Interstate commerce? The federal government goes well beyond ensuring that interstate commerce can take place without state tariffs and protection schemes. The federal government uses the interstate commerce clause to overrule the State of California, which allows terminally ill patients to grow marijuana for their own use. As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion, “Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. … By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power.”

Why can't you understand that the clause has been used to limit your rights even though the government has no such authority? Did you like the Bush Administration's anti-liberty stance so much that you do not care about the fact that Congress or the Executive keep using the Commerce Clause to justify what they want? And if you didn't why is it OK if Clinton or Obama do the same?

“Do you really think that you're the first historical revisionist I've encountered?? Think again.”

The fact that you have failed to learn from the actual facts is your problem, not mine.

“Like I said before, the 14th Amendment makes all people born here citizens of the US. My passport is a US passport. Not a Florida passport. The states are individual parts of a greater whole. That's the United States. The states in and of themselves have no direct sovereignty. They cannot act outside of the nation to form their own treaties or alliences. Those that don't like it, can drop dead as far as I'm concenrned. They're anti-American and a blight on the nation. Frankly if they want to seccede again, this time I'm for cutting them loose. I would have no problem watching Texas become a third world nation. The next time a hurricane hits them they can bail themselves out.”

As I said, you need to read the Constitution as it is written. The misapplication of the 14th Amendment to advance certain political agendas is a perfect example of how the Constitution is misinterpreted by the Courts and misused by various administrations. Sadly, you put your leftist ideology ahead of the Constitution as do those on the right.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking a question. “”Why shouldn't it? On the other hand, why shouldn't a private plan meet the same restrictions as a public plan? As for Tort Reform, the public plan wouldn't need it. So if you want to eliminate huge lawsuits, you can, through a public option. If you want to pay more and have the right to sue…you have the private sector. Sounds fair to me.

>”You certainly have shown confusion and an inability to think clearly or do your research.”<

I hear that alot from people like yourself that can never demonstrate how anything that they are saying is actually true. Like, I'm supposed to take your word on some opinion that is nothing more then your own value judgement. Haven't you figured it out by now, that I never regard opinion as having any significance at all? I am only interested in things that can be falsified. Everything else carries no significance whatsoever to me. I don't hold to tradition at the expense of progress.

Nope. They're spot on accurate.

>”The federal government has no business in the religion business because the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…,” leave no wiggle room. “<

Of course. But it was inevitable that disputes over establishment and free ex. would arise and it would require the Supreme court to decide on the conflict. The belief of a religion is protected absolutely. The practice however is not. You can't commit a crime like murder and claim that it's a religious ritual.

>”They limit the power of Congress and the federal government, not the states.”<

By 1833 the last establishments fell and after 1941 the U.S.. Supreme Court set the precedent for incorporating all the legal terms of religious freedom nationally into the judicial rulings of the states. Again, the states laws MUST comply with the US constitution. Because of the 14th Amendment, no state can deprive a citizen of his rights protected by the US constitution. It supercedes all state constitutions.

>”The purpose of the letter was to address the Baptists' fears of an establishment of a national government-supported church.”<

I'm well aware of he purpose of the letter. But if you really want to understand Jeffersons position on religion and the state, then consult his bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia as he wrote it in 1789. “that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction” There is always tension between the establishment clause and the free excercize clause. That's the way it is.

>”Of course, I agree that Jefferson did not believe that freedom of religion, speech, the right to carry arms, association, etc., were inalienable and could be regulated by the states. “<

Owning a gun is not an inalienable right. You weren't born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a right to survival. How you decide to secure that survival is secondary to the right itself. You may decide to become a martial arts expert. You may decide on a host of other options to insure your survival. Hopefully you aren't relying on a health insurence company.

>”Usually the left argues that states cannot establish or support a specific religion but you are supporting an argument that they can and brining up evidence that it is only the federal government that has no business dealing with the subject of religion. You might turn out into a supporter of states rights after all.”<

If you think that, then you are terribly confused. I'm totally and completely 100% against the establishment of religion in any way shape or form. The federal government has already addressed the issue of religion in the first amendment and in Article VI. We have no established religion within the United States. Not in any individual state, nor the nation as a whole. That's as it should and must be.

>”The Fourteenth Amendment has done a great deal of damage to your country and has been applied improperly on all kinds of cases.”<

You've avoided addressing the issue of a contradiction in your claim that a right is absolute. Obviously it isn't. Very often one persons “right” is in direct conflict with anothers. Something has to give. In the case I cited, the property right outweighed the free speech right. So when a statement is made that “No right is absolute.” and you state, “Of course it is. That is what makes it a right”<
your claim is wrong. As for the 14th Amendment doing damage to our country, I'd say that you are clearly blind. It has insured the rights of all individuals born in the US and the value of that can't be overestimated. It removes the possibility of tyranny coming from any individual state which could be made up of a majority of one particular religion for example or race and allowing the minorities of those states to be subjected to second class status. This is America, and it isn't acceptable. As for FDR being on your low list, your list is really irrelevent. History proves otherwise. If you consider Bush or even Reagan high on a list of great presidents…that tells me all I need to know about you.

>”As I said, the freedom of speech is is not inalieanable and is a property right.”<

What you said was that all rights are absolute. I've already pointed out how an inalienable right cannot be a property right since it is understood that property can be bought and sold and you have admitted that an inalienable right can't be sold. Therefore a property right and an inalienable right do not meet the same difinition as anybody understands them. What you're doing is trying to redefine terms to suit your ideology.

>”You still can’t come into someone’s house and try to express yourself unless you have permission to do so.”<

Of coures you can. You may be thrown out as a consequence of what you say, but there is literally nothing to censor you from saying what you have to say except yourself. Your property right doesn't constrict my vocal chords if I choose to say something that you don't like. You can tell me to leave if you like, but that's really after the fact now isn't it. The words were said and no property right that you have could have prevented it. In fact the only thing that has any effect here is whether the person chooses to respect that property right or not. His freedom to speak is actually unconstrained by anything beyond his respect for the persons property.

That's right. As far as regulating interstate commerce goes, that's correct. I have absolutely no issue with that. In fact, I expect it. Call it protecting the American citizen. You know…like Homeland Security. Do you actually think that a company should be able to police themselves?? If so, why? Why should I or anybody trust them to do that when they have a profit motive involved?

>”It could claim that driving by anyone over 50 or under 20 should be banned because statistics show that older and young drivers are less safe.”<

I suppose that it could. But it never has. There is no reason to think that it ever will. Something like that would never pass through congress so your fears are absurd.

“It could ban the sales of chocolate unless every batch goes through a test to ensure that there is no peanut contamination that might kill someone who is allergic to peanuts.”

Works for me. However your example is ridiculous. A person with allergies to peanuts has that responsibility to avoid that kind of thing. You don't ban cats because some people are allergic to them.

>”"That's what regulations are for.”<>”No they are not. Regulations are barriers to competition and are designed to protect special interest groups such as industry groups, farmers, etc.”<

No. You are dead wrong, however your paranoia is duly noted. We have something in this country called the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It's an independent agency of the US Govt. created in 1972 under the Consumer Product Safety Act to protect “against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products.” So, regardless of what your paranoid mind tells you, the purpose of regulating industry and commerce has a direct benefit to the consumer, and that's what is most important since they are directly effected by the products on the market which they are consuming. Kind of makes sense if you consider the concept of “promoting the general welfare” which is something that is the responsibility of the government as stated in the preamble of the constitution.

>”Of course they must. Consumers need to be confident or a company can't sell its products. No government is required for that. “<

Wrong again. You can't expect a company to police itself when there is a profit motive involved. It requires an independent agency of the government that has no profit interest to make sure that the product meets a safety standard for consumption of the public which the government is required to serve and protect. I'm hardly going to simply trust some executive of a company that stands to make millions that his product is safe.

>”That is what the laws are there for. If you harm individuals you have to compensate them.”<

Oh really?? How much are you going to compensate me if my child dies from your product? What's the price tag on that? You've been calling for Tort Reform and bitching about trial lawyers and now you're talking about compensation which you would try to limit? Are you always this nuts, or is it something new for you? The object is to see to it that you can't harm individuals before your product comes out. Not pay me if your product kills my kid. The problem with people like you is that you value business over human beings.

>”Great; what the US needs is a move towards fascism.”<

Nope. Actually we experimented with that over the last 8 years. They came very close to achieving a complete fascist state. Fortunately the American people dumped it last November.

>”Or discovering that Enron was not quite what it seemed. The private sector had no problem sniffing out the fraud but the bureaucrats had little incentive to do their jobs properly. “<

Enron happened during the last administration which was very cozy with them. They were a major contributor to Bush. They even gave him one of their jets to fly around in during his first campaign. They were involved with Dick Cheney on the Energy task force in constructing Cheney's energy policy. They practically wrote it having met with Cheney about 20 times during that period just prior to 9/11. Hows that for a fascist shift?

>”You missed the point. Your system rewarded stupidity.”<

If you think that any man made system is perfect…then it's you that has missed the point. We strive for a “more perfect union”. We never claimed to be perfect. No system of government is.

>”It was hardly the worst administration in history. Wilson, Lincoln, FDR, Hoover were worse.”<

You know much less about our history then you claim. Lincoln? FDR?? Hoover was in fact terrible. And I have little admiration for Wilson. But Bush is viewed in this country as one of the 5 worst of all time. Possibly the worst. Lincoln meanwhile is on Mt Rushmore and commands a prominant spot on the Mall in DC. He's generally regarded as second only to Washington. He preserved the Union and presided over the most difficult time in our country's history. He abolished slavery forever in this country. FDR was elected 4 times by a grateful nation. He led us out of the Great Depression and defeated Hitler and Japan. Conservatives hate him, but his place in history is secured. Bush accomplished nothing. Oh…he did give tax cuts to the rich, and launched a war against a country that never attacked us. In fact he is probably the first person in human history that cut taxes while taking a country to war.

>”You don't seem to be familiar with your history at all. You are only familiar with a version of it that does not stand up to scrutiny. “<

Do you really think that you're the first historical revisionist I've encountered?? Think again.

>”The fact that some states may have intruded on powers granted to the federal government does not excuse the federal government taking powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. Like I said, it might help you to actually read some of the writing of your Founding Fathers.”<

Like I said before, the 14th Amendment makes all people born here citizens of the US. My passport is a US passport. Not a Florida passport. The states are individual parts of a greater whole. That's the United States. The states in and of themselves have no direct sovereignty. They cannot act outside of the nation to form their own treaties or alliences. Those that don't like it, can drop dead as far as I'm concenrned. They're anti-American and a blight on the nation. Frankly if they want to seccede again, this time I'm for cutting them loose. I would have no problem watching Texas become a third world nation. The next time a hurricane hits them they can bail themselves out.

That would give the govenrment unlimited power. It could claim that driving by anyone over 50 or under 20 should be banned because statistics show that older and young drivers are less safe. It could ban the sales of chocolate unless every batch goes through a test to ensure that there is no peanut contamination that might kill someone who is allergic to peanuts.

All kinds of imagined 'accidents' could be used to justify meddling but no such powers have been granted to the government. What I find ironic is that lefties like you will be the first people to complain when such schemes wind up protecting big businesses that have contributed to political campaigns and will call for even more government to fix the problem that was caused by big government.

“That's what regulations are for.”

No they are not. Regulations are barriers to competition and are designed to protect special interest groups such as industry groups, farmers, etc. There are already laws to handle unsafe products and damages that keep companies and individuals from being allowed to harm consumers.

“All companies must meet a standard of safety for the public that is consuming their products.”

Of course they must. Consumers need to be confident or a company can't sell its products. No government is required for that.

“Don't tell me about laws that will prosecute some company that has poisoned people. A company must comply with standards that prevent that from happening in the first place.”

That is what the laws are there for. If you harm individuals you have to compensate them.

“Protecting the public should be the governments job #1. Lets call it…I got it…Homeland Security. Catchy name don't you think?”

Great; what the US needs is a move towards fascism. And what a great job the government did on 9/11. Its employees let 19 people with box cutters get on aeroplanes and kill everyone aboard plus many people on the ground. How about how they protected people from Bernie Madoff's fraud. Or discovering that Enron was not quite what it seemed. The private sector had no problem sniffing out the fraud but the bureaucrats had little incentive to do their jobs properly.

“Well that's an anecdotal incident that everyone is aware of. The woman was stupid. And McDonalds now has advised it's customers. However that isolated incident does not mean that you don't regulate business. The public safety is always concern #1.”

You missed the point. Your system rewarded stupidity.

“The last administration violated the constitution constantly.”

Of course it did. Most presidents have trampled on the Constitution. And they keep appointing a judiciary that expands their power and that of the federal government while they limit state and individual rights.

“They considered it a “GD piece of paper”. They had lawyers looking for ways around the constitution. If they were doing something that broke the law, they simply created a euphamism to call it something else. The United States has been decimated both at home economically, and abroad by the past 8 years of the worst administration in our history.”

It was hardly the worst administration in history. Wilson, Lincoln, FDR, Hoover were worse.

“No. Actually, you're providing the cliche' response to what every American that went through this BS as a justification for segregation understands. Unlike you, I am familiar with the history of MY country. I live here. I've seen it close up and personal unlike you. I actually write for the History News Network. Basically, you really are a dilettant with no direct knowledge of what you speak.”

You don't seem to be familiar with your history at all. You are only familiar with a version of it that does not stand up to scrutiny.

“And yet, in 1787 Madison wrote “Encroachments by the States on the federal authority.
2. Examples of this are numerous and repetitions may be foreseen in almost every case where any favorite object of a State shall present a temptation. Among these examples are the wars and treaties of Georgia with the Indians. The unlicensed compacts between Virginia and Maryland, and between Pena. & N. Jersey–the troops raised and to be kept up by Massts.”

The fact that some states may have intruded on powers granted to the federal government does not excuse the federal government taking powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. Like I said, it might help you to actually read some of the writing of your Founding Fathers.

But you are confused. On one hand you are suggesting that the private insurers and the public plan will be treated the same and on the other you suggest that tort reform will evolve so that the public plan cannot be sued as the insurers are.

Of course, Obama is even more confused because he claims that the public plan will get no subsidies at one time but says that it will work like the public universities, which get plenty of subsidies on the other.

We also seem to be having two one way conversations because you keep ignoring the points that are made and bring up other points and deal in narratives rather than facts.

“Two things come to mind. One of us is definately confused.”

You certainly have shown confusion and an inability to think clearly or do your research. As I said, it would not have taken much digging to find that the insurers favoured Democrats over Republicans when it came to campaign contributions but you claim that the Republicans owe more to the insurers than the Democrats do. You do not seem to support tort reform, even though unnecessary costs and preventative medicine add huge costs to the system. You also fail to admit that the government has shown that it can't control costs well even though Medicare shows its total incompetence.

“Either I'm confused by your contradictory statements…OR…you're confusing yourself.”

My statements are not contradictory. They are in response to contradictory claims made by the Obama administration or its supporters. Like I said, you can't say that there won't be any subsidies for a public plan but say that it will be run just like the public universities on the other. You can't claim that you want to save money and not deal with tort reform. You can't claim competence when government programs like the VA and Medicare have issues with quality of care or cost overruns.

“Frankly I think you're confused by your own ideology which can't stand up to critical analysis.”

Actually, the preference for liberty is very consistent. You reject government meddling with voluntary transactions and limit its functions to protecting individuals from force and fraud.

“Do you think that it's possible that you might be wrong about any of this, or is your ideology infallible?”

Of course I could be wrong. Obama could be a bigger incompetent than I believe that he is.

Sorry but that isn't good enough. I'm really more interested in the prevention of an accident then I am in prosecuting the results of an accident. That's what regulations are for. All companies must meet a standard of safety for the public that is consuming their products. Don't tell me about laws that will prosecute some company that has poisoned people. A company must comply with standards that prevent that from happening in the first place. Protecting the public should be the governments job #1. Lets call it…I got it…Homeland Security. Catchy name don't you think?

>”Look at the system in place now. It rewards a woman $1 million because she spills hot coffee on herself as she is driving.”<

Well that's an anecdotal incident that everyone is aware of. The woman was stupid. And McDonalds now has advised it's customers. However that isolated incident does not mean that you don't regulate business. The public safety is always concern #1.

>”The fact that it has not been obeyed explains the decline of the US and the state that it is in.”<

The last administration violated the constitution constantly. They considered it a “GD piece of paper”. They had lawyers looking for ways around the constitution. If they were doing something that broke the law, they simply created a euphamism to call it something else. The United States has been decimated both at home economically, and abroad by the past 8 years of the worst administration in our history.

>”This is the cliché used by those that are not familiar with the history of the United States, or Western history in general. “<

No. Actually, you're providing the cliche' response to what every American that went through this BS as a justification for segregation understands. Unlike you, I am familiar with the history of MY country. I live here. I've seen it close up and personal unlike you. I actually write for the History News Network. Basically, you really are a dilettant with no direct knowledge of what you speak.

>”Second, the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists acknowledged states rights. Even Alexander Hamilton argued that the states could restrain the federal government.”<

And yet, in 1787 Madison wrote “Encroachments by the States on the federal authority.
2. Examples of this are numerous and repetitions may be foreseen in almost every case where any favorite object of a State shall present a temptation. Among these examples are the wars and treaties of Georgia with the Indians. The unlicensed compacts between Virginia and Maryland, and between Pena. & N. Jersey–the troops raised and to be kept up by Massts.

Ok…that was an exchange between the two of us. And you say this: “I think that you are confused”. Two things come to mind. One of us is definately confused. Either I'm confused by your contradictory statements…OR…you're confusing yourself. Frankly I think you're confused by your own ideology which can't stand up to critical analysis. Do you think that it's possible that you might be wrong about any of this, or is your ideology infallible?

“Of course it is. That is what makes it a right”<

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. As far back as 1878 the Supreme Court said,

“”Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.” The court later stated that although the freedom to think and worship any religion is an absolute right, the freedom of excercize was not.”

It is no surprise that a court appointed by a federal government would say that. But the court is wrong. The federal government has no business in the religion business because the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…,” leave no wiggle room. They limit the power of Congress and the federal government, not the states.

“In his letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson pointed out “the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,”. Religious beliefs for example are simply opinions.”

The purpose of the letter was to address the Baptists' fears of an establishment of a national government-supported church. To see what Jefferson believed about the subject you are better off looking at this Inaugural Address, in which he stated, “In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.” Jefferson was clear that the Constitution left no place for the federal government in the issue of religion. That was a matter left up to the churches, individuals and the states.

Of course, I agree that Jefferson did not believe that freedom of religion, speech, the right to carry arms, association, etc., were inalienable and could be regulated by the states. It is only inalienable rights that cannot be intefered with by either the federal government or the states.

I have to say that this is an interesting approach that you are taking. Usually the left argues that states cannot establish or support a specific religion but you are supporting an argument that they can and brining up evidence that it is only the federal government that has no business dealing with the subject of religion. You might turn out into a supporter of states rights after all.

“Furthermore, the absolute freedom that you are now claiming falls apart in light of what you were arguing just moments ago. In other words, you're contradicting yourself.”

Where did I say that you had absolute freedom? I said that you could not trespass on the property of others or initiate force against anyone. I just said that if you had a right to something it was absolute because if it wasn’t it would not be a right but permission.

“Free Expression on Private Property

The first attempt to provide a constitutional basis for the protection of free expression on private property occurred in the mid-1940s. In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the Supreme Court held that the owners and operators of a company town could not prohibit the distribution of religious literature in the town's business district because such expression was protected by the First and 14th amendments. Id. The majority reasoned that the town displayed many of the attributes of a municipality; therefore the state-action requirement was satisfied for constitutional purposes of sustaining the rights of free expression. As stated in Marsh, “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company. The Supreme Court's finding in Hudgens incontestably favored private-property rights over individual free expression.”

The Fourteenth Amendment has done a great deal of damage to your country and has been applied improperly on all kinds of cases. Its intent was to ensure that recentrly freed slaves had the right of citizens and has nothing to do with the distribution of leaflets on private property. Of course, given the fact that FDR had appointed anti-property judges, it is no surpise that the court would have ruled against a company. FDR, who is the fourth worst president on my list, was never big on property or markets.

http://www.amazon.com/GOVERNMENT-JUDICIARY-RAOU...

http://www.amazon.com/Fourteenth-Amendment-Bill...

“In other words, property rights superceded the right of free expression. There are always going to be situations in which one right is in direct conflict with another. Something has to give. If a right is absolute, then resolving the conflict would be impossible.”

As I said, the freedom of speech is is not inalieanable and is a property right. You still can’t come into someone’s house and try to express yourself unless you have permission to do so. And let us note that Marsh v. Alabama was a weird case that was not applicable to any other situation. When Cyber Promotions cited Marsh v. Alabama as an attempt to get AOL to allow it to send mass e-mails for promotional purposes the Supremes upheld the property rights of AOL shareholders and dismissed the case.

Sounds like the Bush administration to me. “

The Bush administration was not all that different than that of Clinton or of Obama. You still have a government of a political elite for the benefit of its sponsors.

“Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled.”

Actually, wage growth for public unions was spectacular under Bush. And corporate profits have collapsed. Much of the great wealth that supposedly accrued to the richest 1% turned out to be an illusion as a change in the market trend wiped out many of the richest. Sadly, that process continues as Obama continues many of the Bush policies and appoints the very Wall Street insiders who helped create the problem and never saw it coming. But what would one expect from economic illiterates like Bush and Obama.

“The gap between the nation’s CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago.”

The last time I looked nobody was forced to work anywhere. If people could get better pay elsewhere they moved to the better job. And if some shareholders overpay CEOs but choose not to overpay workers that is their business.

” And while Bush’s tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush’s tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year — the richest five percent of the population — will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year — eighty percent of America — will receive barely a quarter of the cuts.”

Actually, the percentage decrease was highest for the lower tax brackets. In 2006 the top 1% of income earners paid about 40% of all federal income taxes, which was more than when Clinton was in office. At the same time the bottom 50 percent paid around 3%, which was less than when Clinton was in office.

You made a grave error because you could not figure out the difference between a percentage reduction and the absolute amount. Some reading might help you.

http://navaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/03/bar-...

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. As far back as 1878 the Supreme Court said, “”Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.” The court later stated that although the freedom to think and worship any religion is an absolute right, the freedom of excercize was not.

In his letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson pointed out “the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,”. Religious beliefs for example are simply opinions.

Furthermore, the absolute freedom that you are now claiming falls apart in light of what you were arguing just moments ago. In other words, you're contradicting yourself.

Free Expression on Private Property

The first attempt to provide a constitutional basis for the protection of free expression on private property occurred in the mid-1940s. In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the Supreme Court held that the owners and operators of a company town could not prohibit the distribution of religious literature in the town's business district because such expression was protected by the First and 14th amendments. Id. The majority reasoned that the town displayed many of the attributes of a municipality; therefore the state-action requirement was satisfied for constitutional purposes of sustaining the rights of free expression. As stated in Marsh, “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company. The Supreme Court's finding in Hudgens incontestably favored private-property rights over individual free expression.

In other words, property rights superceded the right of free expression. There are always going to be situations in which one right is in direct conflict with another. Something has to give. If a right is absolute, then resolving the conflict would be impossible.

Actually, you have no clue what you are talking about. The profit margins for the “Health Care Plans” sector, which includes Aetna, Cigna, HealthSpring, etc., came out as 86th on the list of industry sectors in the US. Shareholders would be better off investing in utilities, generic drugs, sporting activities, rail-roads, regional banks, tobacco, and 85 other sectors.

“The public option has no profit motive. An issue of life and death should not have a profit motive attached to it. “

First, you are missing the benefits of the profit motive. The past few years have seen the rise of retail health clinics across the US. These clinics are providing much higher quality care at much lower costs than physicians or hospital emergency rooms. The service is faster, better and far more convenient due to extended hours. Wal Mart has revolutionized drug delivery by stocking cheap generics that lower the cost for the uninsured and the poor. All that was done without any government action.

Second, without profit or loss there is no incentive for an organization to do the best that it can. You are talking about the same system in health care as you have in the DMV or Post Office. You will get poor service of lower quality at a much higher cost because there is no motive to reduce cost as there would be in a for profit system.

“Demonstrate to me how that is true. Show me some kind of methodology that you have to prove what your saying so that I simply don't have to take your word or some Republican talking point. I say that that the multiple testing has more to do with the diagnoses of the patient and the fact that many doctors simply want their own tests. It also has to do with a lack of communication among them. I say this because I've seen it and my wife is in the medical field and has seen it as well. You're promoting fear as the reason. Why should I believe you?”

The ignorance of how your legal system works is your problem. If you had paid attention to the testimony of doctors you will find that they have to call up more tests than they believe are necessary so that they can protect themselves from legal action.

The problem goes beyond lab tests. Just look at the extra costs for delivering babies created by former Democratic VP nominee John Edwards. Senator Edwards argued his first cerebral palsy cases from 1985 to 1995, even though scientists argued that medical care during delivery had nothing to do with cerebral palsy before the first suit even went to trial. When the juries sided against doctors, the number of C-sections exploded as did total delivery costs. While the action made Edwards rich and forced insurance rates higher there were no reductions because the method of delivery had nothing to do with cerebral palsy. Tort reform would lead to the dismissal of such cases and the number of expensive procedures would be substantially lower. Because less money would be transferred from doctors, insurance companies and insurance purchasers the cost of health care would be lower.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

“Or he could propose a more efficient method of sharing information in an information age. What a concept. Frankly, if a doctor screws up, he should have his ass sued.”

But you argued above that a public plan would not permit lawsuits.

“Michael Jackson has a doctor giving him propofol. To help him sleep??? What kind if doctor does that? Not only should the guy be charged with homocide, he should have his ass sued to the point of total destruction. He should never be allowed to practice medicine anywhere again.”

That doctor became dependent on his rich client and could not say no to what were unreasonable demands. As such he should have to face the consequences. But that is a lot different than having John Edwards sue one doctor because of a false claim that a C-secton would have prevented cerebral palsyo or having some other doctor being sued for not ordering an X-ray for a man had no symptoms, did not smoke but got lung cancer.

“Ahh…I see. And the fact that every Senator and congressman that opposes this is supported by campaign contributions from the insurence corporations should be ignored as having anything at all to do with their opposition.”

Incentives and motivation cannot be ignored but I doubt that things are as you claim. Waxman-Markey was supported by utilities because they were beneficiaries of the climate change bill. The utilities overwhelmingly supported the lawmakers behind the bill because it was in their interest to do so. The same will be true with health care. Eventually there will be some compromise that will satisfy the insurers and the big players in the industry as we see the typical transfer of wealth from the consumers and taxpayers to the special interests.

“My own congressman sent me a video email to voice his opposition to the bill. Of course when I checked his backing, he got $3 million during his time in congress from…guess who? He doesn't represent me. He's owned by corporations that put money in his pocket to do their bidding. He is their lobbyist in congress. But you only want to see Trial Lawyers as the Big..Bad..Wolf. Why am I not surprised coming from somebody who values business over people. If I get screwed by a corporation, just exactly who am I supposed to turn to if not a trial lawyer?? The corporations have teams of lawyers on their payroll to crush me. What chance do I have against them? Am I not supposed to sue if I or a member of my family is injured by some product put out by some company through their own negligence?”

I think that you see what you want to see because you lack of education and inability to think clearly does not let you be objective. One expects that industries that are singled out for attack spend a lot of money so it is not surprising to see your Congressman getting money from various sources.

Of course, if you had done the research you could have found that the health insurers favoured the Democrats. That means that you will see legislation that will be acceptable to them (their lobbyists will have a hand in drafting it) but won't be all that good for the average American.

http://www.insurancenewsnet.org/html/LifeInsura...

“You know what Vangel..You really are a pompous ass. You don't live here. You aren't a citizen of this country. And yet you presume to understand our constitution better then we do. Our history better then we do. “

I am not what one would consider an expert but there is no doubt that I know far more about your history and your Constitution than you or the average voter does. Of course, I have the advantage of not attending your school system but that is a posting for another time.

“You actually have not one single original thought in any of your posts. Your actually a pretty small minded weakling that read Ayn Rand and is infatuated with an idealized version of a black and white reality that doesn't exist. I read Rand in my 20's. I didn't take it seriously then and I find it laughable that anyone would find it worthy of their time today.”

Rand? No, I actually read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, Jefferson, Madison, and the numerous writers who helped create your great nation. And if I look to contemporary writers I tend to favour Adams, DiLorenzo, Woods, Watkins, McDonald, Wood, Pangle, and a few others that you are probably unfamiliar with. While I have no major difficulty with Rand, she is not exactly someone that I would look to on this subject. She is usually the default person that the ignorant lefties usually go after but only because they are usually ignorant of the subject.

Sounds like the Bush administration to me. Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled. The gap between the nation’s CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. And while Bush’s tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush’s tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year — the richest five percent of the population — will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year — eighty percent of America — will receive barely a quarter of the cuts.