JACK75287 posts what passes for praise of the Republican health care bill from a so-called ‘conservative’ — yet more hatred of Obamacare.
Nothing about any aspect of the Republican bill. You know, after all these years of claiming repeal and replace, it’s almost as if the so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t like it either, but they have NO IDEA of what to do.
They ‘tried’ 50 or 60 times to repeal Obamacare when they could not do it. Now that it’s completely within their power, why don’t they just repeal it?
I mean, things were great before Obamacare, right? Everyone had total freedom, total coverage, and premiums never increased.
This is a failure of the two opposing parties system to form a government that actually promotes the general welfare for “We the People”.
Question: Can anyone show the part of the Constitution that insists on bickering, name-calling, and paralysis instead of deliberation reconciliation of differences, and compromise to create legislation that might not be anyone’s desired solution, but excludes no one?
" …
In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison’s philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton’s interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would “naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.” The Court then obliquely confided,“[H]ow great is the extent of that range … we need hardly remark.” “[D]espite the breadth of the legislative discretion,” the Court continued, “our duty to hear and to render judgment remains.” The Court then rendered the federal agricultural spending program at issue invalid under the Tenth Amendment.
ahab almost 7 years ago
This is the Republican’s failure, no one else!
braindead Premium Member almost 7 years ago
JACK75287 posts what passes for praise of the Republican health care bill from a so-called ‘conservative’ — yet more hatred of Obamacare.
Nothing about any aspect of the Republican bill. You know, after all these years of claiming repeal and replace, it’s almost as if the so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t like it either, but they have NO IDEA of what to do.
They ‘tried’ 50 or 60 times to repeal Obamacare when they could not do it. Now that it’s completely within their power, why don’t they just repeal it?
I mean, things were great before Obamacare, right? Everyone had total freedom, total coverage, and premiums never increased.
superposition almost 7 years ago
This is a failure of the two opposing parties system to form a government that actually promotes the general welfare for “We the People”.
Question: Can anyone show the part of the Constitution that insists on bickering, name-calling, and paralysis instead of deliberation reconciliation of differences, and compromise to create legislation that might not be anyone’s desired solution, but excludes no one?
" …
In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison’s philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton’s interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would “naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.” The Court then obliquely confided,“[H]ow great is the extent of that range … we need hardly remark.” “[D]espite the breadth of the legislative discretion,” the Court continued, “our duty to hear and to render judgment remains.” The Court then rendered the federal agricultural spending program at issue invalid under the Tenth Amendment.
…"
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/common+good
Mr. Blawt almost 7 years ago
lol they rushed the health care bill AND colluded with Russia to sway a presidential election.