Snack Attack

In fact, the constitution was never intentionally ambiguous. A few quotes from our founders and the federalist papers make it clear that the words were intentional and have specific meaning.

“With respect to the two words “general welfare,“ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.“ - letter to James Robertson from James Madison

Also by Madison in Federalist # 41:

“Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase ( like common welfare) and then to explain it and qualify it by a recital of particulars.“

In Federalist # 45:

“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.“

Thomas Jefferson also was an advocate of this position as he states in a letter to Albert Gallatin in 1817:

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.“

The idea that the constitution can have multiple or ambiguous interpretations represents a transfer of power away from the people to the jurist. It is what economist Thomas Sowell has brilliantly described as the quiet repeal of the American Revolution.
The cognitive meaning of the constitutional text should always have dominance over the arbitrary whims or diseases endemic to democratic processes.

As stated:

from Federalist # 10. Madison states:

“In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.”

What are these diseases? Again from #10:

“A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project”

Basically everything that has recently brought us to the point where we are today- why - because our elected leaders justify their actions by appealing to court precedents based on wild interpretations. With the courts, stripping away these protections, these diseases flourish.

You make a good point about the size of a bill and it’s efficacy. However, the relevant illustration made by me and the author is how its size seems speaks to just how disingenuous the bill is. IF providing means to purchase healthcare were really a concern, it would not require 1900 pages with provisions for vending machine regulations.

Unlike the constitution however, I belive this bill, is intentionally ambiguous. That way one can deny the existence of death panels ( or whatever topic) , but also provide the legal basis for their inception after it has been passed. It also allows for granting special privileges.

“The entire federal budget,”  “can be viewed as a gigantic rent up for grabs for those who can exert the most political muscle.” ( ‘The Public Choice Revolution.‘ Regulation Magazine)

The snack machine provision certainly does characterize not only this bill, but the general condescending attitude that our leaders have towards science and evidence. 

( there is no empirical link between snack foods and obesity i.e. health, while there is scientific consensus about global warming there are NO SCIENTIFIC forecasts supporting it, we just passed a stimulus package that flies in the face of 60 years of macroeconomic research)

It is one thing to attempt to help the less fortunate, but it should not require 111 new boards, commissions, and bureaucracies to provide people the means to pay for health care.

It is naive to think that these boards will not have a field day with the 1900+ pages of ambiguous language, and construe it to mean anything that serves their ends. It doesn’t matter if the language ‘death panels’ is absent, it doesn’t matter what president Obama, speaker Pelosi,or Sean Hannity says the bill means, what matters is the wild interpretation made of the 1900 pages of ambiguous language some judge makes 10 years from now.

Just look at the wild interpretations made of the commerce clause in our ‘Iron Clad’  constitution! Why we would want to grant congress 1900more pages of leeway to run our lives is beyond me. It is obviously not about healthcare, it is about control.

Just to allude to the technology: In under 1 second a bar code can be scanned, instantly transcribing the nutritional information.  It’s the same technology that grocery stores use to update thousands of items…

Obviously this isn’t the crux of the healthcare bill though; it is silly, a nice thought, a novel editorial, but silly altogether. 

Do you think this characterizes the healthcare bill?  Is it mostly about vending machines, or does this just lend itself to comment, like a kitten rescued from a tree?  I clearly don’t care what Virgina’s congressmen and senators have to say about vending machine legislation. Does this really interest the RTD staff?  Do you worry about the negative impact it might have on a local vending machine?  I suppose I generalize my impression of the readership on these editorials because the debate has been overrun by narrow messages masquerading as substance: A vending machine becomes reason to denigrate the entirety, a public option becomes Stalin’s ghost, counseling becomes “Death Panels”— Yeah, it’s stupid, but “What do Virginia’s congressmen and senators have to say about the vending-machine provision?“ is a good way to counter-balance the stupid in this debate.

I’ve got an idea. After the next election, we can create a jobs program for unemployed Democratic legislators. People like Pelosi can stand by the vending machine and read the contents to the consumers. It will save on paper for all those stickers which will boost the environment by saving trees. Of course, the downside is the carbon footprint from all that hot air may be prohibitive. We’ll just place ‘cap & tax credit’ on their minimum wage to pay for it.