Comments Posted By John Galt
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 38 Comments
CAN THE GOP HELP GOVERN WHILE IN THE MINORITY?
@busboy33
It matters not if healthcare should be considered "promoting the general welfare". "Promoting the general welfare" IS NOT one of the enumerated powers. Yes, those words are there, but not in the listing of powers that Congress has. The "general welfare" clause is part of the header to the enumerated powers. It is meant to say that congress is to pass legislation in the following enumerated list that will promote the general welfare (instead of, say, hindering the general welfare). The framers envisioned this to include such things like defense. General Welfare itself is NOT meant to be a catchall that lets Congress do whatever the hell it pleases. I point you to the Federalist Papers to look at what the framers intended. The powers of Congress were to be few and defined.
You say that the framers didn't intend for the Congress to be "too restricted". Actually, that's exactly what the Framers intended. They specifically gave certain powers and left everything else to the States. Many of the Framers didn't even think the Bill of Rights were necessary because all those things in the Bill of Rights were not mentioned in the text of the Constitution itself and therefore meant that Congress could not legislate on those matters.
You may think I wordsmith the "general welfare" statement in Article I Section 8. I do not. I simply paraphrase the framers own statements. I don't give a shit what the Supreme Court has ever said on the "general welfare" clause. The SCOTUS is not the final authority on what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS gave themselves that power during the Marbury v Madison case in the early 1800s, but that case's decision is not based on the Constitution itself. All branches of gov't, the states, AND THE PEOPLE decide on what is Constitutional or not, nothing in the Constitution grants the final decision to SCOTUS. Yes, I might be dreaming on that, but it is what was envisioned at the founding.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 12.10.2009 @ 17:00
Busboy33 said...
"Like I said, that’s my definition of “minimalist government”, and because of that I’m just confused now. If I’m reading that phrase incorrectly, put me back on track."A minimalist government is NOT simply voting against anything that expands the size and scope of government. The US Constitution is supposed to be the guiding light on what the purpose of the federal gov't is and what it is allowed to do. If the enumerated powers within Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (or any Amendments) do not give the federal gov't the authority for something, it is then left to the states to decide on it per the 10th Amendment. I know the federal gov't has abandoned the Constitution for decades, but that does not make it right to continue to do so. Control of health care is not an enumerated power by any stretch of the imagination, therefore, the States should be "experimenting" with it if they choose to do so. How 'bout taking a look at how a few states experiments in state-run health care have worked out. I hear Massachussetts and Tennessee have had just wonderful results (sarcasm). Does anyone truly believe the Federal Gov't would do any better. HELL NO!! The costs will be absolutely staggering due to the outright corruption and incompetence at the federal level. It was far worse than any state gov't.
No bill should be coming out of this Congress. Our nation cannot survive it.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 11.10.2009 @ 21:01
I fail to see any reason to "cooperate" with the Democrats on this bill. The whole premise of it should be anethema to conservatives. The federal government will be dictating 100% of the rules to all private insurers, with or without a "public option". Insurers will be told they must insure anyone in any condition at any time an individual decides to get coverage. Great business model for an insurer...Hey folks, don't buy any insurance until you discover that you get cancer. Don't buy insurance until you break your leg. Once your treatment is over...cancel your insurance. Brilliant concept.
I know, I know, everyone in the nation will be required to purchase insurance. Well, that totally eliminates liberty. I fail to see an Article 1 Section 8 authorization for Congress to mandate this on the masses. If the basic premise of the bill goes against liberty and the Constitution, why support it in the slightest?
Anyway, all Republican suggestions have been shut down or would be doomed to rejection. I don't see the Democrats putting in any meaningful tort reform or using their true Constitutional powers to open interstate commerce for insurers. You know, actual measures that might really lead to lower costs. Those types of things are DOA.
This is a pure takeover by the socialists in Congress. Period. Any amount of lipstick put on that pig, still makes it a pig. All conservatives should soundly reject the proposed bills in Congress. It matters not how "civil" or "bipartisan" conservatives try to be. No amount of "making the bill better" will truly "make the bill better."
Comment Posted By John Galt On 10.10.2009 @ 19:52
RUSH AND RACE: THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY
I'm amazed that you can't see the obvious sarcasm that Limbaugh delivered. I recall an article by you several weeks ago in which you were pissed that some commenters didn't get your sarcasm. How can you not see this in Rush's statement.
Rush is trying to display a point. Had this been 10 whites against 1 black, everyone in the media would be screaming racism (even if the lone black had a gun and was threatening to shoot). So, Rush puts this incident up for all to see and asks the question, "why isn't this racism?" Its a valid point. But the point is towards the media and their reactions and not the event itself.
Sarcasm. Can't you see it in others when you can deliver so well yourself?
Comment Posted By John Galt On 16.09.2009 @ 15:19
THE ENDURING POPULARITY OF STAR TREK
The new movie was pretty good. I actually think it was the best ST movie made. Not really that difficult since the vast majority of the other sucked. I do kinda hate the time travel crap, but it wasn't to annoying.
McCoy was fantastic. The actor had the character down pat and in my view should be given huge roles in future ST movies. Spock the Young was good. I didn't really think the other "main" characters really had the personalities and nuances that we all have come to know of the originals, but that is fine. Change is sometimes good. Although, I did detect some really good overacting at a couple of spots by the new Kirk.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 10.05.2009 @ 15:41
mdgiles Said:
3:11 pm
"The federation would have to have a 10th Amendment, 0r something close to it. After all we’re talking about an organization of true aliens, whose cultures may, in big and small ways, be diametrically opposed to each other. There would have to be a rule strictly limiting Federation interference into local matters (like say - Vulcans fighting to the death over marriage)."Good Point.
I think I would've fought to the death over T'Pring as well. She was a babe.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 10.05.2009 @ 15:34
I have no idea as to what the Federation's Constitution is to make any comments on if they can trump state's rights or not. The Federation might not have a 10th Amendment.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 10.05.2009 @ 09:15
One other thing I just thought of...
Even tho the Star Trek universe is a utopia of sorts with its limitless energy/resources. The Federation is still a merit based. One must prove themselves in order to rise up in the ranks of StarFleet afterall. I'm sure there is some nepotism/favoritism, but overall, it is complete meritocracy. Therefore, the Federation is not a socialist utopia.
Capitalism for monetary advancement has been exchanged with Capitalism for individual advancement.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 9.05.2009 @ 18:05
John Galt said:
I don’t think Roddenberry purposefully wanted to portray a socialist utopia. The Federation may indeed be one, but Roddenberry put in the “tools” that allowed the utopia to exist. Matter/Anti-matter power generation gives almost limitless energy using small amounts of resources and Replicator technology that can take that energy and produce almost any item required. Thus, a near limitless amount of resources exist for the Federation’s citizens. So, with basic supply and demand, if you have limitless resources, the cost for those resources is essentially zero, eliminating the need for money.
So, if a society could have limitless energy and infinite resources, a true utopia might just be achievable and acceptable to John Galt.
ed. said:
That’s a fascinating concept. Never thought of that although you might want to think about what would people do with those replicators. Free booze? Drugs? Live on chocolate cake? Or replicate the latest in sex toys?My point was that you could not reform human nature and the appetites that man - with many exceptions of course - gives in to regularly.
And what do you think humans would do with Holodeck technology?
ed."""
Yes, many in society would opt for free booze, drugs, cake, sex toys and sit at home in their own personal holodeck. All the power to them. Natural selection would then take place. Chances are that they would never go out and therefore never procreate. Their genes should die out eventually, leaving those who want to truly better themselves to carry on the gene pool.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 9.05.2009 @ 17:59
I don't think Roddenberry purposefully wanted to portray a socialist utopia. The Federation may indeed be one, but Roddenberry put in the "tools" that allowed the utopia to exist. Matter/Anti-matter power generation gives almost limitless energy using small amounts of resources and Replicator technology that can take that energy and produce almost any item required. Thus, a near limitless amount of resources exist for the Federation's citizens. So, with basic supply and demand, if you have limitless resources, the cost for those resources is essentially zero, eliminating the need for money.
So, if a society could have limitless energy and infinite resources, a true utopia might just be achievable and acceptable to John Galt.
That's a fascinating concept. Never thought of that although you might want to think about what would people do with those replicators. Free booze? Drugs? Live on chocolate cake? Or replicate the latest in sex toys?
My point was that you could not reform human nature and the appetites that man - with many exceptions of course - gives in to regularly.
And what do you think humans would do with Holodeck technology?
ed.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 8.05.2009 @ 22:54
