Medicare

Yeah, but it always depends on who's doing the interpretation. c.i.

Only when a law has been poorly written, or when people want to try to assert that the law means something other than what its exact language actually dictates.

It is not the function of a judge to interpret the law; his or her function is to determine whether others have interpreted the law correctly in implementing the law.

Scrat's quote: "Only when a law has been poorly written, or when people want to try to assert that the law means something other than what its exact language actually dictates." Yeah, exactly my point. c.i.

Scrat
I will open up a can of beans for you. The second amendment concerns the right to bear arms. It says militia but is interpreted to mean individual. Who had the last word on the subject. USCC. In your world would it need an amendment to clarify. In my opinion it is a faulty interpretation but that's another subject.

Scrat


That is exactly what the USCC does. It interpretes the law and in too many instances IMO makes the law when doing so.

I am quite happy with my right to bear arms. I can pick things up and everything.

Scrat

You dig them up and I will explain it. I sure they would understand.

No can of beans at all.



Take a look at the Second Amendment. What does it read?

First it proposes that the security of a free state requires a well regulated militia. That's one thought, a statement meant to explain why the next thought is important.

Next--and separately--we read that "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Does it tell us that a well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms? No. Does it tell us that the rights of such militias shall not be infringed? No. Does it tell us that only those people involved in a well-regulated militia have this right? Again, no. It tells us that THE PEOPLE have this right, and the REASON (we are instructed) that they have it is that it is necessary that they have it so that they may--if and as needed--form a well regulated militia to ensure the safety of the state.

The need for well regulated militias is mentioned to instruct us as to why this right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

Prescription drug legislation which is in the throes of being passed by congress Is supposed to be a great benefit for seniors. From what I have read it will be of little or no benefit to the average senior and in fact may be an additional financial burden. Has anyone studied the proposal and if so what do you think?

Scrat's interpretation of the second ammendment is completely specious. The primary clause is referential to the text of the constitution, Article I, Secton 8, which enumerates the powers of Congress, and which reads, in part:

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;

The last time (and, to my knowledge, the only time) upon which the Supremes were appealed to on the basis of the second amendment, in the late 1930's, involved a man who was arrested for having transported a shotgun across a state border. In returning the case to the lower courts (effectively denying the second ammendment appeal), the Supremes commented that they had no knowledge that the Congress had specified shotguns as the weapon with which the militia is to be armed. The "well-regulated militia" clause specifically refers to Article I, Section 8, as was understood in 1787, and ought to be understood today, unless, or course, such understanding interfers with one's political agenda.

sometimes black and white is mostly gray. (depending on ones agenda)

Setanta - A very nice analysis, except that you ignore the central point of to whom or to what the second amendment applies the right to keep and bear arms. It is--as I wrote and without question--THE PEOPLE. Your comments actually support mine, by verifying that the authors of the second amendment were simply pointing out that you had to have the right to bear arms because you might be needed for a militia.

Now, you might argue that a standing army was unconstitutional, or that the existence thereof removes the need for the second amendment entirely, but that's a whole new discussion. (Which I'd be happy to have, if you like.)

I cant believe it, Bush and congress are sending medicare and Social Security down the crapper and you fools are arguing about the second admendment. With the federal government running in the red because Bush is giving all that money to the rich Soc. Sec funds will have to pay for the garbage drug bill congress has just passed and Bush will sign shortly. Any tax money thet the middle class gets will go back to pay for the new medicare bill congress just passed. Check it out.

How Not to Fix Medicare

By JACOB S. HACKER

NEW HAVEN, Conn.
Today we remember Medicare's establishment in July 1965 as a ringing affirmation of the ideal of social insurance. Less well remembered is how close Washington came to creating a very different system. Not long before Medicare's passage, the Kennedy administration seemed on the verge of a compromise with Senator Jacob Javits, the moderate Republican from New York. Senator Javits and his allies wanted to give private insurance a leading place in the new program so government could play a smaller role — an idea opposed by liberal Democrats and organized labor. The opposition won out, and the private insurance idea seemed consigned to the dustbin of history.
At least it was until last week, when both the House and Senate passed bills that would give private health plans a huge new stake in Medicare as well as provide prescription drug benefits. With pressure from President Bush to pass legislation, Congress stands on the threshold of the biggest overhaul of Medicare since its inception. But unless crucial aspects of the Senate and House measures are rethought, such an overhaul will come at the peril of America's elderly and disabled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/02/opinion/02HACK.html?th

To top it off, most of the "tax cuts" are temporary. Even the marriage penalty will return in the third year. I think it's call voodoo economics. c.i.

Plans Improve Federal Workers' Drug Benefits

By ROBERT PEAR

[]ASHINGTON, July 7 — The House is expected this week to pass legislation ensuring that federal employees, including members of Congress, will have prescription drug benefits better than those available through Medicare when they retire.
The bill is being considered as House and Senate leaders begin trying to reconcile different versions of a measure to help Medicare beneficiaries pay for prescription drugs.

The new House bill says drug benefits for civilian federal retirees, who already have drug coverage, cannot be reduced to the level proposed for Medicare. An identical bill has been introduced in the Senate.
Federal workers and retirees receive drug benefits through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, widely cited by President Bush and members of Congress as a model for Medicare. The value of those drug benefits substantially exceeds the value of Medicare drug benefits in the bills passed last month by the Senate and the House
Congress will I am sure have no difficulty in passing this legislation. It will be a bi-partisan vote

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/politics/08MEDI.html

I'm Canajun, I get free drugs through my wife's health plan from work. We do have to pay up front, but we are covered 100% for any prescriptions. It's nice when those cheques come in the mail

cavfancier
We pay up front also. However,it's for bigger and better tools of war.

So it was you folks who let SARS loose, not the Chinese....

cav, That's a question we'll never know the answer to. This country of ours is responsible for a lot of nasty stuff. c.i.