority Whip
1990 Becomes member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
1993 Voted for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement
1994 Supported the WTO, the World Trade Organization. Voted for GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that subjected Americans to the international authority of the WTO
1995 Becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives and recommends reading The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler as required reading for all of his Congressional colleagues.
1995 Delivers speech to the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in which he blames the US Constitution for making America's role in leading the world more difficult!
1995 Wrote the foreword to another one of Toffler's books, The Politics of the Third Wave, Creating a New Civilization
1995 The liberal establishment Time Magazine names Newt Gingrich their “Man of the Year”
1995 Appeals to the US House of Representatives to increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act of 1972, and urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia.
1996 Under his leadership, Congress passed the largest single spending increase on education in US history!

I'll leave out Gingrich's involvement with his friends, Fanny and Freddy. This, I assume, is your example of a "principled" conservative. I have already indicated I do not intend to vote for Mr. Romney in the primary, and that Romneycare is a failure and should be repealed. I know very little about you, Ray, but I do not need a fifth grade education to know that forming a judgement of your political philosophy based on the scant evidence in this forum would be ignorant at best. You continue to label any who disagree with you with the one label you know to be the most demeaning. It's doubtful that there are any "socialists" reading Ann Coulter, or participating in her forum.

Your vitriol does little to advance your argument, and even less to advance the cause of conservatism. Only 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative. That number would be quite a bit smaller if you were in charge of enrollment. To achieve any measurable change in the leftward slide of our country, we will need a broad spectrum of people to be persuaded to join our cause. Romney is perhaps the least articulate spokesman for that cause. Notwithstanding his record, Newt Gingrich is one of our best spokesman. But given that he couldn't survive the negative attacks of Romney, I doubt seriously he could do better against the Chicago hit-squad employed by Obama.

This is why I want a brokered convention. For Republicans to achieve a majority in November we need a candidate that can articulate a conservative vision that grows our ranks. We have such people in our party-- but without a brokered convention, we will have to settle for a name with the R behind it, but not the spirit.

No, I support conservatives, and you just confirmed everything I wrote. Aguing like a liberal. You ask a liberal about Obama and he tells you about Bush. Or you ask one about Romney and get told about Gingrich (which I didn't read).

So, I guess the short answer to my questions was NO, you have nothing of substance.

I don't paint you as anything. You paint yourself. I am merely blunt about telling the truth. Your (so-called "narrow") support of "mandates," speaks for itself. Your hogwash about Consitutionality also speaks for itself. The hogwash about mandates being limited to "insurance" was just demonstrated to be hogwash by Obama - there are virtually no limits under the rubric of socialized medecine. Ann called it communism. I only called it socialism. If you like, you can call it Romneyism. And you support it. I don't.

Good article Ann, it's been a while. Stay within your strengths.

Just wondering. Wouldn't the governor be able to mandate death panels under Romneycare? Would that also be in compliance with the US Constitution?

Text of the 10th Ammendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Show me the text of the constitution that gives the fed govt the power to prevent states from adopting the mandate.

Point of fact, Romneycare was not overturned as a violation of the federal constitution. The fed constitution does not mention health care or prohibit the states from taxation. (And even if the Obamacare mandate is declared unconstitutional I have a feeling it will reappear as a tax, which we have less fed constitutional grounds to oppose.)

By confirming the liberal assertion that the mandate is an issue for the federal govt, you hand liberals a partial victory here. If conservatives abandon the principle of federation and the 10th ammendment, they have harmed the opposition to the power centralization of the liberals far greater than one issue would achieve.

I agree the mandate is not conservative, and it is not the proper remedy for our health care problems. But arguing the 10th ammendment does not apply in the Romneycare /Obamacare comparison is the wrong path.

Try the 10th amendment - and about three other places.

I am not abandoning it, but rather you are abaondoning that we are endowed with unalienable rights. I would suggest by advocating state-by-state creeping socialism, it is you are feeding the liberals what they want.

Madison said to Patrick Henry at the Virginia Ratification debates, "I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal."

Well you will need to explain that, as to me it supports my position not yours.

3 other places? Where exactly?


I clearly did not advocate anything of the sort! I outright opposed the mandate.

I said that the fed govt only has the power given it by the constitution, and unless you can show me specifically in the constitution where the fed govt is granted to power to prevent states from taxation (or mentions health care specifically), then you have no constitutional grounds to make this a fed govt issue.


Agreed. And those issues where the power is "consolidated" are listed. So again, unless you can show me the text...

And please, nothing from the preamble. That seems a very modern liberal tactic to rely on generalized opening statements rather than specificlly delegated powers in the articles and ammendments. You will have confirmed my worst fears that some conservatives don't mind the expansion of fed power past constitutional limits as long as that power fits their agenda.

People wonder what happened to our once great nation...

... "Republicans" and "Conservatives" appearing to defend something like "Romenycare"

Why do I have to explain?* Why as a citizen of the US would I have to explain that socialism and mandates are incompatible with our naturual rights, as set forth in the DOI, state Constitutions, and reiterated in the US Constitution?

Why would the "burden of proof" EVER be on the individual to show he has a right to basic individual and economic liberty, rather than on the state to prove it has the power to take it away? What country is this?
Why don't you have to explain?

I would really like if you could consider what it means that you have to ask that question. Somewhere, there is an area within the Constitution that enumerates limits on state power. It seems to me one must be thoroughly versed those clauses, their historical meaning, the comments made at the Constitutional Convention and within the state legislature debates at the rime of ratification - BEFORE pronouncing the opinion you stated. It would be nice to know you sampled some of the data on your way to a conclusion. Ms. Coulter is just as conclusionary as you - no unalienable right.

First of all, I have no idea how you got onto taxation, but more importantly, what is the purpose of government in all our founding documents?

I wasn't planning to. The only thing I have ever "used" from the Preamble is "we the people," is not the same thing as 'we the states., BTW, "we the people," is the phrase Patrick Henry was objecting to, when Madison gave the answer I quoted from earlier; which is part and parcel of why Henry (and Mason) voted against ratification. But thanks, that's a fifth place the Constitution is the source of my conclusions and opinions.

If you are construing anything in my posts in this thread (or any other I can think of) to advocate an expansion of ANY central government power, and thus a denial of rights; you are reading it backwards.

*FWIW, I created a thread with a poll. A little over half, had a similar opinion to yours - but none of them could really explain it. Maybe something in that thread will stimulate you to respond.
http://chat.anncoulter.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=113692&hilit=unalienable

Mandates to purchase insurance at the state level have nothing to do with socialized medicine. Such mandates have no effect on the means of production, distribution, or exchange of healthcare. Enforcement of such mandates are no more socialistic than taxation. Fines are routinely assessed at the state level for the failure of a citizen to meet civil obligations, such as carrying liability insurance during construction, workers compensation for employees, operating automobiles, posting bonds. In the case of a parking violation, local governments fine you for failing to pay for a parking space. They can and often do seize your property( with a tow ) for failing to meet that obligation. It is ludicrous to suggest that local and state governments are violating the constitution when they fine you for failing to meet a financial obligation. It is just as ludicrous to suggest such mandates have the effect of socializing the industry to which they apply. State governments routinely set standards, limits, and mandates on many industries: farming, oil and gas, construction, repair and maintenance, manufacturing, and insurance, to name a few.

None of this is intended to suggest Romneycare was just a mandate requiring citizens to carry insurance. Romneycare became socialized medicine when it set up state-controlled insurance pools, and expanded coverage, while limiting premium increases. These acts do effect the production, distribution, or exchange of healthcare, and go far beyond a simple state-requirement to carry insurance.

Careful, you going to end up in the state's rights debate and the neo Cofederate charge will be flung at you.

If you go one step deeper...it is an error of the people to not fight off or accept these issues at the state level.

The ideals are in the DOI and Constitution, the same ideals are included in most of the state's constitutions.

On the one hand we conservatives argue that the enumerated and un enumerated rights are not to be infringed upon or interfered with such as the 1st or 2nd amendment. Can we then argue the issues both ways and agree at the state level that taking of property by mandate, tax or otherwise is perfectly congruent with our founding ideals?

You cannot logically make the argument that Social Security or medicare or other entitlement is constitutional and Obamacare is not.

What you are in effect doing is partially accepting the progressive socialist left 's premise when you accept at the state level mandates, laws, fees, takings or taxes which are prohibited at the federal level.

Further if you take the premise to the ninth degree that a State is autonomous and can radically depart from the social and government norms of the other 49 states you have a prescription for dis union and disaster.

You don't have to do anything. But I posted the 10th ammendment as proof that powers not specifically delegated to the fed govt is an issue for the states or the individual, and that applies here because the fed consitution does not give the feds power to stop states from mandates/taxation. You seemed to think it meant something different, I was asking you to clarify. If you don't want to then fine. But it means you have not refuted my assertion that is backed up by the wording and purpose of the 10th ammendment.



You are not debating the state you are debating me. The burdon of proof here is with the person making the assertions. I have explained mine. I'll expain it again. The 10th ammendment says that powers not delegated to the feds reside in the state or the individual. Since mandates/taxes and health care are not listed in the fed constitution, it becomes a state or individual issue. If mandates are rejected on constitutional grounds they will reappear as taxes. Nothing in the fed constitution gives the fed govt the power to stop the states from taxation.


That is your clarification, "somewhere"?



I commend your stalwart support of liberty. But I think it is you that is misreading intent here. My intent is not to support mandates or socialism at either the state or fed level.

As broganjoe stated, states tax us for services not handled by the feds all the time. By equating state power and fed power in this issue, and you do that when you argue Romneycare = Obamacare despite the 10th ammendment, you are devaluing the concept of federalism, a very important aspect of limited govt principles.

If you don't understand that by now then it serves me no purpose to explain further, and I bid you "Good day".

Good points.

My answer to that is yes we can and should oppose mandates at the state level because they are collectivist, govt-centered actions and not market solutions. They appear as solutions due to prior govt intervention into the market, and will not fix our problems but lead to the appearance that further govt-centric solutions are necessary. In general we may agree to some collectivist actions to provide a safety net, but a basic principle of limited govt is that further expansions of govt power must be argued on their own grounds and as separate issues.

Are state mandates federally constitutional? Ultimately, unfortunately, the answer is yes, if the state constitutional allows it, because even if we overturn them federally (so far that has not happened I don't think) they will return as state taxes, which the fed govt has little power over.

Are fed mandates constitutional? I would say no, because the fed constitution does not grant the fed govt the power to force citizens to buy a product, even if it is for their own good. However, when/if that mandates comes back as a tax we will lose that battle as taxes are constitutional. But we can argue against fed mandates/taxes as a huge step increase in fed power for an issue not specifically mentioned in the constitution, because it violates limited govt principles, and it is not market based.

The fed power to fund Social Security and such is in the power to tax, no one is going to oppose the money coming back to them. Conservatives will lose the battle if they base arguments on constitutionality there. And since these programs are widely accepted we will get hammered in the court of public opinion if we oppose them outright. Better to show they should be of limited scope. That is much easier to do considering the shape of those programs.

Joe,
No wonder you like health care mandates. You argue by issuing mandates.

Oh, so having the government telling insurers and doctors what to produce, for whom to produce and how much to produce (and at what price) is not socialism.

Sorry, you can't mandate the truth away.

There are few logical problems here.

First, I don’t recognize your interpretation of the word mandate, or your equating it with tax. A mandate is simply an order, a law or regulation – legal or otherwise, from government. Everything in the Constitution is a mandate. When Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law” about (establishment, exercise of) religion, for example. It is a mandate that no subsequent Congress may make a mandate regarding religion. Tax has nothing to do with it, per se. So, when you say there is nothing in the Constitution about mandates, it doesn’t make any sense to me, because it is about 15-20 pages long and the whole thing is mandates, including mandates about mandates.

Second, specific to the Tenth does not say something “becomes…an individual issue.” It says retained rights, you know, those rights that “governments are instituted” to secure? Unalienable rights? Your above quoted passage and other descriptions of this, are not just missing one of the three puzzle pieces, you are missing the one Madison says of this is the largest, “the great residuum” of rights.

In fact, there really is nothing in the Tenth that isn’t already clear in the Articles or the history leading up to this point, (which is why Madison and other Federalists argued the Bill of Rights was unnecessary duplication). The Tenth merely notes what the articles already make explicit: that the people (via mostly Art I, Section 8) delegated only SOME of the “just powers” of “government” the central government. For example, the central government is not authorized to keep a land title registry – a necessary and legitimate government function to protect private property. I don’t know the source of your interpretation – some power to the central government, the rest of the power to the states, and zero residuum of retained rights to the people. "We the people" in "establishing" the Constitution and its Tenth Amendment referred to our "reserved" rights because they were delegated to neither the central government, nor the states (and if unalienable means unalienable, those rights can't be delegated).

I wish you could be specific about where you get "intent" from, because if you could show that coming from an appropriate source, I'd have to recognize it. And secoond, since the “somewhere” is parts of the Constitution that you don't seem familiar with, you don’t know don’t really know what I am reading, so there is no real basis for you to say I am misreading it.

On the other hand, I find your reading of the Tenth problematic for the reasons I gave. Your “individual issues” simply doesn’t appear there. You chopped off the third leg of the triangle: unalienable rights, Madison’s “great residuum.” You have offered no way around the idea that the Federalists though the Bill and thus the Tenth was unnecessary – and without that, I don’t see how you articulate your argument without it. And finally, you’ll just never find any founder or framer agreeing with you.

You say you stated the “purpose” of the Tenth. I am not quite sure what is your source for that or exactly what you think that purpose is. If you could actually cite a single source, of any founder or relevant document indicating the unalienable rights are not unalienable I come by knowledge by starting with the First Continental Congress’s resolution that the individual colonies form governments so that they could become states, and go forward through all relevant documents and history to the creation of the Constitution. As I move forward to the drafting of the Constitution and ratification hearings, I find no one saying what you say – that unalienable rights are alienable by states. It was actually the state governments that first adopted the principles, and in some cases, the literal text of the Declaration of Independence.

I'll try once more using examples, but at this point I'm not sure why.

I am afraid that your stand for liberty will be seen by many as simply a stand for the liberty to free ride on the health care system. At that point we are libale to lose our argument in the court of public opinion and in the courts.

Just as we lost our "freedom to associate" because it was seen as the freedom to discriminate against those of a different religion/color/race.

Just as we lost our "freedom of contract", because it was seen as the freedom to pay slave wages to children.

Heck, the federalism in the form of "states rights" has almost been lost due to the civil war (seen as the right to keep slaves) and encroaching fed govt, even with the 10th ammendment in place.

These lost freedoms and rights were not specifically mentioned in the constitution and therefore were subject to being infringed upon. Yes I know it works backwards to the way a free country should work, with a fed govt limited to certain powers. But it is the way it DOES work, as shown time and time again. The SCOTUS took a "right to privacy", not specifically mentioned in the constitution btw, and completely turned it on its head, allowing the murder of the unborn!

And I think the framers saw this kind of govt encroachment coming and although they could not list all our natural, unalienable rights, they could list a few of the most important ones that needed protecting above all, in the form of the ammendments.

The difference in this debate over mandates is that people are comparing Romneycare and Obamacare, which while they are similar in many aspects and should both be rejected, they are not completely equal, and that inequality needs to be pointed out. And that is true because Romneycare is a state program with a state mandate, and Obamacare is a federal program with a federal mandate. And the 10th ammendment says there is a difference.

You seem to want to blur the differences as calling them both "socialism". Well what do you think our military works under, free-market capitalism? Our fire service, schools or highway programs? ALL govt programs have collectivist methods, are you rejecting those? So unless you are ready to become an anarchist, you had better have a stronger philosophical backstop for limited govt than calling everything proposed "socialism".

And in this case, that better philosophical argument is plain as day, written in actual clear, plain words in the ammendments to the constitution for all to read and understand easily. It is the 10th ammendment. It says that any power not specifically mentioned in the constitution as a power for the feds, and not prohibited to the states by the fed constitution, is a matter for the states, or the people.

So the federal govt simply does not have the constitutional power for the Obamacare mandate. But a state can have the power.

Finally!!!! Someone is talking about the real issue... Insurance! Not surprised it's Ann. Here's what she missed.... Abortions cost $250 because they are NOT covered by insurance... Once they are, and there is no incentive to shop around, and "the government" is paying for them, they will cost $5,000. Why is it that the cost of Lasik surgery goes DOWN every year, and the cost of an MRI skyrockets? The former is not covered by insurance, the latter is. Please, Ann, blog on this!!!!

If the examples would address any of valid and sound questions I asked, there would be reason why: starting with what is your source of the idea that even though the 10th (and 9th while we are at it) amendment(s) say “we the people of the United States” retain our rights – that we actually don’t? You still haven't answered that question, but at least I know why now.

The Tenth clearly divvies up rights (power) among three entiites. You interpretation of it divvies up rights between two entities, leaving nothing reserved for the third entity. That just doesn't pass muster in terms grammar, syntax or basic arithmetic. And I wonder if you even sense that the entirety of your argument consists of repeated that tortured reading over and over, and acting surprised if someone else can't see the "plain language."

Well, that explains it. You’re a Confederate (which I distinguish somewhat from Conservatism, but with some overlap) – still longing for your lost so-called “right” to keep slaves. Didn’t you get the memo? It’s in Alexander Stephens “Cornerstone” speech. He explained the Founders had it wrong. OTOH, Conservatives believe the Founders had it right. The Confederacy, as Stepnens stated, was based on a rejection of the US founding principles: a rejection of equal rights, a rejection of the ideal that government is to protect unalienable rights, and an embrace of all-pwerful state-gvoernments. No wonder you have no problem with the “slavery” of Romneycare. No wonder you can only see 2/3rds of the Tenth amendment. What you are saying is all perfectly clear now.

I thought to comment earlier on your backward view of the Constitution – start in 2012, work your way back to the Tenth Amendment, and then stop. And now I know why. IMO, you live in the neo-invented fantasy world of imagining that those Confederate principles are actually the Founding Principles and principles the Constitution was based on. That's why you don't look at history frontwards. This is why you can’t quote any Founders to support you version of the Constitution. Now, it all makes perfect sense.

This is where “we the people” and the exchange over that between Madison and Henry at the Virginia ratification convention come in. Both men were right. This was the end of mere “confederation.” Now, there were new checks and balance: the rights of “we the people” were enforceable by a central government against a renegade state government denying unalienable rights (with slavery or Romneycare). Also, the states and people could be a check and balance against the central government. "We the people," (or persons) is exactly why your colleague Roger Taney thought he needed to opine that black people were not people. He had to, in effect, void that last third of 10th amendment, the same way you do by overlooking altogether. Oherwise blacks would have the same “retained” rights that “people” have under the Tenth (and in other "someplaces" in the Constitution that you don't see) as everyone else does. If Taney couldn't get rid of Dred Scott's Tenth amendment retained rights (or unelianable rights or whatever you want to call them), his opinion would have applied to ONLY Scott (no standing to bring suit), and would not protect and promote slavery in general. Taney wanted unchecked state power with respect to what would be alienable rights of an individual– a confederacy of totalitarian states. That seems to be what you want. This is why you have to limit your Constitutional references to 2/3 of one amendment (and Taney has to say "people" was a label that did not apply to blacks).

Only if you keep ignoring that the Tenth “retains” the unalienable rights of the people. But you need to hang on to that parsing. For the same reason Taney had to parse the Constitution to justify slavery, you need it to defend the “slavery” of Romneycare. In effect, we are in agreement, here. We both agree that in your mind, the Tenth protects state level slavery. That’s exactly why you keep chopping off the inconvenient “retained rights.”

I am not blurring the insignificant differences. For the last 50 years, we have called the European countries “socialist,” in large part because they had government-run healthcare. These “countries” are no bigger than our “states,” and now they are states in a European Union. But they are still just socialist. I thought in my opening post I clarified the insignificant difference perfectly: a union of socialist stated vs a united socialist state. Basically, no difference.

It’s funny to hear you say “plain words” NOW, after I pointed out several times that you omitted "the people.” You could at least give me the credit for honing your argument. Problem is, you still include no rights, even if you now pay homage to the "plain text," FWIW, it is equally plain as day and written actual clear plain words that the founder intended unalienable rights to be unalienable, and you think that state power negates every one of them – and that you cannot name any founders who thought they were writing what you think you are reading. It's not a pure confederacy any more.


As you weren’t sure why you should continue before, you should be sure why you should not continue now.

And he went right ahead and spoke of the "lost...right to keep slaves." If the shoe fits, eh Monti? (But I didn't say "neo.") In a debate on "states rights" whether one is a Confederate or a Constitutionalist would depend on whose theory one is adopting. And FWIW, in real history both sides in the slavery debate used federal power and state power to advance their cause. It's only since then the, "Neo-Confederate" version of "states rights" was born.

Next thing you know, someone defending the goodness of Romneycare will have the charge socialist flung at them.

But that's OK, I called all sorts of things flung at me, like anarchist, that aren't true - while arguing that the federal govt has the power to enforce the Constitution, no less. The most important thing about labelling is that it be accurate. Right, Monti?

I don't have the slightest notion where the "source of the idea" comes from. I never made such a supposition.

And the 10th ammendment does not mention rights, it delegates powers!



It does not "divy up rights" at all! It delegates powers. Some ammendments mention rights, but none "divy up rights". The whole notion of "divy up rights" is absurd to discuss on a conservative forum. Rights are unalienable!

You are basically saying that I am arguing the 10th ammendment leaves the people with no rights, when I was talking about federalism, which is a completely asinine twisting of my words.

You have no freaking idea what I am longing for!! And since you completely miss the simple point that I have tried very carefully to make several times, it seems clear you can't even understand what I am writing.


I have criticized and rejected it repeatedly in this thread!!! I can handle your ignorance and your misquoting the constitution and your lack of understanding the simple point I am making about federalism because your heart seems to be in the right place. But I can't freaking stand your annoying constant assertions that I approve of Romneycare when I have repeatedly criticized it!

I rest my case. In effect, I am arguing that you are making up law, not reading your one sentence as written, and not reading anything else either - and coming up with something that wasn't agreed to at the original ratification of anytihng. If you are speaking from a source, then you must be making it up - because you certainly are not operating within the confines of the literal text of your one favorite sentence.

You say you are not defending Romneycare, but rather reject it. Calling it Constitutional and finding that it violates no unalienable rights sure sounds like a defense to me - especially that my 'attack' on it is that is not consistent with the Constitution (either US or Massachusetts) because it violates and will violate rights in perpetuity, as mandate after mandate is declared right to the point of the old "death panels."

You called them states' RIGHTS, not states' powers in referring to the Tenth. You want to swich to states' powers now? OK. The semantics don't matter to me.

First, who said this is conservative forum? It's open to the public. I find quite a few people on here that don't sound conservative to me. They say things like "Three Cheers for Romneycare." They are defending, in one way or another, socialized medecine.

Second, if you prefer, divvy up "power" instead of rights, that's OK. And "absurd" as that sounds to you, it is exactly what the constituion does. Exectutive, legislative, judicial power are "divvied" up, or, "delegated" if you prefer.

Leaves the people with no rights with respect to the state governments - hence they can be made slaves or forced to all sorts of things against their will under something like Romneycare; hence your bemoaning lost federalism in the form of the "lost...right to keep slaves."

You have repeated your formulation of the Tenth (whie ignoring everything else) several times - that since Romneycare is not specifically prohibited to the states, it is Constitutional. Is that not your view? So, what is it you find a prohibition against the state government when it comes to a civil right, natural right, inalienable right, etc. in the original constitution and bill, and where do you find it?

I certainly appreciate the patience you have shown with my "ignorance."