I am sorry, but the Supreme Court just ruled, "Yes, the law explicitly states this, but we do not like the consequences of that so we are going to say it does not mean what it says. No, there is no place in the law where it actually says what we would like it to say, but we are going to say it says it anyway."

I am sorry, but the American Republic as designed by the men who wrote the Constitution is over. We no longer have a government which considers itself bound by that Constitution. We no longer have a government of laws. Which rules apply depend on the political power of the individual involved, not on what the law says.

So, what you are saying is that the Framers of the Constitution placed a provision in it which they knew meant nothing?
In the case of the ACA, the bill passed out of the Senate contained NONE of the language which was in the bill passed out of the House which it supposedly amended...not only that but it did not even contain any language relating to what the House bill was about.
You are correct that I do not like how our system works...and neither would the men who wrote the Constitution, nor would the men who ratified the Constitution in the 13 states. If they imagined that it would be interpreted as it currently is, they would not have ratified it.

Actually, there is a good way. The bill that originates in the House has to actually contain provisions for raising revenue AND there has to be some resemblance between what the bill passed by the Senate says and the one originally passed by the House.

Of course, it would be even easier if the people in Congress actually took their oath of office seriously to support and defend the Constitution.
Personally, I would like to see every bill contain a reference to where in the Constitution Congress is given the authority to enact the legislation in question.

No, the problem comes from the fact that the U.S. government no longer considers itself bound to follow the Constitution. The rest of your post indicates what causes this problem. The legitimacy of the various parts of the U.S. government to do ANYTHING is supposed to come from the U.S. Constitution, not from "democratic legitimacy". The various states yielded their sovereignty to the federal government under the understanding that the federal government would be constrained by the Constitution, not free to do anything which was not opposed by the democratically expressed will of the people..

You are mistaken. The judicial system IS working as designed. It is important to remember that every system is perfectly designed to deliver the results which it delivers.
I think what you meant is that the judicial system is no longer working as ORIGINALLY designed, which is entirely correct. Now to some degree that was necessary. We, as a people, no longer desire some of the results which the original system was designed to produce (such as protecting slavery). However, we have allowed a class of people (lawyers) to change the system so as to favor members of that class, which was not necessary and is contrary to the interests of everyone else.

The problem with that logic is that, if it is Constitutionally valid, the Constitutional provision requiring tax laws to originate in the House is meaningless. If that provisions is meaningless, why did the Framers include it?

Assuming of course that your destination is somewhere along where those rails run and that no one else is on those same rails and stopping between you and your destination,

The thing about that New York Times article is that it talks about number of DEATHS, while the Globe and Mail article talks about the total NUMBER of honey bees. The Globe and Mail article is not the first article I have seen which speaks about the number of hives rather than focusing on the number of deaths. http://www.perc.org/articles/e... http://lemire.me/blog/archives...

In the U.S., the origin of most problems for the "disadvantaged" was government regulation...Remember Rosa Parks...that was because of a law, not because the business wanted to discriminate. Remember "whites only" water fountains, laws as well. Segregation in the U.S. was mandated by law for a long time. So the government "aid" to blacks was to "solve" problems created by the government.

I did not say the government was on the side of the "disadvantaged". I said that the government makes life difficult for businesses when they hire the "disadvantaged". (I use quotes because the groups in question may or may not actually be disadvantaged. That fact does not actually enter into the government's calculations). The fact of the matter is that the government is never on an individual's side (it may under some circumstances be on a particular group's side, but that is rare). As a general rule, individuals get chewed up a destroyed when the government is involved.

Sometimes, an employees behavior is so blatantly against rules that you cannot wait for proper procedures to act. In this case, they were denied unemployment because of their behavior. Yet, they won in front of the Human Relations Commission.

Oh, the point is that the employers are not "afraid to fire" these hypothetical incompetent workers, because they never hired them in the first place. Nor did they hire competent workers who were also members of the protected class.

I worked at a place where we needed to fire someone because they were misusing company resources.They had been verbally warned about it, repeated the action, and their manager was in the process of writing them up for it when they did it again. At which point they were fired. They went to the state Human Relations Committee and claimed they were fired because they were pregnant. The only evidence they were required to present was the fact that they were pregnant. When the company could not produce documentation of written warnings the company was ordered to pay the person two years salary in compensation. The person in question was not a minority, but she was a member of a "disadvantaged" group.
I have heard similar stories regarding persons from other "disadvantaged" groups at other companies, where the company found it less expensive to pay the penalty than challenge the process in the courts.

Except of course for the fact that if you fire someone who belongs to a "disadvantaged" group (not just minorities), in most states they can bring you before a Human Relations Committee which will require you to prove that you did not fire them because they belonged to that group. They do not have to present any evidence that that was the reason they were fired.