American URGENTLY need a course in US Government 101

[nadinbrzezinski]

Really.

No, it is not just the GOP saying we are gonna repeal this bill... REALLY... you guys need like control of congress and beyond a super majority to do THAT but I am sure you DON'T know that.

It is also people here who do not know simple things like protection of the minority and whip counts.

It is the American People who are taken advantage of less than knowledgeable politicos who stir emotions.

So I am serious. You really want to understand how sausage is made... take the time to take a US Government course. Make sure the course includes some readying into the Constitution and silly concepts like oh protection of minority and whip counts.

I am astounded at how many people don't know this... and sadly that includes the politicos in DC.

But one way that them politicos (on both sides mind you) to stop taking advantage off their emotions... you need to know the BASICS of how this shit works. I believed that the Health Care Bill would offer an opportunity for people to learn, and I WISH the SPAN had a play by play this is how this shit works program... but the ignorance is just astounding.

Oh and for people (on both sides) screaming but they did it in secret! Of course they did... in front of the damn CSPAN Cameras...

This rant comes to you through somebody who should KNOW BETTER... Buchanan, ranting this morning bout how guv'ment has never compelled people to buy products. Well Pat, just George Washington did that, oh back in the day... I know that is Ancient history. If you were to be a member of the militia you were ORDERED to BUY a musket from private providers. Yep, an executive order and shit... oh back in 1792 That my dear is the FIRST example... of a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT compelling private citizens to buy a product from private enterprise... oh wait, that's a gun, so I guess that's ok.


(For most Muricans that is damn ancient history, before the great flood, so not known anyway... now ask them about Britney and oh boy wait for the flood gates of info to open.)

[Oregone]

1. "oh back in 1792 That my dear is the FIRST example"

Hey! Thats was even before we had legal precedent to own slaves!

(Actually, Im not sure of that, but, ya know, the point stands. There are a lot of laws in them ol days that may not have been constitutional).

[glinda]

2. Education on these subjects on a wide scale is the key to Dem success.

[State the Obvious]

3. Years ago, we couldn't advance into high school UNTIL we passed a government test ... and...

...a Constitution test! (It was actually fun studying for it....study guides were designed around the Schoolhouse Rock format!.....and was not a big deal!)

Ask ANY Republican who wants to pass an amendment..."How EXACTLY do you amend the Constitution?" .they either DO NOT know....OR.... think it is passed just like a bill! :crazy:

K&R

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. This is not about Republican or Democrat

this is about a damn country full of willfully ignorant, and mind you emotional people.

This is not party... but a general attitude.

[stray cat]

4. A course in logic as well as basic scientific thought

of couse since some students can't read or add and subtract.....

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. Logic and Philosophy from the Greeks to the Romans

"Both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom,
the former in order that, as age comes over him,
he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been,
and the latter in order that, while he is young,
he may at the same time be old,
because he has no fear of the things which are to come."

Epicurus, 341–270 B.C.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. The act of 1792 goes to original intent, which is huge in Conservative circles...

whose legal doctrine requires that the people who wrote the constitution knew what it said.

It directly refutes the argument that the government never mandated that Americans had to buy something from private companies.

There is, however, precedent that the Federal Government can regulate commerce.

States fighting healthcare law don't have precedent on their side
Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients.

They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority "to regulate commerce."

Even "noneconomic local activity" can come under federal regulation if it is "a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce," Scalia wrote.

So, yes the government has ordered civilians to buy things from private companies.

Yes, they have the precedent, and quite recent I might add, to show that it is Constitutional for the U.S. Government to regulate commerce.

That fact that Scalia and Kennedy are part of that ruling, priceless.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I know, but I am also betting

this Act is not ahem KNOWN in Conservative (or liberal for that matter) circles.

It IS ancient history.

[upi402]

7. CSPAN; Covering Secret Political Acts Network

:patriot:
The Constitution: "It's just a god damn piece of paper" -Georege W Bush

[ThomWV]

24. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on three channels and a radio network - very secrete indeed.

[crazylikafox]

27. LOL. I hadn't heard that one.

That's a great acronym. You should spread it around.

[upi402]

36. Thanks, it just occurred to me

:shrug: Needs to be right between CNN and Fox on the cable channels to be seen by more people. Sometimes I think we should boycott cable and switch to satellite to force a change. Then force satellite on the rebound! It worked for the zealots on the other side.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. You have no idea how many times

I found myself reaching for the COMPUTER

My local provider is REALLY bad about the SPAN

[upi402]

41. C-SPAN 3 is waaaay down the 'dial' for me. Downing Street hearings

were on C-SPAN 3 and essentially hidden that way. I'm disgusted we aren't having those hearings UPSTAIRS now that we've given the Democrats power. It should be like a firehose of clean and open government now, just like Republicans did in the opposite sense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. You got THREE? I used to have two and one

these days I only have one.

I SHOULD check if there is an IPOD app for that. Serious. That's how I catch Hartmann any longer.

[ejpoeta]

8. as anyone knows they don't have to actually DO anything. they talk a big game, but

once in charge they won't do anything either. just take credit for anything that helps. sure they voted against it, but that won't stop them from taking credit if anything positive comes from it. and those out there who don't bother looking things up for themselves just believe what they are told to believe.

[datasuspect]

9. what you're saying doesn't apply to the political THEATER they distract us with

there's only one party but they give us Democrats and Republicans. like the Bears and the Packers.

why?

because this is the level of intelligence at which most of us function.

and their marketing techniques are highly effective.

bread and circuses.

the point being: whatever dog and pony show they throw at us; only one thing will happen: more wealth will be redistributed to the wealthy. that is the purpose of EVERYTHING. that's the reason for EVERYTHING. and that is what this is all about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Ah but even Marx and Lenin

knew that in order for the bread and circuses to stop working you NEED an educated population.

I am sure you knew that too.

Oh wait, that is what the Founding Fathers were also all about.

So that is WHY you need to go back to school and so does 98% of the population. If we want the games to STOP working and for people to take charge of THEIR GOVERNMENT, well shit they need to know how that government works. Don't care if this is the Worker's Council in the Greater Siberia oh back in the day or the City Council or the US Congress.

You don't believe me? READ their writings and why it is IMPORTANT to educate the workers

[datasuspect]

23. citizen participation in government processes isn't necessary

it's useful to an extent, but not necessary for their purposes. this is a global phenomenon that utilizes governments as trade resources and populations as profit centers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. As I said, even Marx and Lenin understood this concept

of the government of the people.

So if you are going to use them, realize they disagree with you. After all what they wanted to replace was one type of government for another.

[datasuspect]

32. you are losing credibility with me

i use my sigpic as a moran catcher and it's working on you.

i gave you more credit than that before today. off to the C List with you!

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. It is not a moran catcher

and if I lose creditability since you are using a sig that is clearly meant to ENTRAP then you are not engaging in true debate. Now are you?

[datasuspect]

34. it's double reverse insidious communist octopus psyops mindfuck

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Debate is Psyops?

Wait, let me go adjust my tin foil hat...

OY.

[datasuspect]

37. you need to adjust your attitude

you're just bustin at the seams with prickly little spikes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Does that include repectors for the secret CIA signals

that go through my dental fillings?

Sorry, I have an attitude when people use straw men... like oh psyops to replace debate.

I am also sorry to have pointed out that both Marx and Lenin worked to establish a DIFFERENT government... from the one that existed at the time, that would benefit a different sector of society, but that required the new government to have PARTICIPANTS.

Now in practice I can say Lenin failed... and we may wonder what would have happened if he lived... and was not replaced by Stalin, but knowing a little about Russian History... I am not so sure.

Now it is you who does not want to discuss... so have a good life.

[datasuspect]

39. it's impossible to have a discussion with an irascible person

like yourself.

[coti]

12. That Militia Act is not good precedent on which to rest your argument or our constitutional

jurisprudence, nadin.

From another of my posts on the car insurance analogy:

"Nor does the newer 'Militia Act of 1792' example being offered give a better justification. That law did not apply to everyone, and required the ownership of a gun and supplies, not the year-after-year purchase of one, during the fledgling years of our country and the still-prevalent fear of it being attacked by outside forces. In fact, today such a law would likely be struck down as unconstitutional (it's no longer in-force, is it?) Can anyone say 'Alien and Sedition Acts?' No, such laws do not make good constitutional precedent."

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Did you know about it?

I am betting you did not...

And that IS THE DAMN FUCKING POINT

[coti]

15. Whoo, anger.

My damned, fucking point is that it's not a useful precedent. It's always good to know our legal history, but that law's pretty long-gone, not even that accurate as an analogy, and in any case quite the outlier considering the situation at the time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Actually it is precedent in the US system

unless it actually got repealed or something by a court or Congress.

Which it did not.

That said, at the state level the mandate to buy insurance is also quite valid, thank you.

[coti]

17. Well, considering that *I* don't own a gun, and, as far as I know, I'm not violating any laws....

it must have been either repealed or struck down. Did that not occur to you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Are you part of the militia?

Thank you for playing.

It wasn't struck down, the way WE organized our standing military has ahem changed a tad since oh 1794.

We no LONGER have local and state militia, but a NATIONAL GUARD... and a REGULAR ARMY. They like provide the guns and ammo these days.

That does not mean the act got struck down... I mean there is this stupid little law in the books in Cali that anytime you move cattle at least one of them has to have a bell. Now that goes back to the time of using horses.. has not been repealed... or struck down. So a few truckers who transport cattle have a bell somewhere in the truck.

And there are literally thousands of laws like that which have never been struck down.

Yet another area of knowledge most Americans lack.

[coti]

19. Ahhh- so you're saying it didn't apply to everyone, like the HCR bill does.

Only those who'd made the choice to join a militia.

And those people, oddly enough, needed muskets.

Do you really think that supports the health insurance mandate?

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Becuase the government MANDATED it

just like car insurance is mandated. YES THERE IS PRECEDENT TO A GOVERNMENT MANDATING YOU BUY A PRODUCT YOU MAY NOT NECESSARILY WANT.

Thanks for playing.

When this goes to the USSC, yes it will get there, chances are it will not be deemed unconstitutional... assuming our right wing court decides to apply the law and not play politics.

Fat chance I know. And I also know some round these parts will sing the praises of the court that day.

[coti]

25. You're clearly not listening, or attempting to find a true analogy.

You've already admitted to two huge problems with your attempted analogy- it doesn't apply to everyone, and in fact only applied to those who had made a choice to join a militia. And, obviously, needed to own (not purchase) a gun.

Those are both enormous distinctions between the Act you're referring to and the health insurance mandate. The health insurance mandate applies to everyone (or nearly so- it has a few meager exceptions), and there is no way to choose to avoid it.

Do you see how, on top of the other situational distinctions I've already mentioned, those two facts destroy the comparison you're trying to make?

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. And those arguments will be made counsel

but they were made with car insurance before state courts.

We have been down this road before, legally that is.

And the point I was making is that when we have the RIGHT (and left) argue that government has never mandated a thing... well they have... starting with that act.

And that is the very narrow point I am making. We have had mandates in the past, starting with pretty early in the Republic, which leads to original intent.

[DatManFromNawlins]

43. You're talking simply to hear yourself talk

We have never had a mandate in the past to require someone, simply because they exist, to purchase anything. Furthermore, the entire reason that they are requiring a mandate is because they claim that it is necessary to regulate the health insurance industry. But the Supreme Court has a pretty narrow view of what is and isn't considered regulation of interstate commerce, and the mandate certainly does not apply. There are NO arguments whatsoever that can support the idea that the government needs everyone to purchase an item simply so that it can regulate a market.

[cali]

22. never, never dare challenge the OP

She is, after all, the all knowing Nadin.

:rofl:

[coti]

26. If you're so sure of her reasoning, maybe you can give a straight response

to the rather large distinctions I'm noting between the two situations.

See post #25 and elsewhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Oh that is Cali

which leads to another story

I could say the sky is blue, she'd argue that the sky is green just because I pointed out the sky is blue.

:-)

[Oregone]

31. Did you?

Because after a year of heavy debate, this obscure, obsolete law isn't mentioned until now by everyone and their dog as part of the daily talking points.

There is value in understanding law and the constitution. Not so much in memorizing obscure laws such as this that do not even draw close parallels. How can you fault anyone for not knowing about it? Its irrelevant.

[cali]

21. the politicos in D.C. damned well do understand. What you fail to understand

is their talk of repeal is rhetoric to stir up the masses.