Truckers/American to strike

[rebel]

And here we go in circles. The commerce clause and Monroe doctrine pretty much voids the 10th amendment.

The purpose of the bill of rights was also to protect citizens from state and local governments. Not all laws are passed on a federal level.

You sure you want to stick by that interpretation of the 9th and 10th amendments?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

 

[THBatMan8]

You sure you want to stick by that interpretation of the 9th and 10th amendments?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

Read the damn amendments. That's EXACTLY what they mean.

How many times do I need to say: THE US IS A REPUBLIC AND NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!

Just because the Feds are limited doesn't mean state and local governments are. This is the main purpose of the bill of rights. It not only applies to the Feds, but also state and local governments in the union. The 9 th and 10 th amendments allow local governments to pass their own laws.

 

[rebel]

.........I did read them, as well as the rest of the Constitution, that's why I was puzzled as to how the narrowly stated commerce clause or the Monroe Doctrine (which isn't in the Constitution BTW) voids the 10th amendment?
Both have actually been used recently as the basis for the states to ignore or fight Obamacare, as an issue of state's rights.

 

[THBatMan8]

.........I did read them, as well as the rest of the Constitution, that's why I was puzzled as to how the narrowly stated commerce clause or the Monroe Doctrine (which isn't in the Constitution BTW) voids the 10th amendment?
Both have actually been used recently as the basis for the states to ignore or fight Obamacare, as an issue of state's rights.

Read the 10th amendment in its entirety. It allows states to pass their own regulations that the Feds aren't binded to by the constitution. The commerce clause allows the Feds to exert their authority over state and local laws, in certain circumstances. Health care is commerce, but the debate is whether or not it is interstate commerce.

 

[DubbleD]

 

[THBatMan8]

Again, people misinterpet the constitution because it wasn't written in MODERN ENGLISH. It was written over 200 years ago. If it was written more recently, the amendments and subsequent articles would have been worded differently. We also keep forgetting how vastly the way of life changed over the last 200 years, and how often the constitution was changed with it. You simply CANNOT take every word literally.

Also, none of you are going to change my 'opinion' (which I never stated in the first place), so stop trying.

 

[Duck]

Read the 10th amendment in its entirety. It allows states to pass their own regulations that the Feds aren't binded to by the constitution. The commerce clause allows the Feds to exert their authority over state and local laws, in certain circumstances. Health care is commerce, but the debate is whether or not it is interstate commerce.

Exactly. If you live in Indiana and you get sick in Indiana & go to a doctor in Indiana, that is not interstate commerce. And the feds have no right whatsoever to regulate it. They have no business requiring you to purchase health insurance either, regardless of whether you're buying health insurance across state lines. Regulate does not mean "force it to happen".

 

[rebel]

Exactly my point.
Regulate, can mean controlling price, prohibiting who the seller or purchaser is, or even outright banning. It has never meant the right to force an act of commerce to done.
And if we aren't meant to take the very serious words of the Constitution literally, does that mean they were only joking, or it was just a suggestion?
They didn't really mean what they said?

 

[DubbleD]

REBEL ______________________OTHER GUY

1 ___________________________ 0​

 

[Southern Fried]

The way I see it, trucking businesses that couldn't survive without a protection racket shouldn't have been in business in the first place. It sounds like that's all it was before "deregulation". Nothing but a protection racket operated by the government.

If I remember correctly, the ICC, regulations and all were instituted to protect the then small and emerging trucking companies from being forced under the control of the Railways who saw them as a threat to their freight hauling monopoly. The battles between truckers and the railways continued right up into and past WW2. It was one of the impetuses for Ike's Interstate system.

Shoot, up in Canada we had both major railways owning and operating trucking companies. Canadian Pacific bought Smith Transport and several others. Canadian National (owned by the Federal Govt) did the same. CN was heavily subsidized for years. CP got "tax breaks". Neither were available to privately owned truckers.

 

[j911brick]

Read the 10th amendment in its entirety. It allows states to pass their own regulations that the Feds aren't binded to by the constitution. The commerce clause allows the Feds to exert their authority over state and local laws, in certain circumstances. Health care is commerce, but the debate is whether or not it is interstate commerce.

I think it can be argued that health care, when it is socialized medicine, is not commerce.

 

[j911brick]

Again, people misinterpet the constitution because it wasn't written in MODERN ENGLISH. It was written over 200 years ago. If it was written more recently, the amendments and subsequent articles would have been worded differently. We also keep forgetting how vastly the way of life changed over the last 200 years, and how often the constitution was changed with it. You simply CANNOT take every word literally.

Also, none of you are going to change my 'opinion' (which I never stated in the first place), so stop trying.

If the constitution was written today it would have to be over 50,000 pages by the time the lawyers get done with it. And in the end it wouldn't have any meaning.

 

[Duck]

I think it can be argued that health care, when it is socialized medicine, is not commerce.

Well if that's the case, then they can't regulate it at all.

 

[j911brick]

Well if that's the case, then they can't regulate it at all.

Socialized medicine is regulation.

 

[midwestbound]

So why does the administration keep telling us that our patients are considered customers or clients not patients??????? We are not even allowed to call them patients anymore.

 

[j911brick]

So why does the administration keep telling us that our patients are considered customers or clients not patients??????? We are not even allowed to call them patients anymore.

Because they want to take the humanity out of it and only think of them as profits.

 

[Duck]

So why does the administration keep telling us that our patients are considered customers or clients not patients??????? We are not even allowed to call them patients anymore.

Patients have rights.

 

[Southern Fried]

If the constitution was written today it would have to be over 50,000 pages by the time the lawyers get done with it. And in the end it wouldn't have any meaning.

You remind me of the time when I asked my lawyer why "legal language" is so convolouted.
"Because it's precise" was the answer.
"Really? Then why do you need so many court systems and judges to "interpret" it???"
He just smiled.

 

[Duck]

So why does the administration keep telling us that our patients are considered customers or clients not patients??????? We are not even allowed to call them patients anymore.

Because they want to take the humanity out of it and only think of them as profits.

Actually I think brick is half right.

It's probably the hospital's way of preparing the staff for Obamacare. If the nurses have learned to disconnect themselves emotionally from the patients, it'll be easier to tell a patient that the local Death Panel said his "QARY" numbers are too low. (Quality-Adjusted Remaining Years). Changing the term from "patient" to "client" or "customer" is probably just the beginning.

I can imagine that in the next year or so, doctors & nurses will start being cold & rude to patients. It won't be because they are evil monsters, it'll just be the only way they can do their jobs without becoming too emotionally involved.

Kind of like how farmers never allow their children to become attached to the livestock animals. It'll be harder on them when it comes time to kill the animals. Same thing with nurses when it's time to tell the patient to go home & die because Obamacare won't pay for any treatment even though he's begging & crying.

 

[Southern Fried]

So why does the administration keep telling us that our patients are considered customers or clients not patients??????? We are not even allowed to call them patients anymore.

Because they want to take the humanity out of it and only think of them as profits.

Politicians of every stripe do not regard us as "people"..... we are revenue sources.