GOA - GOOD NEWS

[Marlin]

I received this in the morning Email. That is one small step; maybe we can have others if we keep the pressure on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gun Owners Win the Opening Battle on ObamaCare!

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

Friday, October 23, 2009

Congratulations!

You have stymied the shady tactics used by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi to try to pass the ObamaCare bill and -- in the opening salvo of the battle -- you blew them out of the water.

Gun Owners won a huge vote Wednesday in the Senate.

As you remember, the ObamaCare bill would dump your gun-related health data into a federal database. It would also put your (government mandated) insurance at risk if you keep a loaded gun for self-defense.

But there was a problem: The anti-gun health bills cost too much, and Obama had promised to pass a bill which would not raise the deficit by "one penny."

So what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did was to try to pass a separate bill (S. 1776) which would fund the anti-gun ObamaCare bill by raising the deficit another $247 billion dollars.

But, they would argue, because S. 1776 was a "separate bill," the ObamaCare bill itself would not raise the deficit.

In a Senate not known for morality, this rose to a level of sleaze and corruption that embarrassed many Democrats, in addition to all Republicans.

With gun owners responding vigorously to our alerts on this issue, the motion to invoke "cloture" (or shut off debate) on the bill failed by a 47-53 vote -- 13 votes short of the 60 votes the anti-gun socialists needed.

The victory on S. 1776 means that it will be much harder for Obama, Reid and Pelosi to pick up the somewhat fiscally-minded Blue Dog Democrats they so desperately need to get their anti-gun ObamaCare legislation passed.

So congratulations! It is true that this is only the first battle... but, if we continue battering Congress as we have, it will be the first of many victories.

To see the official listing of how each Senator voted, you can go to http://tinyurl.com/ykb6kjb.

But in the meantime, pat yourself on the back for a job well done... and have a great weekend!

[Tom Militano]

The three stooges lose again!

[Marlin T]

I see that my letters to the NM people didn't make a difference, but I'm not going to stop sending them.

[pickenup]

Well I'll be.........

[bcj1755]

Anyone notice that the "fair and impartial" media is now reporting that AdolfCare will cost more than Blinky's estimate? Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with that

[belercous]

The G.O.A. is taking credit for something they only had a small part in. They could have sat this one out and it still wouldn't have passed. It was about raising the deficit, it had nothing to do with guns. I'm all for not raising the deficit (and in fact, wish to reduce/eliminate it) and I'm pro-gun, but these two issues are not related.
Nolo Bene; invoking cloture does not shut-off debate. The Senate debates issues, but when the minority decides to fillibuster (meaning just keep talking and not relinquish the floor. Senators can/have read the phone book in order to keep talking. Hardly debate.) it takes 60 votes to end the fillibuster (which actually hasn't been done for years, the threat suffices).
And "Socialists" (like that's supposed to be a bad word?) do not neccessarily care about gun control. In a Senate with 60% Democrats, there is not even a simple majority in favor of gun control. Someone's watch is running slow, it is now quarter-til 2010. Political realities change, please read the memo dated Nov. 1994.

[JohnBrainard]

Originally Posted by belercous

And "Socialists" (like that's supposed to be a bad word?) do not neccessarily care about gun control. In a Senate with 60% Democrats, there is not even a simple majority in favor of gun control. Someone's watch is running slow, it is now quarter-til 2010. Political realities change, please read the memo dated Nov. 1994.

Yes. It's far worse than anything heard in a bar full of sailors. Socialism should not be tolerated in America. It has never worked and never will work.

And, there's nothing in the text of that e-mail that indicates GOA is taking credit for the win. It's congratulating its members for their efforts.

And the two issues are very much related when our health records are stored in a database that can be queried during a background check. It's bad enough that the records would be centralized and accessible to the government.... Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted any access to our private medical records?

[tntrucker]

I'm totally convinced that Obama,Biden, Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, etc. desperatly want to take away our guns. Look at their track record. They haven't changed. I believe Obama came in with a script. Do this- then this-etc. Like a coach who scripts his play calling.
They have hit a problem with health care. They are off track, but the agenda is still the agenda.

[belercous]

"Yes. It's far worse than anything heard in a bar full of sailors. Socialism should not be tolerated in America. It has never worked and never will work."

Obviously you didn't take an intro to political science class in college, much less an upper level class. We already have socialism here. The military is socialized defense. Fire departments are socialized fire protection. Medicare is socialized health insurance. Social Security (see, right there in the name?) is a socialized retirement pension.
So I guess your against all these forms of socialism? And they don't work?
Do you even have a clue as to how uneducated you sound?

"Gun owners won a huge vote..." sure makes it sound like gun owners were responsible for this. And it didn't even have anything to do with guns. "The Obamacare bill?" Wtf? Obama doesn't write the laws, congress does. Ever hear of them? They write the laws and the President can either sign them into law, veto them, pocket-veto them, or not sign them and let them become law without his signature. There is no "Obamacare bill," there are several different bills, and not one was written by Obama.

The adoption of digitized medical records is to save $ and smooth the flow of information among medical proffessionals. I can go either way on it, but lean towards having it.
The Peamble of the Constitution states "We the people...promote the general welfare..." Read the document sometime, you might just be surprised at what is in there, and what is not. If digitized health records are considered to "promote the general welfare" then they are constitutional. The idea is to aid healthcare providers. But I'm sure you believe that the gov. is going to review everyone's records and do bad things to us according to our individual ailments and afflictions.
Can you show me where the Const. prohibits sharing medical records with medical care providers, or even the entire world? Do you know the word "privacy" is not in the Const.? A prominent conservative judge, Robert Bork said that privacy is not Constitutionaly gauranteed. (it is, subject to some constraints) Bork was a conservative, not a liberal, and if I recall correctly the conservatives were all up in arms about him not getting put on the S.C. Now, if you were against Bork's nomination, I'm sorry to impute his judicial view with your own. Just pointing out what (some) conservatives believe.

[tntrucker]

To belercous; Dude you sure think a lot of yourself. I'm not impressed nor intimidated.
But life is way too short; so I'm not going to get into it with you.

[bcj1755]

This healthcare "reform" will be a threat to firearms ownership because it puts everyone's private info into a federal database, including medical and psychiatric records. The current versions of the bill have clauses that can deny someone coverage because of "dangerous lifestyles." And, lo and behold, now the NIH is conducting a "study" on gun violence.
http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=68845
All they need is for that "study" to "prove" that gun "violence" is an "epidemic," and then they can deny coverage to firearms owners. What's more, the current versions also contain clauses that require everyone to have some form of gov't approved health insurance, however people who lead "dangerous lifestyles," i.e., gun owners, will be denied coverage, and will then be in violation of the law, requiring either large penalties to the IRS (of all people) or getting rid of the guns. Not only that, but some people, myself included, simply cannot afford to be forced to buy gov't approved insurance because of the tax load I'm already bearing. I CANNOT afford to give more money to the government. Period.

Now, as to the legality of the federal gov't running healthcare, it is not legal. If, and this is a VERY BIG IF, gov't is going to get involved in healthcare, then it should be the STATES that do so, not the feds. Since the Constitution does not mention healthcare as a power of the federal gov't, then under the 10th Amendment, gov't healthcare should be managed by the individual states.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Seems plain to me. But, here's what James Madison thought about it.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce....The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvment, and prosperity of the State." - James Madison

Not only that, but the Founding Fathers did not believe in the gov't taking control of ANY private industry, and this would include healthcare.

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants." - Thomas Jefferson

"Let vigorous measures be adopted; not to limit the prices of articles, for this I believe is inconsistant with the very nature of things, and impracticable in itself, but to punish speculators, forestallers, and extortioners, and above all to sink the money by heavy taxes. To promote public and private economy; encourage manufacturers, etc." - George Washington

The closest thing in the Constitution is the "general welfare" clause (Article I, Section 8), which has been twisted and distorted by the liberals after the SCOTUS ruling in United States v. Butler, 1936, into "authority" to provide gov't handouts to people who just feel too damned special to work. They also use that as "authority" to take wealth, in the form of tax money, from people who work so they can REDISTRIBUTE it to the "less fortunate."

"No man should become a member of a community in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact....The legislature, therefore, had no authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without a just compensation. It is inconsistant with the principles of reason, justice, and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace, and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance in every free government; and lastly, it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution." SCOTUS ruling in VanHorne's Lesee v. Dorrance, 1795

Wow, what a difference 141 years makes in the attitude of SCOTUS.

The Founding Fathers DID NOT believe in socialism or in a welfare state. Period. They have left writings full of warnings about letting people live off the gov't dole and against socialism. Remember, the Declaration of Independence states "life, liberety, and THE PURSUIT of happines," NOT "life, liberty, and happiness."

"If we can pervent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams

"To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good." - Benjamin Franklin

Since, like Obama, you claim to be a constitutional scholar, you should already know this. Although, your posts make you look to be just another liberal who is trying to make yourself seem intellectually superior to others.

And, if you think that a European-style system is such a good idea, let's look at Germany. They invinted the universal healthcare system and social security.

...To combat socialism Bismarck put through between 1883 and 1889 a program for social security far beyond anything known in other countries. It included compulsory insurance for workers against old age, sickness, accident and incapacity, and though organzined by the State it was financed by employers and employees. It cannot be said that it stopped the rise of the Social Democrats or the trade unions, but it did have a profound influence on the working class in that it gradually made them value security over political freedom and caused them to see in the State, however conservative, a benefactor and a protector. Hitler...took full advantage of this state of mind... Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shrier, pg 141; footnotes

(Emphasis added by me)
Notice the attitude of the Germans is remarkably similar to the attitude of many Americans today?
What you claim is a socialist system was invented to combat socialism. Although, somewhere along the line, the systems invented by Bismarck to combat socialism ended up being used by the socialists. Bismarck also put through a universal healthcare system, a system that today the Germans are debating about doing away with in favor of a system more like the one the US currently uses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...950211460.html
Germany has had 125 years to make it work, and they can't seem to do it. So, logically, how can the US, which has never had a system like that on such a large scale, get a workable system with the speed with which they are trying to cram this "reform" through Congress?

Massachusetts already has a universal healthcare system. How well is it doing?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ud-romney-bid/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726287099225209.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...500,full.story

Looks like a real winner to me Let's see, it cost MA $630 million in 2007, which will go up to an estimated $1.3 billion for this year. And the gov't always underestimates how much something is going to cost The system MA instituted works on some levels, although not very well, and does not work at all on other levels. That's giving me a warm fuzzy just thinking about it

[JohnBrainard]

Belercous, you need to go back and re-read the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment is of particular interest to you. The text "promote the general welfare" does not grant the government unlimited powers as you seem to believe.

You seem incapable of carrying on a civil discussion. I hope the rest of the forum will join me in ignoring your posts.

[belercous]

John Brainard: The 10th Amen. means NOTHING. Cite me 2 S.C. cases where the 10th Amen. means anything. Can you? No, you can't.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do think the 10th should mean something, but the sad fact of the matter is that it don't. Somehow, somewhere, the 10th Amen. ought to have some meaning. Why else would the first Congress (and the states) have enshrined it into the Bill of Rights? Makes no sense to me how these words, most from the Fathers of the original Constitution, have no legal meaning.
One of the things taught in law schools is that every word of the Constitution is there for areason. The Founding Fathers deliberated over every word, and they knew the meaning of the words they used. They did not put in "extranoius" verbiage, so every word should (ought) to mean something. This was my big issue in college and law school. What exactly does the 9th and 10th Amenments mean? Answer: Not much, if that. And no, John Brainard, I have spent years studying the Constitution, the federal government gets the vast majority of its power from the "interstate commerce" clause.
This is another subject with which I disagree. Do you know the sole S.C. case which finally put the stop to Congress's meddling in state affairs? No, you don't. Otherwise you would have cited it, and you damn well should know it because it involved guns. And school zones. That was a hint. 1996 is another hint. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

Tntrucker; Really, who cares what you think? Who cares what I think? I'm not gonna sway anyone who has a closed mind. It is the independent voters who count, always have, always will. By the by, I'm sure that you know Edwardsville, Ill. Where you stop has no relation to our town. We just annexed it for the taxes we may (or may not) get from the land sometime in the future.

Bcj1755: So you really think that your life-style will preclude you from getting healthcare insurance? You are correct, in so far as private insurance goes. Gov. healthcare insurance will not exclude you. I have no idea about what you speak in re; guns and healthcare. This has nothing to do with reality. I could be wrong, but I'm just not getting that. If there is a need to charge gun owners more for insurance, the same thing needs to be applied to water-skiers, snow skiers, dirt-bikers, etc., I just don't get what you're talking about. And as far as the rest of your post goes, you seem to be babbling on senselessly.
"All they need is for that "study" to "prove" that gun "violence" is an "epidemic," and then they can deny coverage to firearms owners." Where is this located? Is this in a bill on the President's desk? Did I miss something, or did you just cite the most extreme bill (which has no chance of passing) and trot that out as fact? WTF? Cite me a bill, one that has made it out of committee. Can you? What bill are you talking about? Has it got to a floor vote? I must have missed something here.

Again, John Brainard: I have studied the Constitution for years. I have done so in college, and then again in law school. I'm just telling ya'll what the S.C, has said. Now, I know that you are much more of a Costitutional scholar than any S.C. Justice, but your understanding of the Const. really doesn't have much support in the legal community. Take a poll. And no, the preamble of the Constitution is not generally what S.C. opinoins are based on, it is only a "fall-back" option. The major parts supporting gov. expansion are based upon the "commerce clause," as the Const. is understood today. And that is with 7 of 9 Justices being appointed by republican presidents. Bleed to me a little more of how the conservatives are so out-numbered. Oh, and by the way, as I'm sure that you are aware of, the lower federal courts (district and appellate) are already packed with conservative judges. They are appointed for life tenure. No, W. did something for the right-wing base, he just did it quitely.

Yes, I suppose I'm not able to carry on a civil debate/discussion with those opposed to my viewpoint, I'm not civil enough to do such a thing. I'm actually a mean and nasty person. I eat children for lunch and puppies for dinner. My breakfast consists of the toes of a vigin, and the blood of a (young) zebra.

[belercous]

Ooops. not vigin. I meant "virgin." Sorry, the blood of infants has clotted my keyboard. Once again. I hate when that happens.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by belercous

Bcj1755: So you really think that your life-style will preclude you from getting healthcare insurance? You are correct, in so far as private insurance goes. Gov. healthcare insurance will not exclude you. I have no idea about what you speak in re; guns and healthcare. This has nothing to do with reality. I could be wrong, but I'm just not getting that. If there is a need to charge gun owners more for insurance, the same thing needs to be applied to water-skiers, snow skiers, dirt-bikers, etc., I just don't get what you're talking about. And as far as the rest of your post goes, you seem to be babbling on senselessly.
"All they need is for that "study" to "prove" that gun "violence" is an "epidemic," and then they can deny coverage to firearms owners." Where is this located? Is this in a bill on the President's desk? Did I miss something, or did you just cite the most extreme bill (which has no chance of passing) and trot that out as fact? WTF? Cite me a bill, one that has made it out of committee. Can you? What bill are you talking about? Has it got to a floor vote? I must have missed something here.

You claim to be a constitutional scholar, yet you say the 10th amendment means nothing?! That is the same kind of "logic" that says the Constitution is a "living document" And as far as "So you really think that your life-style will preclude you from getting healthcare insurance? You are correct, in so far as private insurance goes," you are WRONG. I could get insurance right now (if I could afford it), even though I own guns. The gov't WILL find a way to exclude gun owners, members of your beloved gov't have said as much. The same thing has been said of the Baucus "bill," you know, the "bill" that made it out of committee even though it hasn't even been written yet So you seem to be the one that babbles on senselessly. You claim to be a college grad who knows the Constitution, yet you didn't even know the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amemdment. You seem to be the same type of "constitutional scholar" as Obama, the type that claims the knowledge, but in practice you have none. And the more you say, the more it seems you've never even read the Constitution. You're only reason for being here is to try and "teach" us the glory of liberalism through your obviously superior intellect (And just to make it clear, the little rolleyes smiley means I was being sarcastic about your "superior intellect") Go back to watching the "fair and impartial" mainsteam media for your "brilliant ideas and knowldge," some of us will think for ourselves. Trying to have a conversation with you is the same as trying to have one with any other liberal. You spew talking points and act like you're so much smarter than anyone else, then when presented with an opposing view, you attack and demean people. So you know what, I bow you your vastly superior knowledge. I guess the Founding Fathers knew absolutely nothing of the Constitution they wrote

[Hells Toy Master]

Originally Posted by belercous

"Yes. It's far worse than anything heard in a bar full of sailors. Socialism should not be tolerated in America. It has never worked and never will work."

Obviously you didn't take an intro to political science class in college, much less an upper level class. We already have socialism here. The military is socialized defense. Fire departments are socialized fire protection. Medicare is socialized health insurance. Social Security (see, right there in the name?) is a socialized retirement pension.

Hmmmm.... No I did not take a, "political science" class but I do not need a Highly Paid MORON to waste my time telling me somthing I can find out on my own in 15 minutes... If you found it educational, then good for you.


1 - If you had not noticed that the majority of the posters here DISAGREE with many of the, "socialized" programs that you want to push foward.

The deffinition is here


2 - military, The milltiary can be miss constued to be considered to be, "Owned" by the, "People" but in what way do the, "People" exersice their "ownership" of the military?

And this is simply viewing the miltitary as a whole, let alone its diffent branches.....

So, agian, how do we exersise "ownership" of the miltitary?

we vote for the president... but oh wait, that is not a proscess of "Socialism" because there is no refrence to, "Voting" In the definition of "Socialism".....

Then the argument can further go along and point out, how much control dose the people really have over the military even with their right to vote?

Lets face it, the people have next to no Power over the military.


3 - Fire departments - Did you know that outside the major citys many fire departments run particaly and some even fully on volenteers?

If you cannot exercise control over somthing then you cannot be the owner of somthing in more than name alone.... and I, and many here do not recognise, "ownership" of somthing we have no control over.

While your closest on this one, It is still not fully a, "socialized" system, besides, there is some demoracy in there usaly, right?


4 - Medicare.... LoL, you brought this one up!

You do know that while some here are on it, Next to no one here likes it and thinks that while it dose provide some benifit, people and their familys should take care of themselves, and its not worth the cost to them and their children and their grandchildren.

Les face it.... I bet that nearly everyone that is on it here could have paid for most of their own medical care without medicare if the money had not been taxed away from them earlier on in their life.


5 - The "S.S." - Annother one that should never have been brought to life... I much rather pay for my grand parents living out of my own pocket than to have my money taxed away from me, and spent on somthing I never wanted to see happen.

Regardess, *I* still need to help take care of my grand parents as the measely sum they send to reitree's is NEXT TO NOTHING.


In other words, you are defending your point with topics that we are attacking and trying to rid the contry with... Hmmm not the best way to make the point, "we already have it"

Originally Posted by belercous

So I guess your against all these forms of socialism?

Yes I do not need socialism in my life... the libs spew way to much of that crap into the air as it is already.

Originally Posted by belercous

And they don't work?

No, their just like slavery, and how well dose that work?

Originally Posted by belercous

Do you even have a clue as to how uneducated you sound?

Now I know why your nose is so far in the air.... that peg that went up your rear end is coming out your nose.

Originally Posted by belercous

"Gun owners won a huge vote..." sure makes it sound like gun owners were responsible for this. And it didn't even have anything to do with guns. "The Obamacare bill?" Wtf? Obama doesn't write the laws, congress does. Ever hear of them? They write the laws and the President can either sign them into law, veto them, pocket-veto them, or not sign them and let them become law without his signature. There is no "Obamacare bill," there are several different bills, and not one was written by Obama.

Wow and you actualy belive that?

The truth is that staffers to congressmen and women write the bills as dictated to them by their congressmen... now, just becasue the president is not supposed to be apart of this prosses, who is in place to stop him?

Hmmm.... what body is responsible to make sure the president is not supposed to write these bills?

congress? Oh you mean the same congress that is letting their power be taken by Obama's Zars?

Its just like how the president is dictaing CEo's Max sallerys..... no one said he could, no law says he can... he is just doing it..

I dont think you understand the Political world so let me enlighten you... If no one will stick their neck out to take you on you can do ANYTHING..... and I mean exacly that... you can rape and murder children but if no one is willing to enforce the laws on the books then the laws mean NOTHING.

PS: I appoligese for using such horrid discriptors, but its very hard to find crime that a lib cannot justify to themselves as, "Ok"

Originally Posted by belercous

The adoption of digitized medical records is to save $ and smooth the flow of information among medical proffessionals. I can go either way on it, but lean towards having it.

Yes but we all know that "medical Pro's" are not going to be the only ones handling the information.

I rather not have somone accedently type in a wrong file number and all my information pop up, or worse, give me the wrong medication because they mistakenly typed the wrong 10 digit number...

The way it is now, I chose who has my medcial info, and thats the way I like it.

Originally Posted by belercous

The Peamble of the Constitution states "We the people...promote the general welfare..." Read the document sometime, you might just be surprised at what is in there, and what is not.

Oh really?

Well here it *Is*

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.

It also says, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" and while, "socialism" Denotes commuity ownership, Liberty denotes freedom from goverment control, which, "commuity ownership" would be govermental control.

So, are we to belive your line that shows bits and pieces mr schollar or mine that shows the whole thing.

Originally Posted by belercous

If digitized health records are considered to "promote the general welfare" then they are constitutional.

Where?

Here is a link to Annother site on the consitution... so please, tell me where in that document it suports your BS.

Originally Posted by belercous

The idea is to aid healthcare providers. But I'm sure you believe that the gov. is going to review everyone's records and do bad things to us according to our individual ailments and afflictions.
Can you show me where the Const. prohibits sharing medical records with medical care providers, or even the entire world?

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Originally Posted by belercous

Do you know the word "privacy" is not in the Const.? A prominent conservative judge, Robert Bork said that privacy is not Constitutionaly gauranteed. (it is, subject to some constraints) Bork was a conservative, not a liberal, and if I recall correctly the conservatives were all up in arms about him not getting put on the S.C. Now, if you were against Bork's nomination, I'm sorry to impute his judicial view with your own. Just pointing out what (some) conservatives believe.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sorry but just because the wording is diffrent, that dose not mean that I can not expect a degree of privacy from this ammendment.

Originally Posted by belercous

John Brainard: The 10th Amen. means NOTHING. Cite me 2 S.C. cases where the 10th Amen. means anything. Can you? No, you can't.

So you agree with me that a law must be enforced for it to mean anything.

Oh and this:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Durring the Civil war, Lincon did alot of work to strip away states rights and no one has re-instated it.... though at the time he did so to prevent a 2nd civil war from happening, ( should he some how win, is how it was viewed at the time. )

Originally Posted by belercous

Now, don't get me wrong, I do think the 10th should mean something, but the sad fact of the matter is that it don't. Somehow, somewhere, the 10th Amen. ought to have some meaning. Why else would the first Congress (and the states) have enshrined it into the Bill of Rights? Makes no sense to me how these words, most from the Fathers of the original Constitution, have no legal meaning.
One of the things taught in law schools is that every word of the Constitution is there for areason. The Founding Fathers deliberated over every word, and they knew the meaning of the words they used. They did not put in "extranoius" verbiage, so every word should (ought) to mean something. This was my big issue in college and law school. What exactly does the 9th and 10th Amenments mean? Answer: Not much, if that. And no, John Brainard, I have spent years studying the Constitution, the federal government gets the vast majority of its power from the "interstate commerce" clause.

Wow....... maybe you should re-take some of those classes.... dont look to me like you learned very much....

It gets the power from that clause cause there are next to no one will truly take it on, and those that have, have done so from a weak platform.

Originally Posted by belercous

This is another subject with which I disagree. Do you know the sole S.C. case which finally put the stop to Congress's meddling in state affairs? No, you don't. Otherwise you would have cited it, and you damn well should know it because it involved guns. And school zones. That was a hint. 1996 is another hint. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

I will admit you are right about a person needing to do some homework... but then, at the same time we do not have to pull out every gun and fire every round to make our points.... only a fool wastes all his ammo in the first round.

Originally Posted by belercous

Tntrucker; Really, who cares what you think? Who cares what I think? I'm not gonna sway anyone who has a closed mind. It is the independent voters who count, always have, always will. By the by, I'm sure that you know Edwardsville, Ill. Where you stop has no relation to our town. We just annexed it for the taxes we may (or may not) get from the land sometime in the future.

LoL,

Independent voters = Dem's who have not made up their minds...

Our goals are to beat those closed minds open with facts and recuit them to join our side.

LoL, and we are gaining ground day by day....

The "Idependents" only matter when one side dose not dominate the other, but with the way our goverment is going these days we will be the dominate group as droves of people will join our ranks, and to your supprise, many of these converts will spend the rest of their lives in our ranks.


It helps when you look at things honestly, with morality, without the rose colored glasses and only ask for a fair shot at things

Originally Posted by belercous

Bcj1755: So you really think that your life-style will preclude you from getting healthcare insurance? You are correct, in so far as private insurance goes. Gov. healthcare insurance will not exclude you. I have no idea about what you speak in re; guns and healthcare. This has nothing to do with reality. I could be wrong, but I'm just not getting that. If there is a need to charge gun owners more for insurance, the same thing needs to be applied to water-skiers, snow skiers, dirt-bikers, etc., I just don't get what you're talking about. And as far as the rest of your post goes, you seem to be babbling on senselessly.

I agree with the part I bolded out.

Originally Posted by belercous

"All they need is for that "study" to "prove" that gun "violence" is an "epidemic," and then they can deny coverage to firearms owners." Where is this located? Is this in a bill on the President's desk? Did I miss something, or did you just cite the most extreme bill (which has no chance of passing) and trot that out as fact? WTF? Cite me a bill, one that has made it out of committee. Can you? What bill are you talking about? Has it got to a floor vote? I must have missed something here.

I guess you dont get it.... It dose not ever have to cross the presidents desk..... It seems you do not have a Idea of the power of a buracrat.

I have heard of a old lady that is to be kicked off her land that she has owned for the last 50 years because her 30 year old son, "could" be harmful to socitity.... the fact that the land owner next door is to be gifted the land is not to be mentioned.


There are thousands of cases every day where buracrats overstep their bounds and unless we are willing to take it to the suppreme court, it goes right along.

YOU, Belercous, are stating the way things should be done and expect the world to fallow it when it suits you, but look a reality aslo, when it suits you.

Originally Posted by belercous

Again, John Brainard: I have studied the Constitution for years. I have done so in college, and then again in law school. I'm just telling ya'll what the S.C, has said. Now, I know that you are much more of a Costitutional scholar than any S.C. Justice, but your understanding of the Const. really doesn't have much support in the legal community.

And the opinion of most of the members, of the leagal commuity means what to me?

Oh, thats right, nothing...

Originally Posted by belercous

Take a poll. And no, the preamble of the Constitution is not generally what S.C. opinoins are based on, it is only a "fall-back" option. The major parts supporting gov. expansion are based upon the "commerce clause," as the Const. is understood today. And that is with 7 of 9 Justices being appointed by republican presidents. Bleed to me a little more of how the conservatives are so out-numbered. Oh, and by the way, as I'm sure that you are aware of, the lower federal courts (district and appellate) are already packed with conservative judges.

Your definiton of, "conservitive" and mine are way off as I see lib's out numbering our side by a wide margin.. ( in the number of district and appellate judges )

Originally Posted by belercous

They are appointed for life tenure. No, W. did something for the right-wing base, he just did it quitely.

Yes, I suppose I'm not able to carry on a civil debate/discussion with those opposed to my viewpoint, I'm not civil enough to do such a thing. I'm actually a mean and nasty person. I eat children for lunch and puppies for dinner. My breakfast consists of the toes of a vigin, and the blood of a (young) zebra.

Go ahead and be as nasty as you like.

I have had far worse than any words on a forum you can throw at me..

[belercous]

bcj1755: "Superior intellect?" Why, thank you. Certainly next to you I am a veritable rocket-surgeon. Obviously from your posts you don't let facts or reality cloud your world view or opinions. Sorry to upset you, I won't bother you again.

Hells Toy Master: Learn how to spell so it doen't look like I'm replying to a nine year old. I'm sorry if you really are 9, in that case please wait a few years. And go to school, no skipping. Your spelling will suffer if you skip class.


"Some people look at the glass and say it's half-full. Others look at the glass and they see a unicorn"-- Jon Stewart

[JohnBrainard]

Originally Posted by belercous

bcj1755: "Superior intellect?" Why, thank you. Certainly next to you I am a veritable rocket-surgeon. Obviously from your posts you don't let facts or reality cloud your world view or opinions. Sorry to upset you, I won't bother you again.

Hells Toy Master: Learn how to spell so it doen't look like I'm replying to a nine year old. I'm sorry if you really are 9, in that case please wait a few years. And go to school, no skipping. Your spelling will suffer if you skip class.

Only to a liberal are sarcastic remarks and attacks on one's spelling a viable alternative to reason and logic.

[belercous]

Well, I tried reason and logic, but that didn't work. Not that sarcasm would work either, mostly its a sign of exasperation. Most people base their opinions on emotion, not fact. This applies to myself as well, although I try to maintain an open mind, something that few here seem capable of.
And spelling? Well, it is an indicator of one's level of intelligence. Especially in the modern era with spell-check programs on computers. I may misspell a word here and there myself, but I don't have a spell-check program (or if I do I'm unaware of it. I'm not a computer guy). But really, just look at his post. Even without a spell checker the number of misspelled words is a bit excessive, and rightly or wrongly, people do tend to judge others on their spelling. It is a reflection on one's level of education, if not intellectual abilities.
"Only to a liberal are sarcastic remarks..." Tune into Rush Limbaugh, he never uses sarcasm.

[JohnBrainard]

Originally Posted by belercous

Well, I tried reason and logic, but that didn't work. Not that sarcasm would work either, mostly its a sign of exasperation. Most people base their opinions on emotion, not fact. This applies to myself as well, although I try to maintain an open mind, something that few here seem capable of.
And spelling? Well, it is an indicator of one's level of intelligence. Especially in the modern era with spell-check programs on computers. I may misspell a word here and there myself, but I don't have a spell-check program (or if I do I'm unaware of it. I'm not a computer guy). But really, just look at his post. Even without a spell checker the number of misspelled words is a bit excessive, and rightly or wrongly, people do tend to judge others on their spelling. It is a reflection on one's level of education, if not intellectual abilities.
"Only to a liberal are sarcastic remarks..." Tune into Rush Limbaugh, he never uses sarcasm.

His message was coherent, yet you totally blew it off. Spelling is a lousy excuse to not respond to the points that were brought up. Spelling is a lousy way to judge a person's knowledge and character as well. Do you test people's spelling abilities before you associate with them?

And, you cut off the most relevant part of my message, "a viable alternative to reason and logic."

Feel free to support your claim that spelling "is an indicator of one's level of intelligence" with a peer-reviewed study. I know plenty of intelligent people who just can't type and don't exactly excel at computers. You yourself claim to be intelligent and are "not a computer guy.'

[jondar]

Don't feed the trolls.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by belercous

bcj1755: "Superior intellect?" Why, thank you. Certainly next to you I am a veritable rocket-surgeon. Obviously from your posts you don't let facts or reality cloud your world view or opinions. Sorry to upset you, I won't bother you again.

Hells Toy Master: Learn how to spell so it doen't look like I'm replying to a nine year old. I'm sorry if you really are 9, in that case please wait a few years. And go to school, no skipping. Your spelling will suffer if you skip class.


"Some people look at the glass and say it's half-full. Others look at the glass and they see a unicorn"-- Jon Stewart

Ooooh, the liberal resorts to insults instead of responding to a differing opinion Why am I not suprised? "Rocket-surgeon" huh? I'll assume you were being sarcastic. But then, you seem incapable of recognising the sarcasm of my "superior intellect" remark. Just like most liberals, you spew the same tired talking points, incoherent liberal "facts," and twisted, nonsensical liberal "logic" that you just continue to parrot from the TV. You also claim that poor spelling or lack of computer skills are a sign of low intellect, yet you yourself admit to not being a computer guy. Therefore, using your own logic, you are of low intellect. Going strictly by the posts I've seen, I'd actually rate Hells Toy Master as being more intelligent that you. But what do I know, I never went to law school like you If you really did, then you must not have paid very close attention. You claim to be a constitutional scholar, yet by what you post, you seem to be comepltely ignorant of the Founding Fahters' purposes in writing the Constitution. I presented real facts and the showed the intent of the Founding Fathers by using their own writings, yet the best rebuttal you could come up with was a rediculous post where you tried to insult me (key word being "tried") and yet again try to make yourself out to be superior to others.

You claim to be an Obama supporting gun owner, yet you've posted very little about firearms. Most of your posts are directed at making yourself seem smarter than others simply by virtue of your supposed education and the fact that you're a liberal, and like most liberals you think yourself superior to others. So tell us, since you love guns so much, how many guns do you own? What's your favorite gun? How often do you shoot? What gun(s) did you use when you supposedly taught other liberals how to shoot? Do you have a concealed carry permit? Do you own a firearm for defensive purposes? How long have you been shooting? How did you learn to shoot? What are your feelings about national gun registration? Would you go along with it? What about gun confiscations? Would you submit to a gun confiscation? What are your feelings about the "national security force" that Obama says we need?

You're nothing but another liberal troll who just can't stand that someone would actually think for themselves instead of swallowing the crap spewed forth from the omnidirectional sludgepump and the left-wing "bastions of truth" on the internet. You claim that you listen to Rush and Beck because they make you laugh, well reading your posts makes me laugh. Your obvious narcisism. And your obvious low self esteem that manifests itself in trying to elevate yourself over others. With each successive post you make, your ignorance of what you claim to have studied in college manifests itself more and more. So please, continue posting, I need some amusment.

[Hells Toy Master]

Originally Posted by belercous

bcj1755: "Superior intellect?" Why, thank you. Certainly next to you I am a veritable rocket-surgeon. Obviously from your posts you don't let facts or reality cloud your world view or opinions. Sorry to upset you, I won't bother you again.

Hells Toy Master: Learn how to spell so it doen't look like I'm replying to a nine year old. I'm sorry if you really are 9, in that case please wait a few years. And go to school, no skipping. Your spelling will suffer if you skip class.


"Some people look at the glass and say it's half-full. Others look at the glass and they see a unicorn"-- Jon Stewart

LoL very funny, I am 27 and not 9... I dont use spell check most of the time and my trademark is my poor spelling.

Besides if you have a question of what I was refering to, then please point it out rather than simply ignore me, unless you are admiting defeat?

Can you read it?

Cna yuo raed tihs?
Olny 55% of plepoe can.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!


See?

Spelling is not as inporrtant as you think.

Originally Posted by belercous

Well, I tried reason and logic, but that didn't work. Not that sarcasm would work either, mostly its a sign of exasperation. Most people base their opinions on emotion, not fact. This applies to myself as well, although I try to maintain an open mind, something that few here seem capable of.
And spelling? Well, it is an indicator of one's level of intelligence. Especially in the modern era with spell-check programs on computers. I may misspell a word here and there myself, but I don't have a spell-check program (or if I do I'm unaware of it. I'm not a computer guy). But really, just look at his post. Even without a spell checker the number of misspelled words is a bit excessive, and rightly or wrongly, people do tend to judge others on their spelling. It is a reflection on one's level of education, if not intellectual abilities.
"Only to a liberal are sarcastic remarks..." Tune into Rush Limbaugh, he never uses sarcasm.

LoL, no your banter is from fear, confusion and your un-willingness to risk a loss so you ridicule and mock us rather than face us. You know what I am saying regardless of my spelling errors.

How am I not surprised?... Libs always run and hide and make everyone else do their work for them.


Anyways, with out the BB codes, Here is my replys in Quotes, with most spelling errors fixed... PS: Bel, the spell checker pointed quite a few for yourself, thus, I wont waste my time spell checking your posts.

Here is the link to the spell checker that I found, just for our good friend.

Hmmmm.... No I did not take a, "political science" class but I do not need a Highly Paid MORON to waste my time telling me something I can find out on my own in 15 minutes... If you found it educational, then good for you.


1 - If you had not noticed that the majority of the posters here DISAGREE with many of the, "socialized" programs that you want to push forward.

The definition is here


2 - military, The military can be miss construed to be considered to be, "Owned" by the, "People" but in what way do the, "People" exercise their "ownership" of the military?

And this is simply viewing the military as a whole, let alone its different branches.....

So, again, how do we exercise "ownership" of the military?

we vote for the president... but oh wait, that is not a process of "Socialism" because there is no reference to, "Voting" In the definition of "Socialism".....

Then the argument can further go along and point out, how much control dose the people really have over the military even with their right to vote?

Lets face it, the people have next to no Power over the military.


3 - Fire departments - Did you know that outside the major cities many fire departments run partially and some even fully on volunteers?

If you cannot exercise control over something then you cannot be the owner of something in more than name alone.... and I, and many here do not recognise, "ownership" of something we have no control over.

While your closest on this one, It is still not fully a, "socialized" system, besides, there is some democracy in there usually, right?


4 - Medicare.... LoL, you brought this one up!

You do know that while some here are on it, Next to no one here likes it and thinks that while it dose provide some benefit, people and their families should take care of themselves, and its not worth the cost to them and their children and their grandchildren.

Les face it.... I bet that nearly everyone that is on it here could have paid for most of their own medical care without medicare if the money had not been taxed away from them earlier on in their life.


5 - The "S.S." - Another one that should never have been brought to life... I much rather pay for my grand parents living out of my own pocket than to have my money taxed away from me, and spent on something I never wanted to see happen.

Regardless, *I* still need to help take care of my grand parents as the measly sum they send to retirees is NEXT TO NOTHING.


In other words, you are defending your point with topics that we are attacking and trying to rid the country with... Hmmm not the best way to make the point, "we already have it"

Yes I do not need socialism in my life... the libs spew way to much of that crap into the air as it is already.

No, their just like slavery, and how well dose that work?

Now I know why your nose is so far in the air.... that peg that went up your rear end is coming out your nose.

Wow and you actually believe that?

The truth is that staffers to congressmen and women write the bills as dictated to them by their congressmen... now, just because the president is not supposed to be apart of this process, who is in place to stop him?

Hmmm.... what body is responsible to make sure the president is not supposed to write these bills?

congress? Oh you mean the same congress that is letting their power be taken by Obama's Zars?

Its just like how the president is dictating CEos Max salaries..... no one said he could, no law says he can... he is just doing it..

I don't think you understand the Political world so let me enlighten you... If no one will stick their neck out to take you on you can do ANYTHING..... and I mean exactly that... you can rape and murder children but if no one is willing to enforce the laws on the books then the laws mean NOTHING.

PS: I apologise for using such horrid descriptors, but its very hard to find crime that a lib cannot justify to themselves as, "OK"

Yes but we all know that "medical Pros" are not going to be the only ones handling the information.

I rather not have someone accidently type in a wrong file number and all my information pop up, or worse, give me the wrong medication because they mistakenly typed the wrong 10 digit number...

The way it is now, I chose who has my medical info, and that's the way I like it.

Oh really?

Well here it Is

It also says, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" and while, "socialism" Denotes community ownership, Liberty denotes freedom from government control, which, "community ownership" would be governmental control.

So, are we to believe your line that shows bits and pieces Mr scholar or mine that shows the whole thing.

Where?

Here is a link to Another site on the constitution... so please, tell me where in that document it supports your BS

Sorry but just because the wording is different, that dose not mean that I can not expect a degree of privacy from this amendment.

So you agree with me that a law must be enforced for it to mean anything.

Oh and this:
Quote:Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

During the Civil war, Lincoln did allot of work to strip away states rights and no one has re-instated it.... though at the time he did so to prevent a 2ND civil war from happening, ( should he some how win, is how it was viewed at the time. )

Wow....... maybe you should re-take some of those classes.... don't look to me like you learned very much....

It gets the power from that clause cause there are next to no one will truly take it on, and those that have, have done so from a weak platform.

I will admit you are right about a person needing to do some homework... but then, at the same time we do not have to pull out every gun and fire every round to make our points.... only a fool wastes all his ammo in the first round.

LoL,

Independent voters = Dem's who have not made up their minds...

Our goals are to beat those closed minds open with facts and recruit them to join our side.

LoL, and we are gaining ground day by day....

The "Independents" only matter when one side dose not dominate the other, but with the way our government is going these days we will be the dominate group as droves of people will join our ranks, and to your surprise, many of these converts will spend the rest of their lives in our ranks.


It helps when you look at things honestly, with morality, without the rose colored glasses and only ask for a fair shot at things

I guess you don't get it.... It dose not ever have to cross the presidents desk..... It seems you do not have a Idea of the power of a bureaucrat.

I have heard of a old lady that is to be kicked off her land that she has owned for the last 50 years because her 30 year old son, "could" be harmful to society.... the fact that the land owner next door is to be gifted the land is not to be mentioned.


There are thousands of cases every day where bureaucrats overstep their bounds and unless we are willing to take it to the supreme court, it goes right along.

YOU, Belercous, are stating the way things should be done and expect the world to fallow it when it suits you, but look a reality also, when it suits you.


Quote:Originally Posted by belercous
Again, John Brainard: I have studied the Constitution for years. I have done so in college, and then again in law school. I'm just telling yall what the S.C, has said. Now, I know that you are much more of a Constitutional scholar than any S.C. Justice, but your understanding of the Const. really doesn't have much support in the legal community.

And the opinion of most of the members, of the legal community means what to me?

Oh, that's right, nothing...

Your definition of, "conservative" and mine are way off as I see lib's out numbering our side by a wide margin.. ( in the number of district and appellate judges )

Go ahead and be as nasty as you like.

I have had far worse than any words on a forum you can throw at me

At least you took me up on that last one with the spelling thing.

Now?

Can you now understand it, or shall I have to cut it down into Go - Dog - Go style of wording for a simpleton like yourself to understand?


PS: Thank you BCJ1755

For our friend who has reading problems:

So tell us, since you love guns so much,

how many guns do you own?

What's your favorite gun?

How often do you shoot?

What gun(s) did you use when you supposedly taught other liberals how to shoot?

Do you have a concealed carry permit?

Do you own a firearm for defensive purposes?

How long have you been shooting?

How did you learn to shoot?

What are your feelings about national gun registration?

Would you go along with it?

What about gun confiscations?

Would you submit to a gun confiscation?

What are your feelings about the "national security force" that Obama says we need?

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by Hells Toy Master

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!


See?

Spelling is not as inporrtant as you think.



PS: Thank you BCJ1755

For our friend who has reading problems:

I had forgotten about that study. Thanks for reminding me about it.

PS: You're welcome

And now, back on topic (sort of)...
Here is the text of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. This is the section that defines the powers of Congress.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Tell me exactly where in there Congress is given the power to take over control of everyone's healthcare. Also, tell me where in there Congress is given the power to put my personal medical records into a federal database so that others can access without my permission. I'll save you some time. You can't find it because it is not in there. Now, since that power is not specifically granted to Congress, then the 10th Amendment would apply.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Seems simple enough to me.