Comments on: Pelosi: Don't Let GOP Turn Back Clock on Women
Add a Comment
- There they go again. As a wise man once said: "it's not that our Liberal friends are ignorant... it's just that so much of what they know isn't so". Ronald Reagan was so right about Liberals.
- Reply to this comment
- Aw Geeze..... Get Pelosi and her friends out... Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, and little girl Moonbeam Brown, need to just vanish.... Allred, blood sucker, should drive the bus and head west til their hats float...
- Reply to this comment
- hey variablespanner: Why dose any federal or state employee deserve more or better benefits than any other civilian worker at any other job? Are they some how more entitled or better humans? We pay their salary and we get **** on and they get the best benefits in the world. Only a liberal would see that as any form of fairness. If the Obama care is good enough for regular Americans it sure as hell should be good enough for the people that work for the Americans!
- Reply to this comment
-
- Why do federal and state employees deserve to be denied any benefit received by their private sector counterparts as alleged by Mortar. Why do seniors and veterans deserve to have people like Mortar STEAL the benefits they have paid for either through service or Medicare Taxes? Why not talk about the real issues instead of some comparatively minor issue.
- Sorry Variable. You again havign a reading comprehension problem. I have clearly staed that Federal employees are entitled to their pay and benefits for their service. Please try to get SOMETHING rght!
- Didn't obama want the servicemen that were injured in the line of duty, have their private insurance pick up the tab for their treatment. I believe it was in March 2009 that he stated that.
- Mortar -- Here is a legal reality you are really going to hate. The positioning of the 9th and 10th amendments was total genius on the part of the founding fathers. As the last two amendments to the US Constitution at the time of passage the remainder of the constitution was required to be interpreted as being compliance with the latest amendment having priority in the case of any conflicts. This concept makes the 14th amendment probably the most pervasive change to the US constitution to date. Clearly granting due process and equal protection to everyone in the country as stated in the 14th amendment and interpreted by the courts. In addition the 14th amendment required STATES to grant to all citizens of this country all the rights and immunities conferred by the constitution. made a profound impact on the US Constitution invalidating many of the premises and understandings of the founding fathers just short of 100 years before the passage of the 14th amendment. While conservatives could validly argue the constitution is NOT A LIVING document their argument as to it's interpretation based on the comments of the founding fathers can be completely negated by amendments as profoundly altering to the document as the 14th Amendment was.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Here is why you are going to continue to have a problem. I dont hate the 9th and 10th Amendment. I embrace them!! But they were unneeded. But I was glad they put them in. nd the 14th Amendment. Properly defined as those that wrote it and passed it, there is no problem. I am for original intent. That is the only valid way to look at a law. Thus, what was the original intent of those who passed the 14th Amendment? When you know that, then you know what the 14th Amendment means.
- Idiot who do you think wrote the laws providing for the constitution to be changed in an orderly way as the nation grew. THE FOUNDING FATHERS that s who. Besides it was Jacob M. Howard He was elected as a Whig to the United States House of Representatives for the Twenty-seventh Congress, serving March 4, 1841?March 3, 1843. He was not a candidate for renomination in 1842. He helped draw up the platform of the first Republican Party convention held in Jackson, Michigan in 1854. He was Michigan Attorney General from 1855-1861.So it was the wig and the GOP that got the 14th amendment to get passed in the first place. If your going to talk about history the first read some history!
- Mortar -- you did claim they were irrelevant or redundant -- clearly based on the very valid positioning argument their placement was pure genius. -- Sorry I've seen examples of your original intent argument -- some comment by one participant (not even in the debate before congress or even in the debate before congress) does not override the actual text or the general understanding of numerous members present during debate as to the ORIGINAL INTENT OF CONGRESS (as there have been no constitutional conventions to date).
- I dint say they were irrevelant. I said they are redundant. Again, I believe the whole document is genius. The Bill of Rights was a compromise. Many of the Founders did not feel they were necessary, as the plain language of the Constitution was enough in their eyes. And I agree. But others were worried that persons would try to circumvent these plain meanings (which we hav done for over 100 years). And they would also be right. So, they listed these few rights they found the most important...and then put the catch all phrases in (9th and 10th) to restate what they all clearly knew already.
- The desperation continues!
- Reply to this comment
- by Mortarman329 October 11, 2010 9:20 PM EDT Because they all understood that we didnt need a 9th Amendment, or a Tenth Amendment. That by definition, the people and the States still had all of their powers and rights, except those listed that they gave to the Federal government. MORTAR -- the 9th and 10th amendment specifically remove any ambiguity as to the holders of rights and powers you claim and in fact the 9th and 10th amendments contain the language you utilize to claim the constitution assures these rights are maintained. You leave out of your discussion the very powerful 14th amendment that guarantees these rights and protections to EVERY PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY CITIZEN OR NOT. In this case inclusion of the 9th and 10th amendments was one of the wisest decisions the founding fathers made -- granting them such prominent status assures their intent is interpreted at the appropriate priority level -- personally I believe they are actually required to remove ambiguity in the constitution. In the end from your viewpoint they make no difference as you claim they are redundant. So why concern yourself with what you consider a non-issue.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Except of course for the fact they proved you a liar, ignorant of the actual content of the constitution.
- Again, Variable...namecalling is the work of the mentally deficient. I understand the Constitution. I have advanced degrees in it and I am currently working on my doctorate. If you read th writings of the Founders, many stated that the Bill of Rightswere unneeded. And if we didnt have mentally deficient people and people intent on circumventing the Constitution, they would be absolutely right. I agree that they should have put them in. But they werent needed. The Constitution clearly gave the Federal government certain enumerated powers. Which means, they have no power to take away firearms, or free speech, or house troops in our homes or anything else listed. Nowhere in there did the States give them that power. To the Founders, it was common sense that we had those rights and freedoms. And it was common sense to them that the Federal government could not do anything more than they listed. And it was common sense to them that the Federal government couldnt take money from one American and give it to another who did nothing to earn it (acts of benevolence). Unfortunately, the last 100 years in this country...we have had no common sense.
- Hey Mortarman329: I am a history Professor and you are correct. Veriablespanner is somewhat ignorant of the constitution but since he is a liberal it is expected.
- Mortar -- the 9th amendment in plain english COVERS all the rights of the people by reference even though the constitution does not ENUMERATE all trhe rights of the people. this statement of yours is clearly a lie -
- Thanks Wade. I dont hold current Americans completely respnsible for their ignorance. Their education doesnt teach our Founding principles anymore. Sadly.
- A lot of women would prefer Tea Parties and Dance Parties to staying home with a baby.
- Reply to this comment
- by Mortarman329 October 11, 2010 9:20 PM EDT What part of the 9th Amendment dont YOU understand? You see...what I am referring to is the fact that the Constitution nowhere covers all of the rights we hold. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read the whole 9th amendment again -- clearly the Constitution covers all rights we hold -- it may not enumerate them all but it clearly covers them all with the 9th amendment -- are you powers of comprehension of the English language really as poor as your posts indicate --- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
- Reply to this comment
-
- Mortar - your Quote "what I am referring to is the fact that the Constitution nowhere covers all of the rights we hold." --- clearly the 9th (and 10th) amendment you argue elsewhere is redundant clearly COVERS by reference all rights retained by the people without ENUMERATING them all. Clearly you have already agreed that you were wrong before when you claimed that the Constitution did not ENUMERATE ANY RIGHTS. From the use in the above sentence COVERS and ENUMERATE do not mean the same thing. That appears to clearly be YOUR COMPREHENSION ISSUE.
- Variable, again...better stated to reflect what I was saying, the Constitution does not enumerate all of the rights of an American. But the Constitution does enumerate ALL of the powers of the Federal government. The Constitution was written to gve the Federal government its marching orders from the States. It was not intended to give us our rights.
- Accepting this statement of yours as true Mortar - And the Federal government is not authorized by the States thru the Constitution to spend one penny on healthcare. Obviously this statement is a lie as you make no exceptions above - Now, soldiers are authorized healthcare, because the Constitution does authorize the Federal government ot make laws pertaining having a military. Taxpayers support both state and federal prisoners -- so the argument is the same. How idiotic can you be. So all federal employees, elected officials, etc, seniors on medicare, children on schip, veterans (not authorized even under uyour conflicting condition above as they are no longer service members) and current active service members should lose their health insurance. Look out because the 14th Amendment provides the same restrictions to the states -- so all state government employees, elected officials and medicare, sschip, medicaid programs must be curtailed to. Mortar -- you don't want to kill women but also seniors and all public servants and military by denying them access to their current health care options -- how barbaric can one person be?
- Reply to this comment
-
- Well, if you read my posts below you would see yo uare wrong as usual. I did say that the Federal government is authorized to give pay and benefits to its employees. Second, a prisoner is authorized through the powers of the government of arrest and emprisonment to have basic needs met. I dont want to kill anyone. What I want people to do is to obey the law. The Constitution gives no powers to the Federal government ot spend one dime outside of the powers given to it. Added to this, it is immoral to take money from one person and give it t another that did nothing to earn it. That is called theft.
- Your response still indicates without a doubt that all federal and employees and elected officials medicare, medicaid, veterans, schip, etc based on the US constitution and equal protection, should be denied their current health insurance and face probable early death after you STEAL the health care benefits they have PAID for either through MEDICARE TAXES or their service to the nation in the military and/or civilian roles -- you are still clearly as barbaric if not more barbaric than Sharron Angle and Joe Miller for denuing pregnant women a life saving abortion if it is the only way to save their lives.
- You clearlycontinue to have a reading comprehension problem, Variable. Employees of the Federal government are given pay and benefits for their services rendered. Providing heatlhcare to American citizens who did nothing to earn that benefit is called theft. No one has a right to think they are entitled to someone else paying for their healthcare or anything else, unless they did something to earn that benefit!
- Imagine how Republicans would have attacked Pelosi if she had abandoned a Downs Syndrome baby to go the Tea Parties and Dance Parties.
- Reply to this comment
