The US Constitution

Mr. Drummond, I'm a huge proponent of personal rights and am pretty much a centerist with a libertarian bent politically speaking. So how much farther to the left I am as compared to you depends on how far you are to the right. Given your references to legislative shame and "tyranny," it seems you're pretty far to the right. However, I wouldn't ... Read Morecall Williams, Edling, Johnson, Abel or Steamer far right. They are all (some more so than others) very well respected. How do you feel about Timothy M. Westmoreland, Sheila P. Burke, Sara P. Hoverter, Elenora E. Connors, Sandy H. Han, and Jacqueline R. Scott, who wrote a thoughtful article recently concluding that:

"The Constitution permits Congress to legislate a health insurance mandate. Congress can use its Commerce Clause powers or its taxing and spending powers to create such a mandate. Congress can impose a tax on those that do not purchase insurance, or provide tax benefits to those that do purchase insurance. If Congress would like the states to implement an insurance mandate, it can avoid conflicts with the anti-commandeering principle by either preempting state insurance laws or by conditioning federal funds on state compliance. A federal employer mandate for state and local government workers may be subject to a challenge; however, such a challenge is unlikely to be successful. Individual rights challenges under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause or RFRA are unlikely to succeed, although a federal insurance mandate should include a statement that RFRA does not apply or provide for a religious exemption. Fifth Amendment Due Process and Takings Clause challenges are also unlikely to be successful. The legal analysis presented is likely to endure, as the Supreme Court's current position and approach to interpreting relevant constitutional issues appear to be stable."

I applaud both of you for your well argued points. I think debates like this are healthy for our democracy. I will investigate and read from some of the authors mentioned. When I wrote “tyranny,” I was referring to Webster's definition: “oppressive and unjust government.” It is certainly oppressive and unjust to seize the personal property of ... Read Morecitizens (excessive taxation) to redistribute that wealth to others, especially when it takes the form of such wasteful bureaucracies as Social Security, Medicare, or nationalized health care. I think most Americans would agree that a government is oppressive and unjust when taxes collected equal 20% of GDP (CBO figures). With the proposed new taxes, we will exceed that percentage, further enslaving American workers.

I totally agree and apply it!

That's great! Please see that they do more than just read it. Have them understand it!

Please spare us the Alex Jones, black-helicopter conspiracy theories! What a bunch of BS!

Too bad they didnt have open carry laws where you were...

Wish I could "like" a comment of a post...amen to the open carry :P

Where does everybody go when a real discussion starts?

Don't know but I think it has to do with what someone told me on another forum,..." I'm not here to debate facts, I'm only here to express my opinion so keep your facts to yourself, they have no influence on my opinion".... I guess that says it all.

At-15 30rounds in closet, glock model 22, 15 round clips near by

Warm female under my sheets! what's with all the guns?

Does anyone win? I feel like we all lost. Or, maybe we all loosen.

lostted or losted, not sure the proper spelling. Yes, America wins.... sound the trumpets and start the parade!!!!!!

Just a few more....



... Read More
* Tennessee Valley Authority



* Corporation for Public Broadcasting



* Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation



* Federal Crop Insurance Corporation



* Millennium Challenge Corporation



* St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation



* Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation



* Corporation for National and Community Service (Americorps)



* Overseas Private Investment Corporation



* Federal Reserve



* Legal Services Corporation



* United States Postal Service

The Federal Government chartered and owned corporations are a separate set of corporations enchartered and owned by the Federal Government, which operate to provide public services, but unlike the federal agencies (Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs), or the federal independent commissions (e.g. the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, etc.), they have a separate legal personality from the Federal Government, providing the highest level of political independence. They sometimes receive Federal budgetary appropriations, but some also have independent sources of revenue. These include:

@ Zack - You said "The only power Congress theoretically could have in regulating health care is in allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines . . . ."

That statement is not even close to being an accurate synopsis of commerce clause jurisprudence. Congress is empowered to regulate the use of all "channels" of interstate ... Read Morecommerce. Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the "instrumentalities" of interstate commerce and persons and things involved in interstate commerce. Congress also has authority to regulate those activities having a "substantial relation" to interstate commerce. Healthcare fits that bill. Add to that the necessary and proper clause mentioned by Mr. Mayeux and there just isn't any controversy here.

So, in the 70's African Americans and women were more free than they are now in 2009?

I think history and the facts differ.... "speak of our Creator anytime, & anywhere that we choose" you are aware that you are only free from the government interference with expression and religion,... your boss, neighbors etc... can put limits on those things, ... Read Moreif FB did not want your view point expressed they have every-right to censor you. Just not the the gov, so we have never had the right "to speak of our Creator anytime, & anywhere that we choose" that has never existed.

Just so you know and are aware of what you speak of. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. It was modified in 1954 initiated by Louis A. Bowman in 1954 to add “Under God”. So by those numbers we have 62 years without it, and 55 years with it. So, as you see “under God” has not even been in the majority of the life of the pledge, we can live without those words and still be a country…. indivisible, with liberty & justice for all.

Sure you can express it anywhere and at anytime. FB can choose to remove it, but they/it can't persecute you for it.

Sorry for your loss

So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.
- Mark Twain