The Obama Surge: Will It Last?
Gandalf Grey
The Obama Surge: Will It Last?
By Joe Klein
If Barack Obama is elected president of the United States on Nov. 4 - a
prospect that is beginning to seem likely now - it may turn out that he
closed the deal with a simple answer to a not-so-simple question posed by
Tom Brokaw in the second presidential debate: "Is health care in America a
privilege, a right or a responsibility?" This is familiar territory for
Democrats. The question was framed many years ago by Senator Ted Kennedy,
who must have been smiling up on Cape Cod. "Health care should be a right,
not a privilege," Kennedy would say, so often that it became a cliché. But
it was unfamiliar turf for John McCain, who responded by wandering through
his answer - halfheartedly, it seemed - saying it would be his
responsibility as President to provide affordable health care to those who
needed it.
Obama began his response with a simple declarative sentence: "I believe that
health care is a right for every American." The rest of his answer could be
used as a template for how to deal with a complex issue in a town-hall
debate. He began with a personal story: his mother, dying of cancer at age
53, having to fight her insurance company, trying to prove that her disease
had not been a pre-existing condition. He broadened that into a general
proposition about the proper role of government: "It is absolutely true that
I think it is important for government to crack down on insurance companies
that are cheating their customers." And finally, he transformed the issue
into a metaphor for the entire campaign: "That is a fundamental difference
that I have with Senator McCain. He believes in deregulation in every
circumstance. That's what we've been going through for the last eight years.
It hasn't worked, and we need fundamental change."
Obama was right. The health-care issue illustrates not only the
philosophical differences between the two candidates but also the political
difficulties McCain has been having in this election. Obama's gamble is that
the public - worried at the beginning of the campaign, terrified now - is
ready for greater government support and regulation of the health-insurance
system. That assumption has always been a sure loser in American politics.
Republicans have perpetually and successfully waved the bloody flag of
"socialized medicine." But the employer-provided-health-care system is
fraying, costs to average families are rising, and almost everyone has a
friend with a horror story. McCain's plan is a half-baked vestige of
Reagan-era ideology: it tilts the incentives away from employer-provided
health insurance and assumes that people will act in their enlightened
self-interest if they are thrust out into a free market. That's absolutely
true when it comes to buying refrigerators. But health insurance is
complicated and scary; most people don't have the time or expertise
necessary to make wise choices. They rely on their employers to make sure
they're getting a good deal - and to fight for them if the insurance
companies try to cheat them. And with many employers slouching away from
that responsibility, the public seems ready to turn to the government for
protection. In a collapsing economy, government regulation - forcing
insurers to cover everyone at reasonable rates - sounds more comforting than
stultifying.
The desire for more government activism is true across the board. All of a
sudden, government-provided infrastructure programs - and that's what most
of McCain's despised "earmarks" are - don't sound like such a waste of
money, especially if they are married to alternative energy sources and
conservation (which is why Obama talks constantly about "retrofitting"
buildings to conserve energy). All of a sudden, boring bureaucracies like
the Securities and Exchange Commission, which have been undermined and
underfunded by Republicans, become a crucial bulwark against the rampaging
free-market anarchists on Wall Street. This is, as Obama says, a fundamental
change - but not a radical one. It is a modulation, a move to preserve the
free market by controlling its excesses.
But McCain's candidacy has other problems. He simply isn't as skillful a
communicator as Obama is. The difference between them was made clear in the
second question of the debate - a fellow named Oliver Clark wanted to know
how the Wall Street bailout would help his friends who were in trouble.
McCain's answer was all over the place and obscure in a classic Washington
way; he detoured into blaming Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and pointing his
finger at Obama and "his cronies" for supporting those two incomprehensible
institutions. Obama, by contrast, brought the bailout home in simple
language: "Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package
for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up, and what that means,
as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses
just can't get loans. If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't
make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to
shut their doors and lay people off."
I don't think McCain has answered a single question with that sort of
clarity in these debates. He answers with oblique gestures - raising totems
like General Petraeus and Senator Joe Lieberman as proof of his bona fides -
or attacks on targets (like "liberalism") whose relevance has evaporated
during the past eight years. Even when it comes to national security, his
alleged area of expertise, McCain has difficulty explaining himself. His
waffling about whether to cross the border into Pakistan for targeted
strikes against al-Qaeda leaders was both foolish and incomprehensible: if
the Pakistanis are our allies, as he insisted, why are they protecting the
terrorists? Obama, by contrast, answered with simple declarative sentences:
"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest
national-security priority."
Obama's had another advantage in these debates, one that is difficult to
quantify but very real: he simply seems more comfortable, and confident,
than McCain. Part of this is, sadly, attributable to the physical
awkwardness imposed by McCain's war wounds and his bouts with cancer - the
restricted arm movements; the scarred, clenched jaw. But there is also a
pent-up anger to McCain. He seems to be concentrating so hard on trying to
stay calm that he doesn't have much energy left over to answer questions in
a free and creative way. He is not the sort of person, in the end, that you
want to invite into your living room for a four-to-eight-year stay.
Barack Obama is. We are witnessing something remarkable here: Obama's race
is receding as he becomes more familiar. His steadiness has trumped his skin
color; he is being judged on the content of his character. But there is a
real challenge - and opportunity - inherent in his success. Obama has taken
some inspired risks in this campaign. His willingness to propose more
governmental control of the health-care market is a prime example. But he
has also been very cautious, a typical politician in many ways. The most
obvious is in his resolute unwillingness to deliver bad news or make any
significant demands on the public. Neither he nor McCain had anything but
platitudes to offer when asked what sacrifices they would ask of the
American people. Worse, when Brokaw asked if he thought the economy was
going to get worse before it gets better, Obama flatly said, "No. I'm
confident about the economy."
That was, no doubt, the politic answer. But not the correct one. Obama was
underestimating the public's capacity to hear the truth - which is odd,
since the national desire for substance, the unwillingness to be diverted by
"lipstick on a pig" trivialities, has been so striking in this campaign.
Everyone knows this recession is going to hurt, that there will be a price
for our profligacy and that some hard shoveling will be necessary to get out
of this hole. Indeed, that knowledge is what has made Obama's success
possible. But if he wants to do more than merely succeed, if he wants to
govern successfully, he is going to have to trust the people as much as they
are beginning to trust him. After years of happy talk from politicians, that
is the change we really need.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Thursday, Oct. 09, 2008
>
>The Obama Surge: Will It Last?
>
>By Joe Klein
>
>
>If Barack Obama is elected president of the United States on Nov. 4 - a
>prospect that is beginning to seem likely now - it may turn out that he
>closed the deal with a simple answer to a not-so-simple question posed by
>Tom Brokaw in the second presidential debate: "Is health care in America a
>privilege, a right or a responsibility?" This is familiar territory for
>Democrats. The question was framed many years ago by Senator Ted Kennedy,
>who must have been smiling up on Cape Cod. "Health care should be a right,
>not a privilege," Kennedy would say, so often that it became a cliché. But
>it was unfamiliar turf for John McCain, who responded by wandering through
>his answer - halfheartedly, it seemed - saying it would be his
>responsibility as President to provide affordable health care to those who
>needed it.
>
>Obama began his response with a simple declarative sentence: "I believe that
>health care is a right for every American."
And this is from someone who taught Constitutional law?
Heaven help us.
JSL
4787 Dead
Where does the constitution say health care is NOT a right, Jeffy?
>
>JSL
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:47:27 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>
>>"Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Thursday, Oct. 09, 2008
>>>
>>>The Obama Surge: Will It Last?
>>>
>>>By Joe Klein
>>>
>>>
>>>If Barack Obama is elected president of the United States on Nov. 4 - a
>>>prospect that is beginning to seem likely now - it may turn out that he
>>>closed the deal with a simple answer to a not-so-simple question posed by
>>>Tom Brokaw in the second presidential debate: "Is health care in America a
>>>privilege, a right or a responsibility?" This is familiar territory for
>>>Democrats. The question was framed many years ago by Senator Ted Kennedy,
>>>who must have been smiling up on Cape Cod. "Health care should be a right,
>>>not a privilege," Kennedy would say, so often that it became a cliché. But
>>>it was unfamiliar turf for John McCain, who responded by wandering through
>>>his answer - halfheartedly, it seemed - saying it would be his
>>>responsibility as President to provide affordable health care to those who
>>>needed it.
>>>
>>>Obama began his response with a simple declarative sentence: "I believe that
>>>health care is a right for every American."
>>
>>And this is from someone who taught Constitutional law?
>>
>>Heaven help us.
>
>Where does the constitution say health care is NOT a right, Jeffy?
First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right. The
Constitution delegates powers to the government.
Second; your ability to exercise a natural right does not coerce
anyone to action.
JSL
Gandalf Grey
"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:48f0f799...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
Which means, by your own admission, that the subject in question had nothing
to do with the constitution, so Obama's answer does not reflect in any way
on his knowledge of constitutional law.
So what was your point in making such an inane response?
Jerry Kraus
> Thursday, Oct. 09, 2008
>
> The Obama Surge: Will It Last?
>
> By Joe Klein
>
> If Barack Obama is elected president of the United States on Nov. 4 - a
> prospect that is beginning to seem likely now - it may turn out that he
> closed the deal with a simple answer to a not-so-simple question posed by
> Tom Brokaw in the second presidential debate: "Is health care in America a
> privilege, a right or a responsibility?" This is familiar territory for
> Democrats. The question was framed many years ago by Senator Ted Kennedy,
> who must have been smiling up on Cape Cod. "Health care should be a right,
> not a privilege," Kennedy would say, so often that it became a cliché. But
> it was unfamiliar turf for John McCain, who responded by wandering through
> his answer - halfheartedly, it seemed - saying it would be his
> responsibility as President to provide affordable health care to those who
> needed it.
>
The broader question is whether Americans are ready for Swedish style
social democracy. This may, ultimately, be related to the
question:"Can America survive without Swedish style social democracy?"
Phlip
>>>that health care is a right for every American."
>> First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right. The
>> Constitution delegates powers to the government.
> Which means, by your own admission, that the subject in question had
> nothing to do with the constitution, so Obama's answer does not reflect in
> any way on his knowledge of constitutional law.
Maybe Obama understands the Constitution built in procedures to adjust our
rights.
A citizen cannot say "health care is a right", but a candidate can.
Billary/2008
> "Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linder....@osu.edu> wrote in messagenews:48f0f799...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 4787 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:47:27 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
> >>Linder) wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gub'ment doesn't grant "rights" asshole. You're born with them.
Pretty soon you'll have gub'ment healthcare, gub'ment retirement and a
cradle to grave gub'ment life. Paid for by increased taxes. Name the
tax and Obama will increase it. Here's my list: Income tax, national
sales tax, gasoline tax, natural gas tax, capital gains confiscation
tax, national park entry fee tax, internet communications tax and on
and on and on...you're going to love your new life. if you live that
long shill. Shouldn't you be planning on the inevitable by now? I
personally think cremation is the best option. Afterall, in 6 billion
years the earth is going to be cremated anyway. How about you?
Gandalf Grey
"RightWingShill/2008" <BillaryCl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2eefcc15-c1f8-48f2...@v56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
% Gub'ment doesn't grant "rights" asshole.
Governments "secure" rights, Shill. That's one of the given articles of
faith in the American revolution. So, getting beyond the fact that, as
usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, it continues to
beg the question of why Obama's knowledge of the American Constitution would
have anything to do with his answer to the question.
4787 Dead
Quite so. The people have rights, and the constitution itself says
that just because it only mentions some of them doesn't mean we don't
have others.
4787 Dead
Linder) wrote:
Very GOOD, Jeffy! You have a basic understanding.
Now, do DOES have rights?
The people, it seems.
What are those rights?
Well, the consitituion mentions some of them, but they are careful to
note that there's rights they don't mention, and those rights are just
as important.
So, Jeffy, when Obama calls health care a right, is he in any way
contradicting the constititon? Or did you have some other reason for
mentioning that he was a constitiuonal scholar?
Tell us how saying health care should be a right betrays an ignorance
of the constitution.
>
>Second; your ability to exercise a natural right does not coerce
>anyone to action.
>
>
>JSL
Gandalf Grey
"4787 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:8l92f4lsnpvpnvg5q...@4ax.com...
Exactly. "Rights" for wingnuts is a moveable goalpost. If they want them,
they're enshrined in the Constitution. If they don't want someone to have a
right, it's another story.
4787 Dead
<vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
In this case, it's just Jeffy making an empty object because he wants
desperately to sound intelligent.
It's kinda cute, really.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Yes it does.
>So what was your point in making such an inane response?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>>>>Obama began his response with a simple declarative sentence: "I believe
>>>>that health care is a right for every American."
>
>>> First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right. The
>>> Constitution delegates powers to the government.
>
>> Which means, by your own admission, that the subject in question had
>> nothing to do with the constitution, so Obama's answer does not reflect in
>> any way on his knowledge of constitutional law.
>
>Maybe Obama understands the Constitution built in procedures to adjust our
>rights.
What procedure is that?
>A citizen cannot say "health care is a right", but a candidate can.
That makes little, if any, sense.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
No...but one would assume that someone who teaches constituional law
would understand that health care is not a right.
>Or did you have some other reason for
>mentioning that he was a constitiuonal scholar?
>
>Tell us how saying health care should be a right betrays an ignorance
>of the constitution.
Its doesn't. One would think that a constituional scholar would have
a better understanding of what is and isn't a right.
4787 Dead
Linder) wrote:
>"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>Obama began his response with a simple declarative sentence: "I believe
>>>>>that health care is a right for every American."
>>
>>>> First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right. The
>>>> Constitution delegates powers to the government.
>>
>>> Which means, by your own admission, that the subject in question had
>>> nothing to do with the constitution, so Obama's answer does not reflect in
>>> any way on his knowledge of constitutional law.
>>
>>Maybe Obama understands the Constitution built in procedures to adjust our
>>rights.
>
>What procedure is that?
Read the constitution, Jeffy. Pay particular attention to the parts
about the judiciary, the amendment process, and the Bill of Rights.
>
>>A citizen cannot say "health care is a right", but a candidate can.
>
>That makes little, if any, sense.
True. In fact, anyone can say it. It's up to the people to reserve
that right.
4787 Dead
Linder) wrote:
According to whom, exactly, Jeffy. Who supercedes the rights of the
people and declares that they may not "have" that right?
>
>>Or did you have some other reason for
>>mentioning that he was a constitiuonal scholar?
>>
>>Tell us how saying health care should be a right betrays an ignorance
>>of the constitution.
>
>Its doesn't. One would think that a constituional scholar would have
>a better understanding of what is and isn't a right.
He does. That's why he can call health care a right.
>
>>>Second; your ability to exercise a natural right does not coerce
>>>anyone to action.
In 1863, that argument was used to demand reparations for slaveowners.
Gandalf Grey
Wow! How adult of you. What's next? Are you going to swear you won't
breath until everyone agrees with you.
When you have an argument come back. Until then, take a hike.
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So medical care could be a right, just like the right to a legal
abortion...Which was a 9th Amendment decision......
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
> "Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Obama began his response with a simple declarative sentence: "I
>>>>> believe that health care is a right for every American."
>>
>>>> First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right.
>>>> The Constitution delegates powers to the government.
>>
>>> Which means, by your own admission, that the subject in question had
>>> nothing to do with the constitution, so Obama's answer does not
>>> reflect in any way on his knowledge of constitutional law.
>>
>> Maybe Obama understands the Constitution built in procedures to
>> adjust our rights.
>
> What procedure is that?
>
The "procedure" the SCOTUS used in Roe v Wade.
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
>>
>>> First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right.
>>> The Constitution delegates powers to the government.
>>
Amendment......
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by
a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States,
than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
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.
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
Yep:
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
>>
>> Tell us how saying health care should be a right betrays an ignorance
>> of the constitution.
>
> Its doesn't. One would think that a constituional scholar would have
> a better understanding of what is and isn't a right.
Maybe you should try R-E-A-D-I-N-G The Constitution sometime, rightard.
Phlip
>>> adjust our rights.
>>
>> What procedure is that?
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Not that I expected JSL to understand the basic system of democracy...
A candidate says, If elected, I will change the law like this.
The people elect him.
Sometimes, the law gets changed like that.
Hence a candidate saying something is a right has a meaning different from a
civilian saying it.
Subsequent hair-splitting ignored here.
4787 Dead
That would be it. THEN it goes on to say that the people -- not
corporations, not banks, not churches, and not state governments --the
people are in charge.
Lamont Cranston
One would think that an American with even an eighth grade
education would know that the Constitution does not grant
rights; instead it "secures" them. So a discussion of what
is or is not a right in no way involves the Constitution.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:33:42 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>
>>"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Obama began his response with a simple declarative sentence: "I believe
>>>>>>that health care is a right for every American."
>>>
>>>>> First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right. The
>>>>> Constitution delegates powers to the government.
>>>
>>>> Which means, by your own admission, that the subject in question had
>>>> nothing to do with the constitution, so Obama's answer does not reflect in
>>>> any way on his knowledge of constitutional law.
>>>
>>>Maybe Obama understands the Constitution built in procedures to adjust our
>>>rights.
>>
>>What procedure is that?
>
>Read the constitution, Jeffy. Pay particular attention to the parts
>about the judiciary, the amendment process, and the Bill of Rights.
So you would support a constitutional amendment giving government the
responsibility and power to provide health care to everyone?
>>
>>>A citizen cannot say "health care is a right", but a candidate can.
>>
>>That makes little, if any, sense.
>
>True. In fact, anyone can say it. It's up to the people to reserve
>that right.
I thought candidates were citizens?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
What law is Obama proposing that would make health care a right?
JSL
>
>
Jeffrey Scott Linder
<cleanin'_the_s...@fakeranch.tx> wrote:
>Billary/2008 wrote:
>>>
>>>> First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right.
>>>> The Constitution delegates powers to the government.
I wrote that.
>>>
>Good God, you are fucking dumbass......Pay particular attention to the 9th
>Amendment......
>
>Amendment I
>
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And where is any right given to the people there?
>Amendment II
>
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Again, the constitution restricts the power of the government.
>
>
>Amendment III
>
>No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
>consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
>by law.
Yet another restriction on the power of government.
>Amendment IV
>
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
>effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated,
>and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
>affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
>persons or things to be seized.
Again. Are you sensing a pattern here? I am.
"Enumeration" does not mean "granted".
>
>
>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.
There's that "powers" thing again.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Common sense? If the people declare they have the right to own slaves
does that make it so?
>>
>>>Or did you have some other reason for
>>>mentioning that he was a constitiuonal scholar?
>>>
>>>Tell us how saying health care should be a right betrays an ignorance
>>>of the constitution.
>>
>>Its doesn't. One would think that a constituional scholar would have
>>a better understanding of what is and isn't a right.
>
>He does. That's why he can call health care a right.
Who is obligated to provide you with health care if its a right Zepp?
Does that give the government the power to force x% of the population
to become health care providers? Does it give the government the
power to force y% of health care providers to be GPs?
>>
>>>>Second; your ability to exercise a natural right does not coerce
>>>>anyone to action.
>
>In 1863, that argument was used to demand reparations for slaveowners.
And how did that turn out?
JSL
4787 Dead
Linder) wrote:
>4787 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:33:42 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>Linder) wrote:
>>
>>>"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Obama began his response with a simple declarative sentence: "I believe
>>>>>>>that health care is a right for every American."
>>>>
>>>>>> First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right. The
>>>>>> Constitution delegates powers to the government.
>>>>
>>>>> Which means, by your own admission, that the subject in question had
>>>>> nothing to do with the constitution, so Obama's answer does not reflect in
>>>>> any way on his knowledge of constitutional law.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe Obama understands the Constitution built in procedures to adjust our
>>>>rights.
>>>
>>>What procedure is that?
>>
>>Read the constitution, Jeffy. Pay particular attention to the parts
>>about the judiciary, the amendment process, and the Bill of Rights.
>
>So you would support a constitutional amendment giving government the
>responsibility and power to provide health care to everyone?
You don't need one. Just start planning a workable program, have it
legislated, passed, and signed by the Pres.
>
>>>
>>>>A citizen cannot say "health care is a right", but a candidate can.
>>>
>>>That makes little, if any, sense.
>>
>>True. In fact, anyone can say it. It's up to the people to reserve
>>that right.
>
>I thought candidates were citizens?
Believe it or not, they don't have to be. Most states do have such
laws, but not all. Only the president is constitutionally required to
be a citizen.
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:52:01 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>>I thought candidates were citizens?
>
>Believe it or not, they don't have to be. Most states do have such
>laws, but not all. Only the president is constitutionally required to
>be a citizen.
Well, here's another stupid claim from Jamieson....
"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to
the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of
that State in which he shall be chosen."
--U.S Constitution Article 1 section 2
"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age
of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States,
and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for
which he shall be chosen."
--U.S Constitution Article 1 section 3
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec1
Zepp's ignorance is unbounded....
z
> 4787 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:47:27 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
> >Linder) wrote:
>
> >>"Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Thursday, Oct. 09, 2008
>
> >>>The Obama Surge: Will It Last?
>
> >>>By Joe Klein
>
> >>>If Barack Obama is elected president of the United States on Nov. 4 - a
> >>>prospect that is beginning to seem likely now - it may turn out that he
> >>>closed the deal with a simple answer to a not-so-simple question posed by
> >>>privilege, a right or a responsibility?" This is familiar territory for
> >>>Democrats. The question was framed many years ago by Senator Ted Kennedy,
> >>>not a privilege," Kennedy would say, so often that it became a cliché. But
> >>>it was unfamiliar turf for John McCain, who responded by wandering through
> >>>his answer - halfheartedly, it seemed - saying it would be his
> >>>responsibility as President to provide affordablehealthcareto those who
> >>>needed it.
>
>
> >>And this is from someone who taught Constitutional law?
>
> >>Heaven help us.
>
> >Where does the constitution sayhealthcareis NOT a right, Jeffy?
>
> Constitution delegates powers to the government.
>
> anyone to action.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
of course; firstly, what does health care have with the "right to
life" as defined in the declaration of independence (not the
republicann platform) anyway? and just because the declaration of
independence identifies something as an unalienable right of all
mankind, why should the government based on that document do anything
to promote it?
vote nihilist!
z
> The broader question is whether Americans are ready for Swedish style
> social democracy. This may, ultimately, be related to the
> question:"Can America survive without Swedish style social democracy?"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
and the narrower question: "if US style of every man for himself
healthcare is so terrific, why hasn't any other reasonably successful
country adopted it; even the ones that had it once upon a time? why is
it now, aside from the US, strictly a feature of ass-backwards third
world countries that republicans wouldn't be caught dead living in?"
Al Smith
US healthcare is behind the times. Eventually America will adopt
universal socialized healthcare, and the world won't come to an end.
You will save billions a year that is being ripped off by the
insurance companies, and those who abuse the insurance companies,
under the present system.
Your fat-cat doctors will have to accept a pay cut. Boo-hoo. Let's
all cry a river for the doctors making $20 million a year who will
lose some of their income, and won't be able to buy that second
yacht they had planned for.
-Al-
z
let's not forget how hard the AMA fought against medicare. (nor the
fact that Palin's Reagan quote against creeping socialism was
originally referring to medicare) to the point where they even formed
an alliance with the tobacco companies to join forces and fight
medicare and tobacco regulation together. if you're the type of
person who does believe in the literal devil and you don't see a pact
with the devil there, you're beyond salvation.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:52:01 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>
>>4787 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:33:42 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>>Linder) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Obama began his response with a simple declarative sentence: "I believe
>>>>>>>>that health care is a right for every American."
>>>>>
>>>>>>> First; the Constitution doesn't define what is and isn't a right. The
>>>>>>> Constitution delegates powers to the government.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means, by your own admission, that the subject in question had
>>>>>> nothing to do with the constitution, so Obama's answer does not reflect in
>>>>>> any way on his knowledge of constitutional law.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe Obama understands the Constitution built in procedures to adjust our
>>>>>rights.
>>>>
>>>>What procedure is that?
>>>
>>>Read the constitution, Jeffy. Pay particular attention to the parts
>>>about the judiciary, the amendment process, and the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>So you would support a constitutional amendment giving government the
>>responsibility and power to provide health care to everyone?
>
>You don't need one. Just start planning a workable program, have it
>legislated, passed, and signed by the Pres.
Then how is it that health care is a right if laws have to be passed
to provide it?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>A citizen cannot say "health care is a right", but a candidate can.
>>>>
>>>>That makes little, if any, sense.
>>>
>>>True. In fact, anyone can say it. It's up to the people to reserve
>>>that right.
>>
>>I thought candidates were citizens?
>
>Believe it or not, they don't have to be. Most states do have such
>laws, but not all. Only the president is constitutionally required to
>be a citizen.
Indeed:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec1
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the
Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United
States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that
State in which he shall be chosen.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and
who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which
he shall be chosen.
Why do you insist on being so ill-informed?
JSL
4787 Dead
Linder) wrote:
The role of government is to pass laws to ensure our rights.
Didn't you know that, Jeffy?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>A citizen cannot say "health care is a right", but a candidate can.
>>>>>
>>>>>That makes little, if any, sense.
>>>>
>>>>True. In fact, anyone can say it. It's up to the people to reserve
>>>>that right.
>>>
>>>I thought candidates were citizens?
>>
>>Believe it or not, they don't have to be. Most states do have such
>>laws, but not all. Only the president is constitutionally required to
>>be a citizen.
>
>Indeed:
>
>http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec1
>No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the
>Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United
>States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that
>State in which he shall be chosen.
>
>No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of
>thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and
>who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which
>he shall be chosen.
>
>Why do you insist on being so ill-informed?
>
>JSL
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
Zepp is really hoping that the government will pick up the cost of his
irresponsible, alcohol slugging, over-eating lifestyle by taking
other people's money... To bad for fatty, the current economic
situation pretty much rules that out..
"Not only that, but both of us have epilepsy and various sorts of brain troubles."
Mrs. Greywolf Jamieson AKA PJwolf...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/c52ce26745b74c75?hl=en&
Kurt Lochner
>
> 4787 Dead replied:
> >
> >"jeffy's snot blender" <linde...@osu.edu> sniveled again:
> > >
> > > 4787 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>"jeffy's snot blender" <linde...@osu.edu> sniveled:
- - ---
> > >>>So you would support a constitutional amendment giving government the
> > >>>responsibility and power to provide health care to everyone?
> > >>
> > >>You don't need one. Just start planning a workable program, have it
> > >>legislated, passed, and signed by the Pres.
> > >
> > >Then how is it that health care is a right if laws have to be passed
> > >to provide it?
> >
> > The role of government is to pass laws to ensure our rights.
>
>Zepp is really hoping that the government will pick up the cost of his
>irresponsible, alcohol slugging, over-eating lifestyle
You mean like you already have, what with losing your leg to some
poor lifestyle choices you've made, and now accuse everyone else of?
--Tell us about those "magnetic capacitors", while you're at it..
David Johnston
Linder) wrote:
The authors of the American Constitution agreed that rights existed
which were not constitutionally guaranteed.
Phlip
>>to provide it?
> The authors of the American Constitution agreed that rights existed
> which were not constitutionally guaranteed.
Further, the people can gain a right by fiat, by consensus, or in an
ordinary law. Not only in an amendment.
(Geeze why do we have to teach basic civics to everyone these days??)
Jeffrey Scott Linder
The role of government? You apparenlty don't know the first thing
about the government.
"Only the president is constitutionally required to be a citizen." --
Zepp...lecturing people about the law.
JSL