Senate Democrats to Introduce A Socialist 'Public Option'

So you disagree that socialism is the government owning the means of production.

What’s YOUR definition of it, then? You don’t like the definition that has been in use for 100 years.

It’s a very typical liberal debate tactic to redefine words from their original meaning. Like “racist” or “socialism” and then make No True Scotsman fallacies like you have here. Liberals love their neologisms.

 

We get it, you don't like universal health care.

But, the problem is, a majority of Americans want it, and SCOTUS knows this.

The also know that the General Welfare clause is so vague that one can drive a semi tractor trailer through it.

But, that's it, right there, eh? The framers wrote that language vague, INTENTIONALLY. They knew that to write a static document would be the death of an ever growing evolving nation, and that, out of their wisdom, writing language that could be reinterpreted as a nation evolved, was the wise thing to do.

You can holler and scream that you don't like how SCOTUS is interpreting the constitution, but I daresay that the framers have intentionally allowed for just that probability and outcome, that an inflexible document would be the death of the nation, and yeah, you MIGHT have a point about 'the amendment process' but the problem there is inflexibility, given that the odds of getting an amendment in this day and age are will nigh impossible, and SCOTUS has to weigh that fact plus the greater need of society plus societal demand.

And, your use of 'totalitarian' isn't quite right. See, when the electorate wins, and their needs are met, that is called democracy, and though it might conflict with your desire, that of the minority (or the losing party), you confuse it as being 'totalitarian' but that's just your anger surfacing, but in truth, it's just democracy, and that's life.

 

The framers knew very well that the more detailed and specific and lengthy the Constitution was, the less viable and useful it would be. You are absolutely correct that they purposefully left many things quite vague for that reason. They knew that the Constitution might not always be interpreted as they intended but they could not effectively and practically close that loophole, nor did they want to. They also knew that such vagueness, while absolutely and unequivocally necessary, might be the path used to destroy the republic. Actually IMO most of the framers would be surprised that it lasted this long.

SCOTUS has no authority whatsoever to amend the Constitution because the amendment process is difficult or for any other reason.

 

They don't, they interpret.

 

Every large organization is compartmentalized. It's how things work. The dictionary is nice, but unnecessary.

 

Better find a longer ladder - this is still way over your head.

 

If you say so, Bullseye. I'll keep noting peculiarities of language choices, whether it's over my head or not.

If you're going to make the point, you have to extend the logic to all bureaucratic environments, not just the government, which was the counterargument being made.

It's a basic argument. The dictionary isn't going to help.

 

No, the dictionary definition of “bureaucracy” won’t help; it’s the added nuances added. “Bureaucracy” implies excess process, rules, careless employees, and unnecessary delays - among other things. “Efficient bureaucracy” is an oxymoron.

 

I know what it means, Bullseye. Red tape is the natural result of any bureaucratic environment. When an auto-bander blows a motor at work, maintenance can't even order the part until corporate signs off on it; usually about a week.

 

They do have the authority to interpret it. That you say their interpretation amounts to an 'amendment' is just your opinion. In truth, it's your anger over an interpretation with which you disagree.

 

That is probably fairly accurate.