Republican tenther bill would ban ‘Obamacare’ in Minnesota

Why do they always miss the front end of the sentence when quoting the constitution? They want to forget that the Constitution requires the government to “Promote the general welfare”!

It’s not enough to be wrong, they have to be wrong with someone else’s idea.

Why does our legislature continue to waste time on social wedge issues that they know very well the Governor will not sign into law? Where are the jobs? Where’s the innovation? They’ve attempted to hack away at women’s rights, transit, and programs for poor people and senior citizens. Do something productive that actually improves our state economically! Until such time, you are WORTHLESS.

“Promote the general welfare” is not an enumerated power; it merely prefaces the enumerated powers which follow in Art. 1, Sec 8. When crafted, these words did not envision the contemporary meaning, aka bread and circuses, we currenlty attach to the meaning. I urge Fat Friar to read “The Making of America” by W. Cleon Skousen or a whole host of other treatises on original intent and meaning.

As for nullifying Obamacare, among other federal excesses, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison described it as the “rightful remedy” to federal overreach. And so it is. I just pray Minnesotans consult the founders before voting yea or nay. Were they to carefully and objectively defer to original intent and meaning, nullifying Obamacare would be all but assured.

In the 1982 history text “The Making of America.” Besides bursting with factual errors, Skousen’s book characterized African-American children as “pickaninnies” and described American slave owners as the “worst victims” of the slavery system.

Skousen was a Mormon fundamentalist and a ultra-far-right conspiracist. Beck promoted his books a lot. Kind of a dearth of credibility, there, ya think?

“When crafted, these words did not envision the contemporary meaning”

There are many, many years and many, many laws setting precedent that says your view is pure fantasy.

Try again.

Precedent trumps the original Constitution? Revisioinist rulings overrule original intent and meaning? Wow! That’s precisely why the country is currently in constitutional free fall.

Get rid of your liberal blinders and do some honest, objective research on the Constitution. And whether you like Skousen or not, I still very strongly suggest reading his The Making of America. It’s extremely well done and not at all fringe or esoteric. BUT BUT BUT, if for some personal reason you loathe Skousen as a personand simply cannot bear reading his words, then, as said, there are a host of other treatises on original intent and meaning you could take advantage of. So, do yourself a favor and please do your homework. It’s liberating. But, if you’ve already made up your mind that original intent and meaning should take a back seat to the litany of revisionist rulings since ratification, then don’t trouble yourself with delving more into the subject. No sense discomforting yourself.

When will the Republicans in our state legislature end their drive to take all health care away from those that most need it and don’t have the funds to obtain it? The backlash against the Republican party is growing all across the United States, and it’s effect will be seen in the election of 2012. Wisconsin Republican lawmakers are already feeling the hot breath of their Democratic replacements on their necks, as re-call efforts there are going to result in replacement elections this summer and fall.
Do your best Republicans…..the voters of Minnesota are watching, and remembering just who is introducing these bills. Your days are surely numbered.

The founders have been dead for centuries. It is liberating to take what they have set up and improve upon it while we the people live and die over the years. Just try to be a little more in the present, Jim.

The Republicans are waging an issues war they know they will be challanged with in 2012. Democrats have the ammunition to wage strong campaigns. JOBS was the #1 issue EVERY Republican ran on in 2010.

We need to continue grass roots campaigns for Democrats who will challange these do-nothing Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature once they announce their intention to run..

Jim, you act as if all the founders were of one, monolithic mind. There was as much decent then as there is now. Yet somehow, you know for a fact the one, true, originalist intent of the constitution. If you actually read history, you’d know the constitution was written intentionally, and specifically to increase federal power. The bill of rights was written to pacify the tenthers of the day. I think it is great that they had that balance, but don’t think for a moment that the constitution is not in favor of a strong federal government. If the founders thought even remotely like you, we would have just stuck with the articles of confederation.

Lane,
You honestly believe you and your liberal friends will improve upon the Consitution? I mean, honestly?

Concerned,
Why all this disdain and loatheing toward our founders? Is it because their craftsmanship and foresight jeoporadize the “fundamental transformation of the United States” which you and Obama, your il duce, so fervently espouse? ANd, no, the Constitution wasn’t written to “increase federal power”; it was to improve upon the confederation and to ensure a co-equality of power between the states and the federal authority, all in an effort to shape a lasting Republic which, of course, is anathema to modern day liberals.

For Dave, Lane, Concerned,
For staters, please read “The Orginal Constitution” by R. Natelson and “Original Intent”, by David Barton. If you’d like to broaden your horizons from the parochial, these are excellent books.

For Dave,
I forgot to ask, but can you please point to the specific passages in Skousen’s book where he purportedly cast those aspersions? Was he quoting someone else? Anyway, I’ve read the book three times and, among others, I rely upon it when writing my own articles on opinerlog.blogspot.com.

And to all of you,
Please, please, please do your homework. Get back to the basics and cast aside the encumbering blinders. you’re hurting yourselves and by your wilfull ignornace are imperiling your country.

Nothing more I need to say, except GET TO WORK and do your research.

Huh,
Well I read the constitution and made up my own mind. I am not too keen about what others write about it as that is what they think.

As for health care the topic in this thread. A profit should not be made on the sick and dying. Tea baggers/far right republicans are death panels killing people to save money. Every industrialized nation in the world has a federal form of healthcare of some kind. Now we do as well because it works for the general population.

The party of no has become the party of repeal because they know nothing else. They only want to improve their profits not the people.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If you do not help improve the weak you will break as a nation.

@Jim Delaney-

Thank you for asserting only the information that supports our bias while condemning and ridiculing that which suggests otherwise. After all, truth benefits when turned on it’s own head. It improves truth circulation.

And thank God there are people like Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck and yourself “recontextualizing” history and standing up for what’s Right, and against what’s right. Liberals clearly need to rely on our information sources and not any others.

Finally, affordable health care promotes the general welfare? Sounds suspiciously like God-less Communism. What do these liberals think? That the Lord is compassionate or that healthy people make for a healthier economy? Clearly they don’t know our Bibles (yet).

Praise Jebus, God hates the poor, hungry and sick, Amen.

Paul,

But it’s perfectly acceptable to allow the federal authority to profit from our labors?

From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need? To you, that’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it.

The mind-numbing arrogance to believe that you or your statist overseers in Washington actually care more about the poor than we conservative Americans would be laughable, if it weren’t so obscenely delusional.

You’re brainwashed, kid. And no matter how you try, you and your statist friends will NOT succeed in bringing down this Republic.

Earth to Carl,
Have you read what you just posted? Boorish academic jibberish of the first order.

@Jim-

Those academics. Always spouting their knowledge as if facts can compete with fear in the political arena. They are so naive.

Praise Jebus, God hates knowledge, Amen.

Carl,
Of course, to liberate you from the bowels of self-delusion and incalculable arrogance, there is always deprogramming and/or a few quiet moments with a good therapist. It may be worth your while. Check it out.

Well, I have to go to work. Some of us do that these days. So, I bid you all adieu. And wishing you all much success in your objective research.

Jim,

You have misunderstood me. I agree fully. You are employed and probably insured because God has blessed you for being a good person. Those without such opportunities are being punished for their own failures to live the proper life or tested by God. And killing PPACA will drive those desperate, misguided sheep back to the church where their needs (and views) can be best managed by scripturally unformed people properly vetted by C-Street et al.

We also, I suspect, agree that state legislatures are vested with the responsibility to determine the constitutionality of federal law and overturn that law if found unconstitutional by the state legislature. That’s in the enumerated powers portion of the constitution where the founders limited their guidance, right?

BTW, post-great-Christian Fundamentalist Revolution the deprogramming of which you speak will, I suspect, not only be available but mandatory. Fear must subjugate fact lest that pesky Constitution succeed to preserve the separation of church and state. And who wants that? Only the poor, hungry and sick sinners. And they don’t count (unless they’re tithing, of course).

Praise Jebus, God hates interpreting the meaning of others, Amen.

I love it when someone talks down to you thinking you lack knowledge when in reality you just disagree with them.

My name was used but not one point I made was refuted or even came to debate.

Insulting the speaker without speaking of the issue is a very poor form of communication often used by children when they do not know the answer.

Jim, the “we the people who live and die over the years” improving on what the founders have set up span the entire range of human thought including political and religious beliefs. Also FYI, I tend to dismiss those who try to frame the issues in terms of “liberal” or “conservative” because all too often, there is no careful thought behind their thinking except knee-jerk reactions. *yawn*

Need I point out the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision. That is hardly an improvement on what the founders set up – and also hardly “liberal” whatever that means. *again yawn*

You bore me greatly, Jim.

Jim,

Wow, you’ve really run your credibility train off the tracks in a very short period of time. First, you pretend that “original intent” is an unambiguous method of constitutional interpretation. Are you even aware that even conservative legal scholars don’t agree on what that means, what results it produces, and even disagree with the theory of original intent itself? Of course not. “Original intent” is a fundamentalist dogma to you.

Second, you quote a racist historian.

Third, you recommend David Barton, an outed fraudster and historical revisionist, not to mention Christian theocrat–a leader of the American taliban.

Then, you write,

“You’re brainwashed, kid. And no matter how you try, you and your statist friends will NOT succeed in bringing down this Republic.”

There’s a paranoia and level of hyperbole here that you’re not even aware of, but it severely comprises if not destroys your credibility. Do you actually believe that Obama et al. are deliberately trying to destroy the country? If so, you can be written off as a crank. The alternative is that you believe Obama et al. are so wildly incompetent as to jeopardize the country–”bring it down.” This verges on the crazy also, as it reveals you’re incapable of seeing just how centrist and moderate Obama actually is.

But this all begs the question of what it would take to “bring down this Republic.” What could you possibly mean by that? Economic collapse? A dictatorship? The Antichrist?

You’re also mistaken–easily and obviously and avoidably so–in thinking that merely because one doesn’t buy your idiosyncratic doctrine of original intent, that therefore they haven’t done their homework.

Lastly, when you write of the founders you seem not to have in mind any kind of critical historical approach, but hagiography. The founders were in essence secular saints, and possessed of a near if not actual infallibility. It follows that the US Constitution is a kind of second Bible as understood by Christian fundamentalists–inspired by their god, without error and incapable of improvement, a text that’s testament to a height of human genius that nothing can surpass, not even subsequent history and its collective greater wisdom, not many decades of social and political science research, or not even the appearance of a great many more informed and complex minds than existed 200+ years ago.

Care to try again? Second thought, don’t bother. Your mistakes aren’t even interesting.

Eric you said it all I don’t have to say a word

It is funny how they hate the word welfare. It really represents a collective contract with each other to maintain a just society. In conservaland welfare should only apply to white male property owners over age 21. (Throw out all of those pesky amendments past the 10th.)