Arizona says NO to Obamacare

[Navy1960]

navy,

What was the constitutional reasons for prisoners having this right? Would it relate to other citizens as well?

regardless, I am not arguing that there is a 'right' to any of these reforms, guaranteed by the constitution and I see this as a strawman on your part...

revised...

what does the 8th amendment say? need to look it up....

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
429 U.S. 97
Estelle v. Gamble
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 75-929 Argued: October 5, 1976 --- Decided: November 30, 1976
Respondent state inmate brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioners, the state corrections department medical director (Gray) and two correctional officials, claiming that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment for inadequate treatment of a back injury assertedly sustained while he was engaged in prison work. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals held that the alleged insufficiency of the medical treatment required reinstatement of the complaint.

Held: Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment. Here, however, respondent's claims against Gray do not suggest such indifference, the allegations revealing that Gray and other medical personnel saw respondent on 17 occasions during a 3-month span and treated his injury and other problems. The failure to perform an X-ray or to use additional diagnostic techniques does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, but is, at most, medical malpractice cognizable in the state courts. The question whether respondent has stated a constitutional claim against the other petitioners, the Director of the Department of Corrections and the warden of the prison, was not separately evaluated by the Court of Appeals, and should be considered on remand. Pp. 101-108.

516 F.2d 937, reversed and remanded.

Estelle v. Gamble - Wikisource

It's a valid argument Care, in that you as a citizen do not a specific right to "healthcare" spelled out in the constitution. Those rights not spelled out in the constitution are reserved for the "PEOPLE" or the "STATES" thats you and me and thats in the 10th Amendment. So given that fact, the Federal Govt. is NOT responsible to provide you with that right. Unless, you as a citizen AMEND the constitution for it to say otherwise,.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy;

Are you unclear on what that means Care? it means that the money cannot be used for a term longer than than two years. Thus the reason why the DoD has a budget that must be approved by congress each year...

But Navy, they are appropriated for the standing army FOR LONGER than 2 years at a time, no? they don't budget for one year at a time on all that they do? They have 10 year programs they pay for...and crap like that all over the place....even someone in the army's paycheck can not be a guarantee after 2 years if we followed the constitution....

We pay for a PERMANENT ARMY for longer than a 2 year period at a time, and there is no if, ands, or buts about it, imo.

Only the Navy is suppose to be fully paid for and permanent via the Federal government is how I read it, and I believe how our founding father's read it and presented it...and the army was ONLY to be raised in need....the states were to have their militias, ready to be risen by the federal government to be risen, no?

Care

The military budget is that portion of the United States discretionary federal budget that is allocated to the Department of Defense. This military budget pays the salaries, training, and healthcare of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget rose to $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (about $9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (about $33.2 billion), interest on debt incurred in past wars, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, about $170 billion in 2007). As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes. [2]
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care, DoD budgets are monies spent each year regardless of program length let me give you and example, Let's say the United States buy's 2000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, they do not pay for the fighters all at one time. They pay for those aircraft in the budget they purchase each year that are approved by congress. Even though it may take 15 years or 20 years for the life of the program to complete itself, they are only purchasing for that year. The budgets also include pay, and benefits for those that are in the military as well. So it is well within the constitutional framework. When reading that article perhaps your reading the two year part as an expiration date for the army itself rather than a expiration date for the appropriation? If that were the case then the clause would have read " No standing army shall be mantained for a period longer than two years".

 

[Navy1960]

navy, why does the prisoner get the right to have a doctor visit him for his ailments, paid for by the tax payer, while the tax payer does not get the same privilege?

Not that I am arguing for health care provided for the general welfare of its citizens by our government is a right or something that the federal government has the authority to do....but just being devil's advocate, as usual....

You may want to take that up with the Supreme Court Care, that is as a result of a case and several like it, one of which I posted in this thread. However, the reason why social security was upheld by the SCOTUS was for exactly that reason, that congress has the power to levy taxes to promote the "general welfare". It does not secure that as a right it just makes it a tax and nothing more. That is most likely the way a "public option" will survive" a constitutional problem. It will not help it though in states that eventually pass "freedom of choice" acts in their own constitutions. It should be interesting though.

 

[Navy1960]

navy, why does the prisoner get the right to have a doctor visit him for his ailments, paid for by the tax payer, while the tax payer does not get the same privilege?

Not that I am arguing for health care provided for the general welfare of its citizens by our government is a right or something that the federal government has the authority to do....but just being devil's advocate, as usual....

And why if you go to court do you have the right to an attorney free if you can afford one?

Miranda v. Arizona (consolidated with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court which was argued February 28–March 1, 1966 and decided June 13, 1966. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former prosecutor, delivered the opinion of the Court, ruling that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police (Warren cited several police training manuals which had not been provided in the arguments), no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them. Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned.

“ The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in the court of law; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him[1]. ”

The Court also made clear what had to happen if the suspect chose to exercise his rights:

“ If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.
Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thats why sealy

 

[Care4all]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
429 U.S. 97
Estelle v. Gamble
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 75-929 Argued: October 5, 1976 --- Decided: November 30, 1976
Respondent state inmate brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioners, the state corrections department medical director (Gray) and two correctional officials, claiming that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment for inadequate treatment of a back injury assertedly sustained while he was engaged in prison work. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals held that the alleged insufficiency of the medical treatment required reinstatement of the complaint.

Held: Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment. Here, however, respondent's claims against Gray do not suggest such indifference, the allegations revealing that Gray and other medical personnel saw respondent on 17 occasions during a 3-month span and treated his injury and other problems. The failure to perform an X-ray or to use additional diagnostic techniques does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, but is, at most, medical malpractice cognizable in the state courts. The question whether respondent has stated a constitutional claim against the other petitioners, the Director of the Department of Corrections and the warden of the prison, was not separately evaluated by the Court of Appeals, and should be considered on remand. Pp. 101-108.

516 F.2d 937, reversed and remanded.

Estelle v. Gamble - Wikisource

It's a valid argument Care, in that you as a citizen do not a specific right to "healthcare" spelled out in the constitution. Those rights not spelled out in the constitution are reserved for the "PEOPLE" or the "STATES" thats you and me and thats in the 10th Amendment. So given that fact, the Federal Govt. is NOT responsible to provide you with that right. Unless, you as a citizen AMEND the constitution for it to say otherwise,.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy;

Are you unclear on what that means Care? it means that the money cannot be used for a term longer than than two years. Thus the reason why the DoD has a budget that must be approved by congress each year...

But Navy, they are appropriated for the standing army FOR LONGER than 2 years at a time, no? they don't budget for one year at a time on all that they do? They have 10 year programs they pay for...and crap like that all over the place....even someone in the army's paycheck can not be a guarantee after 2 years if we followed the constitution....

We pay for a PERMANENT ARMY for longer than a 2 year period at a time, and there is no if, ands, or buts about it, imo.

Only the Navy is suppose to be fully paid for and permanent via the Federal government is how I read it, and I believe how our founding father's read it and presented it...and the army was ONLY to be raised in need....the states were to have their militias, ready to be risen by the federal government to be risen, no?

Care

The military budget is that portion of the United States discretionary federal budget that is allocated to the Department of Defense. This military budget pays the salaries, training, and healthcare of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget rose to $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (about $9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (about $33.2 billion), interest on debt incurred in past wars, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, about $170 billion in 2007). As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes. [2]
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care, DoD budgets are monies spent each year regardless of program length let me give you and example, Let's say the United States buy's 2000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, they do not pay for the fighters all at one time. They pay for those aircraft in the budget they purchase each year that are approved by congress. Even though it may take 15 years or 20 years for the life of the program to complete itself, they are only purchasing for that year. The budgets also include pay, and benefits for those that are in the military as well. So it is well within the constitutional framework. When reading that article perhaps your reading the two year part as an expiration date for the army itself rather than a expiration date for the appropriation? If that were the case then the clause would have read " No standing army shall be mantained for a period longer than two years".

why do you think our founding fathers differentiated between funding the Navy permanently and the army only 2 years at a time if the navy and army and all other military forces are the ''same' as the navy in our constitution?

 

[Yukon]

It really doesnt matter what the inbreds of Arizona want. Your Negroid President wants Medicare and you WILL get it.

 

[Navy1960]

But Navy, they are appropriated for the standing army FOR LONGER than 2 years at a time, no? they don't budget for one year at a time on all that they do? They have 10 year programs they pay for...and crap like that all over the place....even someone in the army's paycheck can not be a guarantee after 2 years if we followed the constitution....

We pay for a PERMANENT ARMY for longer than a 2 year period at a time, and there is no if, ands, or buts about it, imo.

Only the Navy is suppose to be fully paid for and permanent via the Federal government is how I read it, and I believe how our founding father's read it and presented it...and the army was ONLY to be raised in need....the states were to have their militias, ready to be risen by the federal government to be risen, no?

Care

The military budget is that portion of the United States discretionary federal budget that is allocated to the Department of Defense. This military budget pays the salaries, training, and healthcare of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget rose to $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (about $9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (about $33.2 billion), interest on debt incurred in past wars, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, about $170 billion in 2007). As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes. [2]
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care, DoD budgets are monies spent each year regardless of program length let me give you and example, Let's say the United States buy's 2000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, they do not pay for the fighters all at one time. They pay for those aircraft in the budget they purchase each year that are approved by congress. Even though it may take 15 years or 20 years for the life of the program to complete itself, they are only purchasing for that year. The budgets also include pay, and benefits for those that are in the military as well. So it is well within the constitutional framework. When reading that article perhaps your reading the two year part as an expiration date for the army itself rather than a expiration date for the appropriation? If that were the case then the clause would have read " No standing army shall be mantained for a period longer than two years".

why do you think our founding fathers differentiated between funding the Navy permanently and the army only 2 years at a time if the navy and army and all other military forces are the ''same' as the navy in our constitution?

I can answer that for you at least from reading history, many of the original framers of the constitution felt that having a standing army was not such a good idea in peacetime. Among them Jefferson and Madison...

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
James Madison

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army”
Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment in that last one don't you think? However, I think it's very clear that the original framers knew that the U.S. was for the most part seperated from hostile nations by sea and it was important that the U.S. keep a strong Navy to provide for this nations defense. Further, in the Article we are talking about I do believe, that they also recognized the need for a standing Army but did not trust a standing Army and therefor gave congress the power to pull the plug on it every two years i.e. funding. However in modern times that has come down to the yearly budget cycle .