• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Examiner.com: Obamacare attacked as unconstitutional invasion of privacy

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

I stated my opinion, I don't want to hijack this thread.

I was talking to folks about this and the funny thing is a lot of people like myself were surprised with the connection of invasion of personal information and how it might affect our gun rights.

I was thinking so does Obama's plan of streamlining the medical system and having it all online. Did he maybe have this already in mind or is this just an interesting side effect of his plan? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm.
 

jmlefler

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Southwest, Michigan, USA
imported post

I consider Medicare and any gov't program designed to help a specific group of people to be unconstitutional (which is most programs, I believe). When you target a particular class of people, by definition you are acting in opposition to the 'general' welfare; that is, that all people benefit.

FBI agents are called 'special agents' not because they are special but due to their not having 'general' powers; their powers are 'specific'.

To me, for Obamacare to be at least considered to be constitutional (albeit the 9th and 10th amendment arguments rule here), every citizen would be covered by the exact same policy, including all gov't employees.

Carry on
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
promote the general Welfare
Promote does not mean provide.

Welfare - from dictionary.com

The good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
imported post

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

promote the general Welfare, Does not mean FUND, FINANCE, PAY FOR, GIVE AWAY, OR STEAL FROM PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE.

The founderspromoted the general Welfare, by putting strict limits on the governments ability to steal from us. Limits which have been broken. Government can promote the general Welfare, BY GETTING THE HELL OUT OF OUR BUSINESS, and allowing oxygen thieves to either work or starve to death. Nothing PROMOTES THE WELFARE of people better than being motivated too succeed, and uninhibited by bureaucracies that serve no purpose besides providing authority to imbeciles who would starve to death if forced to actually work for a living.

Leftists haveactually reversed evolution. I don't know if western civilization can survive much more. Look what they did to Russia...
 
Top