I personally despise unions. With that said, I can stomach private business and collective bargining. But I cannot accept the fact that government can unionize it's employees.

The local that represented the Fire dept in my hometown was not a good representative for my fellow Firefighters. I was asked to join several times over the years but declined.

For 21 years I had to see the local #1444 magazine everytime an election came up every four years. Every election cycle, the local #1444 issued a magazine with the democrat presidential nominee and his vice presidential pick on the cover. Unfortunately, the Fire service unions are staunch democrats no matter what a particular candidate stands for.

Here's some food for thought:

The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America's working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hard-working but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation.

David Crane, special economic advisor to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, breaks down the numbers.
Much has changed. The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.

Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.

Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default. Decades of overpromising and fiscal malpractice by state and local officials have created unfunded public employee benefit liabilities of more than $3 trillion.

Mark Evans

The fact that federal employees are allowed to contribute to the re-election funds of politicians who can give them better wages is understandably vexatious to those who are not represented, and I do feel sorry for people in the private sector, especially in the past 28 years (since Reagan and PATCO), who have seen their wages decrease steadily as private-sector unions became powerless in the face of the right-wing Republican onslaught. But don't forget, although 91 million dollars may seem like a whole lot of money to you or me, the fact is that this relatively miniscule sum, when compared to the billions upon billions that corporate business pumps into the "democratic" process, is the only thing standing between the privately employed and abject poverty.

Also don't forget the thousands of union organizers and workers who died trying to bring a better life to your fathers and grandfathers, who fought for an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

The states are under obligation to balance their books, unlike the feds, so some are tacking the problem for real. There is no more money and cuts have to come where the money is...in union jobs.

JIMV wrote:

The states are under obligation to balance their books, unlike the feds, so some are tacking the problem for real. There is no more money and cuts have to come where the money is...in union jobs.

You realize that those union jobs are the ones that are supplying a large share of the tax money that comes in, don't you? It can't work, mathematically. Attacking the unions is part of a larger, more underhanded attempt to subvert the labor movement, which is what Walker's backers are paying him for. The strategy is a fraud.

But - let's just say - what if organized labor is thrown to the wolves of Teapublikanism? With less money coming in, who pays the rest of the supposed $3.6 billion? Even if a savings of $300 million is acheived (that's $0.3 billion for those decimally challenged), where is the additional $3.3 billion going to come from? Is there a plan in place for additional savings, distributed equally between the working people of Wisconsin and business?

No, Walker is lying to the people and trying to deceive them into thinking that union workers are responsible for the problem. It was working until a week ago, but I think more and more people are catching on to the fact that trying to place the burden of a $3,600,000,000 shortfall on the backs of the public employees of the state of Wisconsin is just not right.

It's also just not consistent with the ideals of America. That should be made clear.

Bluesbob wrote:

The fact that federal employees are allowed to contribute to the re-election funds of politicians who can give them better wages is understandably vexatious to those who are not represented,.

So, if I am a conservative, and support republican candidates in every election cycle, but I work for the Federal government and I am a member of a government union, then I shouldn't complain about my union dues going to democrats that support socialist economic policies??

That's the problem.

Organized labor has ran its course since the turn of the 20th century. It has become nothing but an operating bureaucratic arm of the Democrat National Committee.

Define or give examples of what you mean by socialist economic policies, please.

Bluesbob wrote:

Define or give examples of what you mean by socialist economic policies, please.

Policies that redistribute wealth, or wealth redistribution.

Ex: Obamacare.

They have two options, raise taxes and support business as usual protecting the fat union wages and benefits or...

They can go where the government money is and make changes (cuts)

Unions fail when they assume they are to be protected from downturns on other taxpayers money.

WI will pass this or they will lay off thousands of the same folk. Tat is the choice.

Bluesbob wrote:

Define or give examples of what you mean by socialist economic policies, please.

BoBoCare comes to mind...

is a huge wealth redistribution project. 51% of us are taxed to provide expensive and unresponsive programs and entitlements to the 49% who do not pay taxes.

Trey

Hi Mark,

As a non-union member of your dep't. were you also able to reject the pay, benefits and retirement package afforded the union members...or were you forced to accept the same level of compensation as your misguided socialist brethren?? Just effing with ya, buddy.

rvance wrote:

Hi Mark,

As a non-union member of your dep't. were you also able to reject the pay, benefits and retirement package afforded the union members...or were you forced to accept the same level of compensation as your misguided socialist brethren?? Just effing with ya, buddy.

I hear ya Bro :-) Good hearin from you.

The particular Union, IAFF local #1444 rarely met with or addressed any problems issued by the Union president of our local. This particular local was not a strong advocate for its members which subsequently led to marginal membership.

The benefits that were enjoyed by myself, my Father and other Firefighters were benefits put into place by our mayor Emory Folmar who was a fiscal hawk.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield total coverage - 90.00/mo. family coverage no matter how many dependents a Firefighter had which was awesome in itself. If single, it was free.

Our mayor gave these benefits to the Firefighters:

Holidays and personal leave.

a mandatory 3% cost of living raise every year

9.9 hrs of sick leave built/ mo.

Vacation time 24hrs/mo.

Kelly days (an off day every 5th day you work).

A college degree would give a Firefighter an additional 5,000/yr. bonus

Once we retired, we recieve 50% of our highest grossing salary at retirement.

The drop program. You could work 1-3 years beyond your 20 yr retirement date which would give you a bonus of 22,000 for each year worked over 20 yrs with the maximum of 3 years.

So with all things considered, I am of the opinion that we had it pretty good minus a Union or collective bargining. So, I never understood the great push for the union in my Fire Dept.

I'm sure this would vary from city to city.

Talk later my good man :-)

Mark

Some folks here would deny the constitutionally granted right of association to public employees.

Some others would appear to want to defend extortion.

Winners, all. NOT.

I wonder who all those protesters voted for. It serves them right. Those very same people are the ones who voted the Republicans into office. They complain about the funding the unions throw at the Democrats and vote Republican.

Anti union anti middle class economic policies are alright as long as it doesn't mean you. Union members should remember who actually butter's their bread.

The language used to describe collective bargining as a "right" makes no sense whatsoever.

You are forced to join a public sector union and that requires the union bosses to confiscate a part of said public employee's earnings in the form of dues, clearly violates the 5th admendment to the U.S. Constitution which is the right to private property (in this case, money) and the prevention of said property for public use (in this case, campaign funds).

Nevermind the right of freedom of association in which said public employee is forced to be associated with an entity that an employee may disagree with. But that is another discussion altogether.

Union dues are being used for "public use" meaning, campaign contributions to democrat politicians.

A "right" cannot be a right if it tramples on another right, in this case, the 5th admendment.

Collective bargining is a privalege NOT a "right" in my humble opinion.

Mark Evans

JoeE SP9 wrote:

I wonder who all those protesters voted for. It serves them right. Those very same people are the ones who voted the Republicans into office.

The Republican party would become extinct if "those very same people" didn't vote against their own financial self-interest. How else can a party that represents a very small segment of the population hold onto power the way they have?

Bluesbob wrote:

JIMV wrote:

The states are under obligation to balance their books, unlike the feds, so some are tacking the problem for real. There is no more money and cuts have to come where the money is...in union jobs.

You realize that those union jobs are the ones that are supplying a large share of the tax money that comes in, don't you?

In WI there are 330,000 government union employees including teachers and over 3 million total employed taxpayers. So, worst case, 1 in 10 has their benefits trimmed a tiny bit, hardly a massive hit to state revenues as they only get back about 8 cents on the dollar paid so for every $100 trimmed from the union, the state loses $8...

Now do the math...do they save more NOT paying the $100 or losing $8....

JoeE SP9 wrote:

I wonder who all those protesters voted for. It serves them right. Those very same people are the ones who voted the Republicans into office. They complain about the funding the unions throw at the Democrats and vote Republican.

Anti union anti middle class economic policies are alright as long as it doesn't mean you. Union members should remember who actually butter's their bread.

Nonsense...In WI the teachers union alone gave $1,900,000 to the dems in state races...

Bluesbob wrote:

JoeE SP9 wrote:

I wonder who all those protesters voted for. It serves them right. Those very same people are the ones who voted the Republicans into office.

The Republican party would become extinct if "those very same people" didn't vote against their own financial self-interest. How else can a party that represents a very small segment of the population hold onto power the way they have?

The country is center right and mostly votes accordingly

The anti-public sector union mentality which is currently sweeping the US comes from the fact that the US's so called liberal media has phrased the issue as a comparison between the benefits currently being received by public sector employees versus those currently being received by private sector workers. On the basis of this comparison it sure looks like those public sector employees are living high on the hog.

However suppose a different comparison or comparisons were used? Say comparing benefits currently being received by private sector employees versus the benefits received by private sector workers of thirty or forty years ago. What that comparison would clearly show is just how much has been lost by private sector workers during the past thirty years. Add to that a comparison of the salaries, perks and benefits the executive class (CEOs and other board members) received today versus those received forty years ago. Taken together a very clear picture of the massive money grab underway by the wealthy in America (or as the Teapublicans like to call it "a redistribution of wealth") and exactly where that money has and is coming from (hint: from the working or middle class) becomes vividly clear.

I apologize for being so un-American and not worshiping the wealthy and super wealthy but I have a hard time enjoying getting so thoroughly screwed, let alone bowing and kissing the feet of those actively screwing me over.

I have no problem with people making a lot of money but I do have a problem with people making a lot of money at the expense of others.

America is very quickly turning into the world's biggest banana republic and banana republics have a pretty good track record of ending badly and violently. The day of reckoning for the wealthy in America for their shameful behavior is coming and the longer it takes to arrive the more blood will be spilled.

Just has I don't have with honest wealth, I don't have a problem with honest labor unions. I have problems with corrupt wealth and I have problems with corrupt labor unions.

Over the past thirty years in America labor unions, both honest and corrupt, have LOST power, wealth and influence. Over that same time period the wealthy have gains a disproportionate share of power, wealth and influence. Labor unions are not the cause of so many state's budget problems. Stupid politicians are. The unions are simply a convenient scapegoat and a good way to divert the public's attention from what's really going on.

As the joke goes, a billionaire, a teacher and a factory worker are sharing a plate of 10 cookies. The billionaire takes 9 cookies and turns to the factory worker and says "Watch out for that teacher, he's going to take your cookie."

If you don't understand that joke then you don't understand what is really happening.

Lamont Sanford wrote:

So, you are selective "with people making a lot of money at the expense of others." Ever heard of the "Fair Share" joke? That is a term unions use to make you pay dues that are virtually the same amount as regular dues. Only you don't get to vote. You don't even get a choice. You are forced to pay for something you don't want. Unions make a lot of money from forced dues. Most of their dues come from forcing the use of the fair share doctrine. I think that falls under your category of "people making a lot of money at the expense of others". Of course, you have changed your mind with petty displacement. Anyway, it is impossible to make money (seller) without somebody (buyer) recording an expense. So, I'm not quite sure what is your point with people making money at the expense of others. I guess if the sellers make "a lot of money" it is somehow a bad thing thing for the buyers.

While I understand and agree that unions are not perfect and many of their practices are unfair what I don't understand is why is there so much outrage over unions and yet almost no outrage over the corrupt and unfair practices of Wall Street. The outrageous behavior and practices of Wall Street have had a negative impact on almost every American, way more so than any bad union behavior might have had, through the direct loss of savings (think of all the 401Ks destroyed in 2008) and the creation of major recession/depression rivaled only by the Great Depression.

Word of the day: prioritize

JIMV wrote:

Bluesbob wrote:

JoeE SP9 wrote:

I wonder who all those protesters voted for. It serves them right. Those very same people are the ones who voted the Republicans into office.

The Republican party would become extinct if "those very same people" didn't vote against their own financial self-interest. How else can a party that represents a very small segment of the population hold onto power the way they have?

The country is center right and mostly votes accordingly

That's exactly my point. People think of themselves as "center-right" or "conservative" (whatever the hell that means today)- and yet they approve of things like Medicare, Social Security and some sort of national health insurance by magins of 2 to 1 when asked directly. So they support liberal programs, but they vote for other "center-right" reasons, most of them "wedge issues" - like blaming union workers for bad economic decisions made by government. That is how the GOP retains its' power.

JIMV wrote:

The country is center right and mostly votes accordingly

Just for the record - in case it's not obvious - I consider national health care, Medicare, Social Security and programs like them as "centrist". In other words, these programs are part of what our nations' government should guarantee to its' citizens - whether you want to file it under "Life", or "Liberty" or "the Pursuit of Happiness". Americans agree with that, by a margin of 2 to 1, no matter what label is attached to them.

The thing is...as far to the left as the new 'center right' may have moved, the actual left has moved further...

On the Public Service Union issue...the actual facts of union compensation, be it government workers or educators, has been well hidden for decades. Today folk are beginning to realize that they are being taxed to provide benefits for folk who are already doing far better then they are.

The old 'starving teacher' argument is dead.

JIMV wrote:

The old 'starving teacher' argument is dead.

Maybe that's because they had a right to belong to a union.

There is no 'right' to get rich on the poorer taxpayers dime...

Bluesbob wrote:

JIMV wrote:

Bluesbob wrote:

JoeE SP9 wrote:

I wonder who all those protesters voted for. It serves them right. Those very same people are the ones who voted the Republicans into office.

The Republican party would become extinct if "those very same people" didn't vote against their own financial self-interest. How else can a party that represents a very small segment of the population hold onto power the way they have?

The country is center right and mostly votes accordingly

That's exactly my point. People think of themselves as "center-right" or "conservative" (whatever the hell that means today)- and yet they approve of things like Medicare, Social Security and some sort of national health insurance by magins of 2 to 1 when asked directly

They may consider themselves "Republican" but that certainly doesn't mean they are conservative. They are known as R.I.N.O's.. (Republicans In Name Only). The fraudulent Obamacare legislation IS unconstitutional. That's simply NOT conservative.

Mark Evans

soulful.terrain wrote:

The fraudulent Obamacare legislation IS unconstitutional. That's simply NOT conservative.

Mark Evans

Sorry to disappoint you Mark the constitutionally of the health care law cannot be determined by capitalizing "is" because only the US Supreme Court can make that determination. Nor is the law unconstitutional simply because the tea baggers say so. You see that's how the US constitution works. It might help things just a little bit of the tea baggers would actually read and try to understand the US constitution instead of just waving it around.

jazzfan wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

The fraudulent Obamacare legislation IS unconstitutional. That's simply NOT conservative.

Mark Evans

Sorry to disappoint you Mark the constitutionally of the health care law cannot be determined by capitalizing "is" because only the US Supreme Court can make that determination. Nor is the law unconstitutional simply because the tea baggers say so. You see that's how the US constitution works. It might help things just a little bit of the tea baggers would actually read and try to understand the US constitution instead of just waving it around.

Jazzfan said: "Nor is the law unconstitutional simply because the tea baggers say so.."

You obviously missed the ruling decision of Florida U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson. Judge Vinson ruled it unconstitutional because of the individual mandate.

I have read the Constitution. And the Constitution does not give the government the power to FORCE a private citizen to buy a product (in this case, health insurance) from another citizen

That's understanding the U.S. Constitution. NOT waving it around as you say.

In case you forgot: It was Democrat Louise Slaughter of N.Y. that initiated the 'deem and pass' rule, aka 'the Slaughter rule' and was Harry Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, that wanted to circumvent the legislative process and just deem it passed without state reps voting on it.

Apparently, the democrats need to understand the Constitution and thier LIMITS on what they can do.

Mark Evans

soulful.terrain wrote:

You obviously missed the ruling decision of Florida U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson. Judge Vinson ruled it unconstitutional because of the individual mandate.

Mark Evans

True to tea bagger and Fox News form you only mention those rulings which agree with your position. A little research shows that this is a complex issue which most likely will not resolved until it gets to the US Supreme Court:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Federal_Court_rulings

In the end it matters not what you or I think, it will be up to the US Supreme Court to decide.

jazzfan wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

You obviously missed the ruling decision of Florida U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson. Judge Vinson ruled it unconstitutional because of the individual mandate.

Mark Evans

True to tea bagger and Fox News form you only mention those rulings which agree with your position. A little research shows that this is a complex issue which most likely will not resolved until it gets to the US Supreme Court:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Federal_Court_rulings

In the end it matters not what you or I think, it will be up to the US Supreme Court to decide.

It's going to the Supreme Court BECAUSE of the Florida U.S. District court judges ruling. Once a District Court judge rules in opposition, there must be a stay from executing the law. didn't happen though...imagine that..

..just a little insight for the enlightened, intellectually superior liberal mind.

You also forgot about Democrat Anthony Weiner (NY)

You know, he was the one that said Obamacare needed to be passed to save the economy..

Another question for the enlightened, intellectually superior liberal mind:

Why has democrat Anthony Weiner of N.Y. NOW applied for a waiver FROM Obamacare????

soulful.terrain wrote:

You also forgot about Democrat Anthony Weiner (NY)

You know, he was the one that said Obamacare needed to be passed to save the economy..

The proper name for what you insist on calling "Obamacare" is "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010" either of which establishes a government run health care program. In fact the biggest government run health care program in the US is Medicare, which is very similar to a single payer health care system.

As you know the Tea Party hates any single payer health care system. The Tea Party also hates The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which clearly do not provide for a government run or a single payer health care system but they absolutely LOVE Medicare. Based on this behavior I would say that the Tea Party also hates logic. The funny thing is in the world we live in 2+2=4 not 2+2=5.

So while liberals do not necessarily have enlightened and intellectually superior minds their minds can at least follow simple logic.

Here's some more simple logic for you (I hope that you don't find this too challenging):

How do you expect to improve the quality and caliber of teachers if all you do is attack them, cut their salaries and benefits and make their profession into a joke with no job security and little room for advancement?

jazzfan wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

You also forgot about Democrat Anthony Weiner (NY)

You know, he was the one that said Obamacare needed to be passed to save the economy..

The proper name for what you insist on calling "Obamacare" is "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

How do you expect to improve the quality and caliber of teachers if all you do is attack them, cut their salaries and benefits and make their profession into a joke with no job security and little room for advancement?

The proper name for what you insist on calling "tea baggers" is "The Tea Party." Not "tea baggers" which is the description of the perverted sexual act called 'tea bagging'.

I never attacked teachers... I attacked the public sector union that force teachers to join the NEA and pay dues whether the teachers want to pay or not, and said dues support democrat candidates.

News flash! and this may come as a shock to you, but not all teachers support democrats.

Why shouldn't the teachers pay a little into thier own healthcare??

The rest of us do. Now, isn't that the simple logic you speak of?

So back to my original question:

Why is democrat Anthony Weiner (NY), who was a staunch supporter of Obamacare, and stated that in order to save the economy, the health care bill MUST be passed. BUT, Weiner has now applied for a waiver FROM Obamacare. Can you answer that with, what you say...simple logic?

It seems your democrat politician Weiner is obviously suffering from, as you say, the lack of simple logic. And to use your simple arithmetic analogy; Maybe democrat Weiner sees that 2+2=5

I'll stop using the term "tea bagger" as soon as you stop using the term "obamacare". Deal?

As for Anthony Weiner comments I guess you get your information from Fox News and as usual what was reported by Fox News and the true are two different things. Don't believe me? Try looking at the actual footage of Weiner's original statement. it's available on the web.

But please don't stop watching Fox News since by doing so you are so misinformed that picking your arguments apart becomes a piece of cake.

jazzfan wrote:

But please don't stop watching Fox News since by doing so you are so misinformed that picking your arguments apart becomes a piece of cake.

yeah.........you have been about as effective picking my arguments apart as that recently fired, leftist neurotic emotional wreck, Keith Olbermann of msnbc who thought he knew how 'to pick arguments apart.' I guess you forgot about last November when the country rejected your socialistic ideology.

Along with Weiner, there are 39 states that have applied for waivers from obamacare. How do you explain that genius?

But being a good socialist like yourself, I'm sure you'll make something up to obfuscate that too.

Denial of obvious factual statements is a trademark of modern progressives. In laymans terms, hypocrisy.

Picking my arguments apart as you say... Well thats achievable if your 'facts' change on a daily basis and you have absolutely NO core values or principles. Just emotional, off the map accusations which is another trademark of the modern progressive movement.

I'll leave you with this. Hell has been described as a place where there is no reason, I simply cannot dwell there with you.

JIMV wrote:

There is no 'right' to get rich on the poorer taxpayers dime...

Unless you're a CEO, multi-national corporation, part of the military-industrial complex, health insurer or bankster (among many others).
But seriously, do you really think the public sector employees in Wisconsin are getting rich?

soulful.terrain wrote:

The fraudulent Obamacare legislation IS unconstitutional. That's simply NOT conservative.
Mark Evans

It's funny, but I don't particularly like "Obamacare" either. I voted for Obama because I, like over 60% of Americans, wanted the country to move to a single payer system, just like Medicare, (which I am now under anyway). And I agree with you that it is not conservative. But I am a liberal when it comes to domestic policy, plus the health-care act is saving me about $4000 in cobra payments for my 23-year old daughter while she figures out what grad-school to attend. It's also helping my in-laws cope with their advancing years by closing the "donut hole", albeit slowly.
What is really needed is an end to the for-profit health-care system, established by the Nixon administration in 1973. The reason the country is spending so much on health-care in the first place is because of the outrageous cost of health insurance. The good side of "Obamacare" is that it is a first step in that direction. We must continue to move forward.
What exactly are your opinions on health-care in general, health-care insurance and the single-payer systems (like Medicare, VA benefits, etc.)? Do you think that the government of the United States should provide health-care insurance for all citizens or not? Or are you just against "Obamacare" in general because of partisan reasons?

Bluesbob wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

The fraudulent Obamacare legislation IS unconstitutional. That's simply NOT conservative.
Mark Evans

It's funny, but I don't particularly like "Obamacare" either. I voted for Obama because I, like over 60% of Americans, wanted the country to move to a single payer system, just like Medicare, (which I am now under anyway). And I agree with you that it is not conservative. But I am a liberal when it comes to domestic policy, plus the health-care act is saving me about $4000 in cobra payments for my 23-year old daughter while she figures out what grad-school to attend. It's also helping my in-laws cope with their advancing years by closing the "donut hole", albeit slowly.
What is really needed is an end to the for-profit health-care system, established by the Nixon administration in 1973. The reason the country is spending so much on health-care in the first place is because of the outrageous cost of health insurance. The good side of "Obamacare" is that it is a first step in that direction. We must continue to move forward.
What exactly are your opinions on health-care in general, health-care insurance and the single-payer systems (like Medicare, VA benefits, etc.)? Do you think that the government of the United States should provide health-care insurance for all citizens or not? Or are you just against "Obamacare" in general because of partisan reasons?

Thanks for asking for my opinion on the health-care bill Bob. There are a litany of flaws in this bill, primarily the unconstitutionality of this 2074 page bill.

Here is why I am opposed to it:

The Left has always had an erratic relationship with the Constitution. Liberal judges are known for discovering constitutional rights that had eluded judges for centuries. That’s because some of those so-called rights, such as the right to privacy, have no basis in the text of the Constitution but rather somewhere in its “emanations” and “penumbras.”

But the alleged right to privacy has its limits even among liberals. The Left’s judges routinely rule that the right protects abortion on demand, but its legislators have no qualms about extinguishing the right of citizens to make other private healthcare decisions free of government coercion.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to be involved in healthcare, and the loud affirmation of this fact may offer conservatives their best chance to pull the plug on Obamacare. It would be ironic if it is in the courts, liberals’ favorite venue for forcing social change, that the rule of law were restored and the personal freedom of the American people affirmed.

The power to regulate each citizen’s health care is not listed in the Constitution among the federal government’s enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment makes clear that any powers not specifically granted to Congress are reserved to the states.

But among liberals, for whom it is an article of faith that government-run healthcare is a basic human right that no person of goodwill could oppose, any arguments about its constitutionality are irrelevant.

When pressed to address constitutionality, liberals often point to the commerce clause. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate “commerce among the several states.” But that does not mean Congress can meddle in anything that affects economic activity. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate non-economic activities just because, somewhere down the road, they may have an effect on economic activity.

The most egregiously unconstitutional element of the health care legislation concerns the individual mandate, which requires each American to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty of up to $25,000 or one year in prison. The individual mandate is essential to the Left’s plan to impose government-run health care. Without it, because of the left’s insistence on barring insurance companies from denying coverage to people for pre-existing conditions, people would simply obtain insurance only when they have a need for medical care.

The individual mandate is a way to keep costs down, but there is not constitutional authorization for it. As Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has said, “…here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want…and…that’s not constitutionally sound.”

Back in 1994, during the Democrats’ last foray into healthcare reform, the Congressional Budget Office stated that compelling individuals to buy insurance would be “an unprecedented form of federal action” because “the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the U.S.”

Liberals often liken the health insurance individual mandate to the law requiring all people who own automobiles to have auto insurance. But it’s a flawed argument. Only state governments, not the federal government, can require automobile owners to obtain auto insurance (and two states, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, don’t).

Also, as legal scholars at the Heritage Foundation point out in a recent legal memorandum, “automobile insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself.”

“Why the personal mandate to buy health insurance is unprecedented and unconstitutional,” also notes that states require drivers to maintain auto insurance only to cover injuries to others. “The mandate does not require drivers to insure themselves or their property against injury or damage. Thus the auto insurance requirement covers the dangers and liabilities posed by drivers to third parties only…”

It would be an understatement to say that individual mandate advocates have struggled to defend its inclusion. In a series of interviews, Democrat after Democrat failed to give a coherent answer about where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance.

Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka said he was “not aware” of the Constitution giving Congress the authority, while Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) said he’d “have to check the specific sections,” Well Senator Reed, we are waiting to see what conclusions you have arrived at, and we are still waiting. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) flatly admitted that he did not know. Well Senator Nelson, shouldn't you find out before you vote in the affirmative?

Senator Blanche Lincoln should have taken the Nelson route but instead opined, “Well, I Just think the Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.” Well Senator Lincoln, thats blatantly bogus. And Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the question, insisting that “nobody” questioned Congress’ authority to require individual mandate. Well Senator Leahy, concerned taxpayers are now questioning just who and what gives you that authority?

Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) said Congress authorization to impose an individual mandate could be found in the part of Constitution that authorizes the federal government to “provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.” But,I would like to point out that “health” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

Then there was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who simply responded “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Well Nancy, after that response it is totally fair to say that it is obvious the document you took an oath to uphold and enforce doesn't matter because the ends justify the means when it comes to your agenda. By which she seemed to be saying, “Do you seriously think we progressives would allow constitutionality to get in the way of our half-century old goal of government-run health care?!”

There are other constitutional problems with Obamacare. For instance, if the public option provides for abortion, many Americans will be compelled to subsidize other people’s abortions, which would infringe upon the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.

And constitutional concerns exist over exempting some states from Obamacare’s provisions. In Harry Reid’s fire sale for votes, he essentially agreed that some states would bear the brunt of the economic burden of the health care monstrosity but not others. Presently state legal experts are examining whether the constitution can force such a burden upon them in which they have. That's why 39 states have already filed for waivers.

Other constitutional issues are buried deep in the pages of the bill just now seeing the light of day. For example, in spite of recent Supreme Court decisions raising constitutional questions about racial set asides, Obamacare promises federal financial assistance to medical schools, but only if they have programs that serve “under-represented” groups based on race, sex, religion and sexual orientation.

An unintended consequence of the health care debate may be that legislators on both sides of the isle are dusting off and reading their copies of the U.S. Constitution and that is a real good thing for both parties. Conservative members of Congress should keep pressing to talk more often and more fervently about the constitutional arguments against Obamacare.

Conservatives have tested its constitutionality in the courts. It may well be that the jobs saved or created by the Obama Administration’s health care plan go to lawyers, not doctors.

Sorry for the lengthy response,

Mark Evans

Mark,

I enjoyed your very detailed and reasonable response outlining the basic reasons for your disdain of the health care law. Now since you appear to be very well informed and passionate about the US Constitution I would like to know your opinion on gun control laws with respect to the Constitution, specifically how does one deal with assault weapons, items which did not even exist at the time the Constitution was written.

Please bear in mind that I am not trying to set up a straw man argument but rather I'm trying to understand how one works within the framework of a two hundred plus year old document, albeit a very well crafted one, and modern issues.

jazzfan wrote:

Mark,

I enjoyed your very detailed and reasonable response outlining the basic reasons for your disdain of the health care law. Now since you appear to be very well informed and passionate about the US Constitution I would like to know your opinion on gun control laws with respect to the Constitution, specifically how does one deal with assault weapons, items which did not even exist at the time the Constitution was written.

Please bear in mind that I am not trying to set up a straw man argument but rather I'm trying to understand how one works within the framework of a two hundred plus year old document, albeit a very well crafted one, and modern issues.

Naturally I am against all guns laws and the assault weapons ban.

The reason is because of the rights put forth by the originalists and their many quotes on the importance of a well armed populace.

Samuel Adams said it best in Mass during the proceedings of the commonwealth. He said, "The said Constitution shall be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

In establishing the Second Amendment, the founding fathers recognized that as long as there was an armed populace, a government could not arbitrarily force its dictatorial will on the people. It is the right to keep and bear arms that secures our individual freedom and provides the security of our life and property.

It is, perhaps, this "individualism" that stands front and center in the modern debate over the Second Amendment. The question seems to be, "Who is better to provide for your well-being and to protect you from those wishing to harm you... yourself or the State?

Collectivist (Statists,Marxists,and Progressives) influences in our society believe the State is supreme and the individual exists only to serve the State. Any freedom the individual citizen may enjoy is therefore granted by the State, as a collective or group right, who acts as their provider and protector.

This should scare the daylights out of any freedom loving American; Obama Attorney General, Eric Holder, along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice–co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief was filed in support of DC’s ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home. The brief argued that the Second Amendment is a “collective” right, not an individual one, and asserted that belief in the collective right had been the consistent policy of the U.S. Department of Justice since the FDR administration.

The founders of America saw it different, as do modern day freedom patriots. The writers of the Constitution did not establish the Second Amendment to protect sportsmen and hunters. The intent of the Second Amendment is to protect your individual right of freedom and to protect you from a tyrannical State.

Thomas Jefferson backed this up by saying, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

In order to preserve and protect the freedom granted by the Constitution, it is not only your individual responsibility as an empowered citizen, but it is your "duty" as Americans to protect and preserve that liberty.

Thomas Jefferson also made this statement; "The Constitution of most of our states and of the United States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

We don't need fewer guns in our communities, we need more guns. Every citizen ought to be armed and experienced in the use of their weapons if this nation is to remain free. The only obstacle to the collectivist agenda of controlling America is the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms. That is why there is such an effort to take away your guns. If every American was armed, our government could never oppress us, just with the knowledge that we all had that weapon at our disposal.

Patrick Henry seems to agree, as he so eloquently states; "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. Of couse, these words are rarely echoed in the halls of Congress or the Senate.

In the chaos and trauma that accompanied the levee collapses in New Orleans in 2005, the federal government's response was to illegally seize fire arms from hundreds of law abiding citizens while allowing criminals to run amuck.

I've heard it said somewhere, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." If the situation were reversed and everyone was required by law to own and carry a gun, then crime would decrease because all the criminals would know that everyone has a gun, not just them. Liberal gun control advocates don't like to mention the 2 - 2.5 million cases each year where gun owners prevented bodily harm to them, their family and friends because they were armed.

Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a tyrannical government. Take for instance what John Gotti's ex-henchmen, Sammy 'the bull" Graviano said about the Brady bill. He said it was the happiest day ever for the mob when that bill became law. Basic common sense makes it abundantly clear why Sammy "the bull" felt that way along with the other crime families.

The great Statesman Ron Paul said this, "History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment."

Those are just a few examples that really stand out to me and I hope this sheds some light on my beliefs on gun control.

Thanks for the kind words prior to this posting,

Mark Evans

Again a well very written albeit grossly misguided response.

Guns for all!! What happened to the deep Christian beliefs such as turn the other cheek. I guess Christ's teachings only apply in the abstract and not down here on the ground.

However taking your statement at face value how do we the citizens address the fact that while have hand guns and rifles the government has tanks, missiles, planes, bombs, etc. The strife in Libya clearly shows that rebels armed with hand guns and rifles are no match for a well equipped modern army. Is your solution to allow private ownership of heavy artillery because a two hundred document written by men, not GODS, can be interpreted to allow it?

I cannot argue with you warped logic all I can do is hope that none of your loved ones ever falls victim to the senseless gun violence which is hallmark of America's gun love.

..your three points.

You bring up a great point and a very legitimate point concerning Luke chapter 6 verse 29.

Certainly Christ's teachings applied down here on the gound. But who did they apply to? To whom was the kingdom gospel given? Which gospel?

During Christ's earthly ministry(before the cross), he commanded the 12 disciples to turn the other cheek. This gospel is of the Kingdom (Matthew 4:23 etc;) was given to the Jews only. Jesus Christ made that abundantly clear all throughout the 4 gospel books.

ex. Matthew 15:24 - I am not send but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Jews).

Christ taught the 12 disciples in Luke 6:29 to turn the other cheek. if someone smites you on one cheek, give him the other.

If we are to literally take Luke chapter 6:29 and attempt to apply that today, then all the wars fought to secure liberty and freedom were ungodly, even personal protection would be ungodly.

If I were walking in the mall shopping and some man slapped my wife on the cheek, what should I do? Tell her to give him the other cheek right? Well no, theres not a man on the planet that would allow another man to smite his wife on the cheek and shouldn't.

After the resurrection, God's dealings with man changed. No longer an exclusivity toward the Jews but Gentile and Jew alike.

That's why we are to follow the gospel of the grace of God given the Apostle Paul to be delivered to the Gentiles after Jesus Christ commissioned him on the road to Damascus. (Us)

Notice a differnce here:

Romans 12: If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

"If it be possible" is very different than the strict command given to the 12 disciples. Sometimes it is not possible to live peaceably. Therefore we have scriptural authority for self-defense, personally and as a nation.

On the other two issues;

Heavy artillery, nuclear warheads, weapons of mass destruction etc; are not protected under the 2nd admendment. The left uses this argument alot. But what they don't take the time to consider is the fact that the materials that need to be spec'd to build these are already illegal to own, especially chemical agents for weapons of mass destruction. Plus, alot of common sense helps as well to discern the difference between a semi-automatic pistol and a daisy cutter bomb.

We are not Libya, thier governement has not secured the blessings of liberty, they don't enjoy the 2nd admendment as we do. They can't. They don't have a well-regulated militia, we do. they have never had a buffer between them and their tyrannical government. We do. We are assisting Libya, in what capacity, no one knows. But at any rate, We were outnumbered by King George's army, France and Spain assisted us, so historically great civilizations have been aided by other nations to secure freedom and liberty. So, the argument that the federal government has bigger firepower is moot. History proves it.

If the Progressives in our Government want to ban guns, then amend the Constitution, plain and simple. That's how it is set up. It has been amended 27 times, they certainly have the right to bring this issue before a Constitutional convention to bring it up for query and vote on it.

My problem is, the progressives won't do that. They have sought to go around the document they took an oath to. Again, amend it. Don't subvert it.

Is senseless gun violence a threat to everyone. Yes, it certainly is..but given the situations that surround senseless gun violence, a well armed family member has more protection than an unarmed family member. And seriously, How many gun laws will it take to make the criminals obey them?

Thanks,
Mark Evans

soulful.terrain wrote:

..
Heavy artillery, nuclear warheads, weapons of mass destruction etc; are not protected under the 2nd admendment. Thanks,
Mark Evans

... and here I was looking forward to mounting a General Electric XM-214 Minigun to my automobile to deal with traffic congestion, parking space issues and that guy in front of me who has had his left turn signal on for the last 10 miles.
No wonder I can't find one on EBay.

Seriously though, I would have to agree with you Mark on all 3 well stated points.