Posted on 05/06/2012 9:27:44 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The five conservative justices on the Supreme Court -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy -- cloak themselves in the myth that they are somehow channeling the wisdom and understanding of the Founding Fathers, the original intent that guided the drafting of the Constitution. I believe the premise of their argument is itself suspect: It is not clear how much weight should be given to non-textually based intent that is practically impossible to discern more than 200 years later. Most of the issues over which there is constitutional dispute today could not even have been envisioned when the document was drafted.
Those opposing the bill insist that an individual mandate has never been done and the framers would simply not permit such an encroachment on liberty and freedom.
These examples show the fallacy and the false rigidity that the originalists seek to impose on our government. In their effort to cabin and restrain the government they seek to have the benefit of the claim that the founders shared such a limited approach to governing. In fact, the approach to governing that these acts demonstrate is more nuanced and thoughtful.
As with so many of the claims of the originalists, a slight understanding of the true history shows that the originalists’ view is mere ideology being imposed on a false understanding of history.
(Excerpt) Read more at columbian.com ...
Hey Eliot the founding fathers of this country would have had most of you and your ilk hanging from a gallows or shot without reservation.
Let me guess Client #9. It’s just wishful thinking on your part to keep your costs down with free condoms.
Eliot the Idiot BUMP!
What about the whores Eliot? What do they think?
Did "medical insurance" even exist in 1790?
In that era, medical care consisted pretty-much of amputations, splinting, and "bleeding".
None of which would require "medical insurance".
If anything, he's probably referring to a rule that shipowners would be responsible for the medical care of their "employees".
The founders of the Soviet Union would like Obamacare — but not America’s foudners. What a maroon and a man of low repute!
Spitzer says: The Supreme Court justices think they’re channelling the founding fathers. But only I can channel the founding fathers.
Someone give this parasite a voucher so he can get laid, please. Everything’s backed up and clogging the arteries to his brain.
Anybody who pays 3k for a piece of a$$, can’t be too bright.
Splitzer is so monumentally stupid, no wonder he had to pay hookers 4K to jump in the sack with him. WADDAPUTZ
This rag has a circulation of 42,000.
He was given a pass for two federal crimes associated with his procurement of high priced prostitutes.
It has become a new trend for small farms to be prosecuted for bundling payments in an attempt to avoid filling out paperwork. Spitzer bundled payments to avoid scrutiny of what his money was paying for. Additionally he was guilty of transporting women across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. That is one of the longest standing human trafficking laws in this country, but remember it is Republicans that are waging a war on women.
Spitzer another POS lawyer who should have assumed room temperature years ago.
Whatever university ed-ju-ma-kated this moron must never have covered the Federalist Papers.
If Elliot had EARNED his law degree he should have known of the Owner’s Manual for the Constitution but like most lying liberals they can never admit these documents exist as they would tend to disprove everything these communists try to sneak by us. The university he attended should be investigated for failing to provide a proper education.
Indeed just started reading it and this one line all too common from the loony left stuck me again: “Most of the issues over which there is constitutional dispute today could not even have been envisioned when the document was drafted.”
The left seem to have a hard time comprehending the concept that if an issue is not cover in the Federal Constitution then that issue must be addressed by either the people or their states NOT Washington.
The Federal Government is suppose to be a Constitutional government meaning a Government of limited & defined powers and responsibly. That means in no uncertain terms it is not suppose to address any other issues!
You want to add issues to any government your going to dilute your ability to control that government’s control over all existing issues. As individuals people uses to have 100% of the vote over that issue.
Now they just have 1 vote every 2 years which they have to split with not only 300+ million other people but hundredths of other competing “issues”
IF I remember correctly, there was an article about this maybe on FR. Anyways if I recall correctly the law was taken away because of long term care and how long exactly did an employee needed to be taken care of by their respective employers. Any ways the fund ran out of money and it became highly unpopular after that and the law was repealed.
Kind of like how Bummer’s law is going to become highly expensive and run the gov’t out of money. If we don’t redact the current Healthcare law it will be the death of us all including the country.
IF I remember correctly, there was an article about this maybe on FR. Anyways if I recall correctly the law was taken away because of long term care and how long exactly did an employee needed to be taken care of by their respective employers. Any ways the fund ran out of money and it became highly unpopular after that and the law was repealed.
Kind of like how Bummer’s law is going to become highly expensive and run the gov’t out of money. If we don’t redact the current Healthcare law it will be the death of us all including the country.
That's really a he** of a thing to say about all those nice folks in New York state.
However, this little bit just proves that Client Number 9 can't preach politics any better than he can pick a date.
Stick a fork in him.
He's done.
“Eliot, why do we have to listen to your drivel?”
I don’t know but we should nonetheless address his examples supposing they exist as he said they did,and they did not.
We will start with the 1792 militia act:
Eliot said: “
In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm. (So much for the claim Congress can’t force us to participate in commerce.)
“
See the militia Clause Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15.
It was under this clause that congress supposed the power to arm the population it regarded as militia.
Eliot said: “
In 1790, a Congress including 20 founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it into law.
“
Eliot said: “
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation.
“
In both theses acts applied only to ship & sailors NOT the general intrastate population. indeed The first 1790 act only applied specifically to ships of 10 person or more going to foreign ports without medicine on board, and constituted an employment compensation requirement for said sailors.
It is worth noting that the 2nd and admittedly more aggressive act was of course passed by the same congress that passed & signed the Alien & sedition acts. It too however was limited only to sailors actually crossing state lines by way of sea in the coarse of their work.
The Individual mandate does not care whether or not you have ever left your state much less are are employees on a commercial maritime vessel leaving your state for anther state in the business of transporting goods to be sold in other states.
If his arguments are so good, why didn’t they voice them before the court? If the laws he cites are so applicable, why not? Whatever happened to these laws? Were they repealed? Did the court strike them down?
Read post #37. Theses “laws” were/are not what Spitzer said they were.
They did not apply to the general intrastate population only the militia & sailors & licence seeking ship owners leaving their State to trade with other States.
Among other issues was also the fact that the most agrevise of theses acts the tax upon sailors which in this case given the specific nature of their work is more of an interstate tariff. Was proposed, passed and signed by the same congress who are responsible for the similarly intrusive alien & sedition acts.
The Federalist in congress as time went by gave less and less concern to the rights of the people.
The Left is still working to paint the Constitution as Outdated and no longer germane...
Why? because its always in their way
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
