Actually, I'm thinking that this gov't conquest of health care will spawn an entire new industry. Think H&R Block but for health insurance. Once a year, we'll dump a bunch of documentation on somebody at a "H&R Block" where we'll pay a corporation to prep another stack of documentation, which will be submitted to the gov't. Then, the gov't can be tell how much we'll have to pay for our free health program, or penalty, or both, as applicable. The health program should not be confused with health care, as that would involve actually seeing a doctor, doctor's assistant, or nurse, & receiving something medicinal. The health program will mostly involve sitting in waiting rooms, filling out paperwork, & being on hold on the phone. The...

Ciecero's (valid) point is that political careerists share a common agenda: domination of society by gov't. The Left wing of this class proceeds with gleeful, careless abandon towards a gov't which rewards its good little patrons & punishes its politically incorrect dissenters. The Right wing of this class go along, but worry about whether this utopia will work out quite as planned, & how much it will cost.

Crispian's (valid) point is that if there is no alternative to the above, we are reduced to merely arranging Liberty's funeral, when what he wants is to prevent her murder.

What is required is that we stand up for an alternative agenda, one that limits gov't to a structural role & places it at society's periphery. ...

There are only 2 bases for obeying laws:

1. We obey because we feel the rules are fair (i.e., moral agreement);

2. We obey because we are afraid of what will happen if we don't (i.e., amoral obedience).

Both of these can be observed on any playground. Children playing in a group follow the 1st path; bullies follow the 2nd. If we remove morality from lawmaking, we are left only with coercion. All law enforcement becomes a Gestapo, all leaders become tyrants.

Which is, perhaps, precisely the point of those who want to scrub morality from the public square.

Regards,

You asked "What do you have against legislators[lawyers?] knowing how to write laws?"
Example: Health conquest bill 1.0 was 1100 pages; improved version 2.0 was 1900 pages; now the improved, improved, version 3.0 is pushing 2100 pages. That's just one law. By contrast, our Constitution is under 20 pages. Infinite obsfucation is unavoidable product of lawyers.

"...the Supreme Court used to strike down most congressional acts as unconstitutional ..." They "used to strike down"; now they legislate from the bench. By the way, the Justices are...lawyers.

"Lawyers belong in Congress if they get the majority vote in their district."
We could as well say "18 year olds belong in Congress if they get the majority vote in...

...to use the power of gov't to push their fellow citizens around; yet they despise the most straightforward manifestation of gov't power, the military. I would suggest that's because the Left likes to tell themselves how kind, compassionate & superior they are, but when the Left looks at the military, that pretense collapses. The military is the mirror in which the true face of the Left is revealed; they despise the military because they despise themselves.

Regards,

1. Any incumbent member of Congress must earn at least 60% of the votes cast to be re-elected; if 60% is not earned, a run-off election shall be held among the remaining candidates, for which the incumbent shall not be eligible.
2.No person serve more than 2 consecutive terms in the Congress, & shall be ineligible to run for Congress until a period of time equal to the time previously served in the office shall have passed
3. No one practicing law shall assume the office of legislator until a time equal to the term of said office shall have passed; nor shall a legislator practice law after leaving office until a time equal to the term of the office held shall have passed.
4. We really have to put an end to gerrymandering to get...