Isn't Universal Health care guaranteed in the Constitution?

[Kitsura Kura]

Thought the preamble holds no actual legal power, I think it represents what the was originally intended for the constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


I believe this alone says that the people have the right to determine what is "general welfare" so privatized health company's outside of the governments influence would be the only ones that have the right to establish a health care system. However the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 over steped its bonds (In my opinion) by implemnting this in there bill

"(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act (7 U.S.C. 227(b)), from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

Source: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148712.htm

This directly subverted the purpose of the constitution which was to give the power to the people. If congress has simply opened the borders between states for health care prices would have dropped significantly and more people would have coverage /job's from all the branch offices opening up.

But to get back on topic, No i dont not think the constitution supports a Government run health program. However Citizen run Health care is within our rights of the constitution.

[agrab0ekim]

mitoguard

.

agrab

well then, states have the right to kill their people under the 10th (not under the 14th, damnit)
and, states have the right to leave under the 10th
and i have the right to kill without punishment under the 9th

just because it reserves rights does not mean that there are more rights

This is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard you say. I can't even begin to guess at what neurons misfired to produce the grotesque caricature of reasoning that led you to say this.

I believe that you are looking at it without the context. My argument was a responce to him explaining that because it is not defined, then they have that right. I responded with other undefined areas, indicating a similar logic reasoning. Personally, I do not believe that either of the three statements is correct.

[agrab0ekim]

Zealth, you should be more pissed at state constitutions which make it a right than the federal one that leaves it up to the states

[agrab0ekim]

Kitsura Kura

Thought the preamble holds no actual legal power, I think it represents what the was originally intended for the constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


I believe this alone says that the people have the right to determine what is "general welfare" so privatized health company's outside of the governments influence would be the only ones that have the right to establish a health care system. However the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 over steped its bonds (In my opinion) by implemnting this in there bill

"(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act (7 U.S.C. 227(b)), from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

Source: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148712.htm

This directly subverted the purpose of the constitution which was to give the power to the people. If congress has simply opened the borders between states for health care prices would have dropped significantly and more people would have coverage /job's from all the branch offices opening up.

But to get back on topic, No i dont not think the constitution supports a Government run health program. However Citizen run Health care is within our rights of the constitution.

The first problem is that general welfare is the security and well being of the nation, not the common term today
The constitution doesnt give power to the people, it gives it to the states. States can have state-wide mandated health care (10th), the people have no consitutional power to have it otherwise

[Kitsura Kura]

agrab0ekim

Kitsura Kura

Thought the preamble holds no actual legal power, I think it represents what the was originally intended for the constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


I believe this alone says that the people have the right to determine what is "general welfare" so privatized health company's outside of the governments influence would be the only ones that have the right to establish a health care system. However the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 over steped its bonds (In my opinion) by implemnting this in there bill

"(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act (7 U.S.C. 227(b)), from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

Source: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148712.htm

This directly subverted the purpose of the constitution which was to give the power to the people. If congress has simply opened the borders between states for health care prices would have dropped significantly and more people would have coverage /job's from all the branch offices opening up.

But to get back on topic, No i dont not think the constitution supports a Government run health program. However Citizen run Health care is within our rights of the constitution.

The first problem is that general welfare is the security and well being of the nation, not the common term today
The constitution doesnt give power to the people, it gives it to the states. States can have state-wide mandated health care (10th), the people have no consitutional power to have it otherwise

Then the line before General Welfare would be redundant. "Provide for the common Defense." I think you sir think the term Welfare was mutated in the last 100 years, when in fact the word welfare means Health and Prosperity. And not anywhere in that entire statement dose it say "We the representatives of the united states." This was made when there was no "standing government" to speak of, only ordinary citizens trying to form a union from segregated England. To say that it was to give powers to states rather than people is a bit of a stretch. The constitution itself is a limitation on what the government cant do to you.

(Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.)

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1

(Tenth Amendment: reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments

[Zealth]

agrab0ekim

Zealth, you should be more pissed at state constitutions which make it a right than the federal one that leaves it up to the states

No. It should be a right. States are good on that. My problem is that they have also made it a requirement to attend awful schools and limit people's mobility in avoiding those schools which should be shut down. They also limit the ability of those schools to correct their inadequate staff through tenure. I don't care what position you have, tenure is an awful idea.

The federal also makes no attempt to correct that even when it promises to do so. So I can be upset with both.

[agrab0ekim]

Kitsura Kura

agrab0ekim

Kitsura Kura

Thought the preamble holds no actual legal power, I think it represents what the was originally intended for the constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


I believe this alone says that the people have the right to determine what is "general welfare" so privatized health company's outside of the governments influence would be the only ones that have the right to establish a health care system. However the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 over steped its bonds (In my opinion) by implemnting this in there bill

"(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act (7 U.S.C. 227(b)), from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

Source: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148712.htm

This directly subverted the purpose of the constitution which was to give the power to the people. If congress has simply opened the borders between states for health care prices would have dropped significantly and more people would have coverage /job's from all the branch offices opening up.

But to get back on topic, No i dont not think the constitution supports a Government run health program. However Citizen run Health care is within our rights of the constitution.

The first problem is that general welfare is the security and well being of the nation, not the common term today
The constitution doesnt give power to the people, it gives it to the states. States can have state-wide mandated health care (10th), the people have no consitutional power to have it otherwise

Then the line before General Welfare would be redundant. "Provide for the common Defense." I think you sir think the term Welfare was mutated in the last 100 years, when in fact the word welfare means Health and Prosperity. And not anywhere in that entire statement dose it say "We the representatives of the united states." This was made when there was no "standing government" to speak of, only ordinary citizens trying to form a union from segregated England. To say that it was to give powers to states rather than people is a bit of a stretch. The constitution itself is a limitation on what the government cant do to you.

(Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.)

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1

(Tenth Amendment: reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments

General Welfare:

Quote:

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

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

While I agree that it gives some power to people, I beleive that it is meant to target people at a state voting level. As everything else is state based, it wouldn't make any sense to give power to the people under that amendment. Furthermore, I would interpret the 9th as the power of the people, which makes placement in the 10th illogical

[agrab0ekim]

Zealth

agrab0ekim

Zealth, you should be more pissed at state constitutions which make it a right than the federal one that leaves it up to the states

No. It should be a right. States are good on that. My problem is that they have also made it a requirement to attend awful schools and limit people's mobility in avoiding those schools which should be shut down. They also limit the ability of those schools to correct their inadequate staff through tenure. I don't care what position you have, tenure is an awful idea.

Tenure is very hard to get at lower levels, and they can still easily be removed. That said, I agree that there should be allowed mobility, but not state paid. Why should I pay for a special school, when one is all that anybody needs?

Quote:

The federal also makes no attempt to correct that even when it promises to do so. So I can be upset with both.

but they have no right to alter or correct

[Zealth]

Quote:

Tenure is very hard to get at lower levels, and they can still easily be removed. That said, I agree that there should be allowed mobility, but not state paid. Why should I pay for a special school, when one is all that anybody needs?

Depending on what state we are talking about, you are very ill informed. Tenured teachers are very difficult to get rid of. I hear untenured teachers chirping about how great their lives will be when they get tenure, hear about how awful their tenured peers are and how they should be removed, and have seen the difficulty in removing tenured professors who are uninterested in fulfilling their duties in teaching. It is VERY difficult to get rid of tenured teachers, especially if a teacher's union gets involved.

Quote:

but they have no right to alter or correct

They somehow managed to have the right to get involved when whites and blacks were being segregated. Making another leap like that would not be very difficult when it comes to public schools and their general failure to educate our young. I have a feeling if it were in their "best interest" it would somehow come about. However, that seems not to be the case.

[The Cunnilinguist]

Vercingetorix VII

A fine example is public education,

I'm bemused with the notion that anyone would consider American public "education" a fine example of anything, most especially of the positive aspects of the Ninth Amendment.

To all concerned: I'm just interested in "H. L. Menckening." Feel free to respond and expect no answers forthcoming.

[agrab0ekim]

Zealth

Quote:

Tenure is very hard to get at lower levels, and they can still easily be removed. That said, I agree that there should be allowed mobility, but not state paid. Why should I pay for a special school, when one is all that anybody needs?

Depending on what state we are talking about, you are very ill informed. Tenured teachers are very difficult to get rid of. I hear untenured teachers chirping about how great their lives will be when they get tenure, hear about how awful their tenured peers are and how they should be removed, and have seen the difficulty in removing tenured professors who are uninterested in fulfilling their duties in teaching. It is VERY difficult to get rid of tenured teachers, especially if a teacher's union gets involved.

You mean district, not state. For my area, Tenure was a 20 year thing and they could be removed by a super-majority vote of the board. Only 2 more votes needed than a normal teacher (save emergency removal for s**t)
also, they are evaluated and can be removed by bad peer-review

Quote:

but they have no right to alter or correct

Quote:

They somehow managed to have the right to get involved when whites and blacks were being segregated. Making another leap like that would not be very difficult when it comes to public schools and their general failure to educate our young. I have a feeling if it were in their "best interest" it would somehow come about. However, that seems not to be the case.

Desegregation was due to the 14th, not due to a governmental law

[Dermezel]

To quote our Founding Fathers when considering the idea of leaving security and commerce up to individual states:

Quote:

The Same Subject Continued
(Other Defects of the Present Confederation)
From the New York Packet.
Friday, December 14, 1787.
Alexander Hamilton*

Suppose, for instance, we were engaged in a war, in conjunction with one foreign nation, against another. Suppose the necessity of our situation demanded peace, and the interest or ambition of our ally led him to seek the prosecution of the war, with views that might justify us in making separate terms. In such a state of things, this ally of ours would evidently find it much easier, by his bribes and intrigues, to tie up the hands of government from making peace, where two thirds of all the votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case, he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last, a greater number. Upon the same principle, it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And, in a commercial view, we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade, though such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.

Evils of this description ought not to be regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption. An hereditary monarch, though often disposed to sacrifice his subjects to his ambition, has so great a personal interest in the government and in the external glory of the nation, that it is not easy for a foreign power to give him an equivalent for what he would sacrifice by treachery to the state. The world has accordingly been witness to few examples of this species of royal prostitution, though there have been abundant specimens of every other kind.

In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments. How much this contributed to the ruin of the ancient commonwealths has been already delineated. It is well known that the deputies of the United Provinces have, in various instances, been purchased by the emissaries of the neighboring kingdoms. The Earl of Chesterfield (if my memory serves me right), in a letter to his court, intimates that his success in an important negotiation must depend on his obtaining a major's commission for one of those deputies. And in Sweden the parties were alternately bought by France and England in so barefaced and notorious a manner that it excited universal disgust in the nation, and was a principal cause that the most limited monarch in Europe, in a single day, without tumult, violence, or opposition, became one of the most absolute and uncontrolled.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

What Hamilton is noting here is that individual states, disunited, would be at a strategic disadvantage to monarchs and other foreign powers which would seek to induce conflict or subvert the states by means of bribery. A united monarchy could bribe one state against another state, or defeat them one by one, whereas such could not be done with a more centralized and united Republic. This is one of the reasons I love the Founding Fathers- they were not the fuzzy headed dogmatists the GOP tries to make them out to be- they were strategic, radical minded intellectuals who took various tactical considerations into account when making a decision.

These same arguments against being disunited in the face of monarchy, apply now at days to the modern day concentration of private, and arbitrary power- that of the corporation- which has clearly shown itself more then willing to trample individual rights and the general welfare for what it considers its own private good.

If the decision as to whether or not corporations can be regulated is just left up to the states, and furthermore, this is even more enhanced by letting the corporation decide which laws of which state it wishes to follow at what time, what exactly is to stop it from playing one state against another, or following one set of laws when convenient, and not another, or just selecting the state which is the easiest t prey upon and manipulate and who's laws are most easily abused, and using that state as a home basis by which to bypass the laws of other states?

The GOP Bill, which lets corporations choose which states to "base" themselves in, and allows them to only be subject to that particular state's regional laws, is nothing but a way of giving a specific company more power then even the individual state. The company can move to Texas, and by claiming that is its base, then declare itself immune to various laws in California. That basically just means the people in California suddenly lose their ability to determine their own commerce and regulate their own economy. It is effectively the privatization of power.

Who honestly can't see that this call for "leaving it up to the states" is basically a divide and conquer strategy for those who prefer corporatism over democracy?

*

Quote:

The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

[mitoguard]

Zealth

Imagine you are a poor man living in a poor area of a state in a certain section of the city and you have no available funds to leave this area. You also have a child. A) in most states this child is required to be educated up to a certain age. B) You are in a district zone and have no other way to send your child to school than to continue to send that child to a public funded school C) This school is in a poor area and does not give adequate funding to the school via state contributions or private fund raising. You are stuck. No private school can enter the area because they must profit and homeschooling is not an option because you are too busy trying to put food on the table. Your liberty is indeed restricted by circumstance and a broken governmental system that refuses to adjust itself, is cornered by a very powerful teacher's union and finds it acceptable to allow the current system to go on.

My liberty to what, though? Do you object to the law obliging me to educate my child, or the lack of educational opportunities in the county? Is it my liberty to keep my son (or daughter) at home and uneducated that is being infringed or my liberty -- though to call it a liberty seems quite peculiar -- to educate my child? If the latter, then doesn't your complaint, that public school fails to provide a quality education and private school is unaffordable presuppose an affirmative right to, you know, education? If the former, well, why is there a right to keep your child at home and uneducated?

Quote:

Quote:

And? Are you saying the government restricts your freedom to use the services it provides under whatever conditions you would like? I'm reasonably certain that's not a right protected by the Constitution. Many public schools allow students to attend if you pay out-of-district tuition, you know. Have you considered private school? I'm not really sure what right or freedom, exactly, you're seeing infringed.

Oh, I'm absolutely saying that private school should be an option, but governments purposely restrict that level of competition by allowing only public institutions to be fully funded by the government and not by democratic choice.

What do you mean by this?

Quote:

Certainly I don't want to use the awful public schools that I could, but what choice do I have if I am poor?

The choice of unaffordable private schools (which you cannot really choose) or poor quality public schools. In the absence of public schools, you would have the choice of unaffordable private schools (which you cannot really choose) or nothing.

Quote:

Even attempting to go out of district and paying out of district tuition? What kind of discrimination is that?

The kind based upon schools receiving funding for the population living in the district, and not funding in anticipation of people from other districts wanting to attend.

Quote:

It's a damned good way to keep people segregated across class lines and disallow truly intelligent people born from unfortunate circumstance to cross into the upper threshold of society.

And? Why is this a problem? There's no right to education.

Quote:

What I'm really advocating is freedom of choice when it comes to funds from the government. They can choose to provide those funds, but people should have a choice as to where their children end up going to school, allowing the rot to die and the new growth to prosper.

So...there is no right to education, contra the belief of the ignorant masses. Foolish pursuit of this "right" has led to the state government setting up public schools, which prevent the normal competition like we would expect from markets with considerable barriers to entry, this in turn results in the underprovision of educational opportunity, a clear violation of our...right to quality education.

I'm... kind of lost.

Agrab

I believe that you are looking at it without the context. My argument was a responce to him explaining that because it is not defined, then they have that right. I responded with other undefined areas, indicating a similar logic reasoning. Personally, I do not believe that either of the three statements is correct.

I wasn't talking about your examples, I was talking about the idea that "just because [the Ninth Amendment] reserves rights does not mean that there are more rights." The text is perfectly obvious: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." On what possible grounds, but the belief that the Bill of Rights did not provide an exhaustive list, would such an amendment be included? Why should we construe the Ninth Amendment, as you suggest, as being without effect or meaning? The notion that the explicit reservation of rights not listed by name in the Bill of Rights does not mean that there are rights contained in the Bill of Rights other than those listed by name. I will grant that "it means exactly what it says!" is a simplistic system of Constitutional interpretation, but what on Earth am I to make of "It means exactly the opposite of what it says!"?

[agrab0ekim]

Dermezel

To quote our Founding Fathers when considering the idea of leaving security and commerce up to individual states:

Quote:

The Same Subject Continued
(Other Defects of the Present Confederation)
From the New York Packet.
Friday, December 14, 1787.
Alexander Hamilton*

Suppose, for instance, we were engaged in a war, in conjunction with one foreign nation, against another. Suppose the necessity of our situation demanded peace, and the interest or ambition of our ally led him to seek the prosecution of the war, with views that might justify us in making separate terms. In such a state of things, this ally of ours would evidently find it much easier, by his bribes and intrigues, to tie up the hands of government from making peace, where two thirds of all the votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case, he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last, a greater number. Upon the same principle, it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And, in a commercial view, we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade, though such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.

Evils of this description ought not to be regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption. An hereditary monarch, though often disposed to sacrifice his subjects to his ambition, has so great a personal interest in the government and in the external glory of the nation, that it is not easy for a foreign power to give him an equivalent for what he would sacrifice by treachery to the state. The world has accordingly been witness to few examples of this species of royal prostitution, though there have been abundant specimens of every other kind.

In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments. How much this contributed to the ruin of the ancient commonwealths has been already delineated. It is well known that the deputies of the United Provinces have, in various instances, been purchased by the emissaries of the neighboring kingdoms. The Earl of Chesterfield (if my memory serves me right), in a letter to his court, intimates that his success in an important negotiation must depend on his obtaining a major's commission for one of those deputies. And in Sweden the parties were alternately bought by France and England in so barefaced and notorious a manner that it excited universal disgust in the nation, and was a principal cause that the most limited monarch in Europe, in a single day, without tumult, violence, or opposition, became one of the most absolute and uncontrolled.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

What Hamilton is noting here is that individual states, disunited, would be at a strategic disadvantage to monarchs and other foreign powers which would seek to induce conflict or subvert the states by means of bribery. A united monarchy could bribe one state against another state, or defeat them one by one, whereas such could not be done with a more centralized and united Republic. This is one of the reasons I love the Founding Fathers- they were not the fuzzy headed dogmatists the GOP tries to make them out to be- they were strategic, radical minded intellectuals who took various tactical considerations into account when making a decision.

These same arguments against being disunited in the face of monarchy, apply now at days to the modern day concentration of private, and arbitrary power- that of the corporation- which has clearly shown itself more then willing to trample individual rights and the general welfare for what it considers its own private good.

If the decision as to whether or not corporations can be regulated is just left up to the states, and furthermore, this is even more enhanced by letting the corporation decide which laws of which state it wishes to follow at what time, what exactly is to stop it from playing one state against another, or following one set of laws when convenient, and not another, or just selecting the state which is the easiest t prey upon and manipulate and who's laws are most easily abused, and using that state as a home basis by which to bypass the laws of other states?

The GOP Bill, which lets corporations choose which states to "base" themselves in, and allows them to only be subject to that particular state's regional laws, is nothing but a way of giving a specific company more power then even the individual state. The company can move to Texas, and by claiming that is its base, then declare itself immune to various laws in California. That basically just means the people in California suddenly lose their ability to determine their own commerce and regulate their own economy. It is effectively the privatization of power.

Who honestly can't see that this call for "leaving it up to the states" is basically a divide and conquer strategy for those who prefer corporatism over democracy?

*

Quote:

The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

How are security and/or commerce and healthcare in the same boat?

[BlueCollarJoe]

Because in Dermie's wonderful little lala land no one is lazy, they all work the same and want the same things, so ALL things must be equal. Including their willies size!