http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2011/02/02/vandy-law-alums-nonsensical-judgment-on-health-reform-constitutionality Comments On: Vandy Law Alum's Nonsensical Judgment on Health Reform Constitutionality by Brantley Hargrove en-us Copyright 2013 Nashville Scene. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Nashville Scene readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Nashville Scene. wil@desert.net (Nashville Scene Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Thu, 23 May 2013 03:00:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://www.airmax-tn-requin.com/air-jordan… because la qualité de l'Chaussure Air Retro Jordanie 9 est très good.and aussi son prix n'est pas l'ordre afin high.in à vous remercier pour votre support.we vous donnera Nike Air Jordanie 13 discout.
Posted by qingfeng]]> Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:14:41 -0500 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:22:46 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Emmy Lou]]> Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:52:05 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by FFFlakery]]> Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:30:01 -0600 Nashville Scene
Before WW2, most people in this country did not have health insurance.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:16:01 -0600 Nashville Scene

Factions?

Hamilton was not the leader of some co-equal group that was the 18th century equivalent of modern day "living document" liberals.




Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:09:41 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:02:37 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Angry White Patriot!]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:22:42 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Hargrove]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:44:42 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Katz]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:19:13 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Katz]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:18:37 -0600 Nashville Scene
Gilbert, we could go on and on with this subject. If the text is what it is, why did the founders break out into factions on it's meaning?
Posted by Chris Allen]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:19:12 -0600 Nashville Scene
No it isn't . The text is what it is.

"very founders who ratified the Constitution had vastly different opinions of what was being ratified and what it all meant. "

The founders drafted the document, they didn't ratify it.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:27:09 -0600 Nashville Scene
I haven't seen you present any facts to argue about.


Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:22:41 -0600 Nashville Scene
That's a highly subjective argument Gilbert.
Posted by Chris Allen]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:15:49 -0600 Nashville Scene
Do you really think it is a good idea to just make it clear you can't be bothered to know that about which you argue?
Posted by Karl Warden]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:12:16 -0600 Nashville Scene
I haven't seen any posts from you that demonstrates you have any sort of superior knowledge on the subject.


"I've said this before, probably to you Gilbert, that there was substantial disagreement among the founder's themselves in the years following it's inception"

Those who wanted to cede more power to the central government were not the one's who won the argument that shaped the language of the Constitution that was ratified. That's why the 10th Amendment was included to make it clear that it was to be a government limited to enumerated powers.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:08:26 -0600 Nashville Scene
I've never heard that term before but the sneering comes because a whole lot of the tea party types obviously know nothing about the Constitution or the history of it's creation. It seems like there are a lot of people who believe that everything in the document is black and white when there is a whole lot of gray.
Posted by Chris Allen]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:54:13 -0600 Nashville Scene
Really?

Exactly which one of them was it that dreamed up the premise that non-activity could constitute "commerce"?

Even Wickard vs Filburn as abusrd as it was involved somebody who was actually doing something.

Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:47:49 -0600 Nashville Scene
Of course.

Liberals don't want to get into a fundamental discussion about the Constitution.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:43:28 -0600 Nashville Scene
Read this and tell me how you disagree with it and how it isn't describing a judicial activist. The myth flying around these days that only liberals are activists is interesting.
Posted by Chris Allen]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:44:13 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Henry Walker]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:43:59 -0600 Nashville Scene 545 U.S. 1 (2005.)
Posted by Karl Warden]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:23:46 -0600 Nashville Scene
Chris, it's a statement you make that shows you should automatically forfeit your right to discuss the issue.

I'm afraid ObamaCare is firmly in place, and will have to do till something better comes along.
Posted by john]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:49:11 -0600 Nashville Scene
Anybody who uses the term "Obamacare" automatically should forfeit their right to discuss the issue because they are admitting to everyone that they have no idea what they are talking about when they use that term.
Posted by Chris Allen]]> Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:14:08 -0600 Nashville Scene