Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Navy1960]

So then what your saying is that personal choice is not yours to make because you may or may not go to the Emergency Room is that correct? Your assumption is based on the premise that everyone defaults that doesn't have insurance, and also is based on the premise that the high costs of medical care are a result of those defaults. This is true jillian for every single business venture from credit cards to car ownership, so perhaps based on that logic we should mandate that everyone carry bankruptcy insurance now to because they may or may not someday default on a credit card or default on a car. The facts are in a Free society and a market based economy default costs on Everything generally are passed along to the consumer. Healthcare is no different in that respect. That is the price you pay for living in a FREE society and my suggestion is that in order to bring about reform you regulate the reasons for the rise in costs and not subvert the constitution by taking away a persons freedom to choose their own destiny. If you and others who believe as you do really want to bring down the costs of healthcare then address the real issues of healthcare costs or perhaps, go to your state houses and ask your state legislature place on your states ballot universal healthcare and let the individual states make that choice for themselves and not by some Federal fiat that is clearly outside the bounds of their charter.

I understand what you're saying. Really... but I can't get past the fact that we're the only "civilized" nation that doesn't care for it's people. It makes no sense to me and it's making it so we can't compete in the global marketplace.

As for health provision on a state by state basis, seems to me this would be covered by the commerce clause.

Besides, if you ask your state senator, the LAST thing they want is for the state to have to pay for this without the feds.

jillian , I invite you to look at 3 states and notice the difference if you will, one is my state Arizona and look at the recently passed healthcare freedom of choice proposal. The other is Tenn. called Cover Tennessee, and the the last is Mass. what they all reflect is the the feelings of the citizens of those states and are exactly as the founders intended. Still one other thing I have suggested over many months of this debate is that if people really wanted this to be a "RIGHT" then they would go about it under the Amendment process and let's really see how the citizens feel about healthcare.

 

[Bern80]

If that is your answer it would be your position that framers intended for the fed to be able to tax what they want for whatever they went except for:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

about right?

Not that either of these clauses has anything to do with healthcare, but I would agree with that conclusion.

A conclusion that would be invalidated by section 8 right before it, considering its specificity. If it was meant to be interpreted and understood as you sa,y that government can tax what they for whatever they want with the exception of the above, then there would be no purpose in putting in a very specific list of things the Fed can't do.

The bottom line, however, is that the existing system of laws has its precedents not only in the Constitution and various SC cases, but in English common law and elsewhere. Much more than just "Gee, we'd sure like it if..." But if you count yourself among those who say that we should interpret the Constitution based only on Madison's writing, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

Then that is another area where you are ignoring a premise for convenience sake. No I don't think we should rely solely on Madison. At the same time, for the sake of the future, it would be foolish to have laws based on the document without knowing what the intent was behind their inclusion in the document, hence why we look to other writings on the subject. The Federalist papers happen to be just such a group of writings. In terms of documents by which a country should be governed by, one can see the practicality of writing said document with at least some level of brevity. The framers could have gone another way you know. The could have decided to combine the Federalist papers into the document considering that in many cases the purpose of those papers was to clarify intent, they very much should go hand in hand. What if after section 8 for example, Madison's writing's in Federalist 41 had been adended immediately after? Would you still hold the position that they don't count?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

A conclusion that would be invalidated by section 8 right before it, considering its specificity. If it was meant to be interpreted and understood as you sa,y that government can tax what they for whatever they want with the exception of the above, then there would be no purpose in putting in a very specific list of things the Fed can't do.

Again, that's incorrect. Nowhere in Section 8 is it stated to be the only powers that the central government can ever conceivably have.

Then that is another area where you are ignoring a premise for convenience sake. No I don't think we should rely solely on Madison. At the same time, for the sake of the future, it would be foolish to have laws based on the document without knowing what the intent was behind their inclusion in the document, hence why we look to other writings on the subject. The Federalist papers happen to be just such a group of writings. In terms of documents by which a country should be governed by, one can see the practicality of writing said document with at least some level of brevity. The framers could have gone another way you know. The could have decided to combine the Federalist papers into the document considering that in many cases the purpose of those papers was to clarify intent, they very much should go hand in hand. What if after section 8 for example, Madison's writing's in Federalist 41 had been adended immediately after? Would you still hold the position that they don't count?

That reminds me of the old adage, "if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle." Naturally, I'm happy to discuss any sort of hypothetical scenario you want about the effects of different language on the Constitution, but that isn't what this thread is dealing with.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A conclusion that would be invalidated by section 8 right before it, considering its specificity. If it was meant to be interpreted and understood as you sa,y that government can tax what they for whatever they want with the exception of the above, then there would be no purpose in putting in a very specific list of things the Fed can't do.

Again, that's incorrect. Nowhere in Section 8 is it stated to be the only powers that the central government can ever conceivably have.

It doesn't explicitly say that in Section 8, but it does explicitly say that in the 10th Amendment.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

It doesn't explicitly say that in Section 8, but it does explicitly say that in the 10th Amendment.

Too bad the 10th amendment is an uneforceable truism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It doesn't explicitly say that in Section 8, but it does explicitly say that in the 10th Amendment.

Too bad the 10th amendment is an uneforceable truism.

It's no more unenforceable than any other amendment. It's simply that the Supreme Court has no interest in actually limiting the federal government to its constitutional levels.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

It doesn't explicitly say that in Section 8, but it does explicitly say that in the 10th Amendment.

Too bad the 10th amendment is an uneforceable truism.

It's no more unenforceable than any other amendment. It's simply that the Supreme Court has no interest in actually limiting the federal government to its constitutional levels.

The tenth is one of the few amendments that's actually worth a lot less than the paper it's penned on.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Too bad the 10th amendment is an uneforceable truism.

It's no more unenforceable than any other amendment. It's simply that the Supreme Court has no interest in actually limiting the federal government to its constitutional levels.

The tenth is one of the few amendments that's actually worth a lot less than the paper it's penned on.

Well if you don't mind answering I have two questions for you.

Do you believe that the 9th Amendment is also an unenforceable truism?

Why do you believe that the 10th Amendment is unenforceable?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Well if you don't mind answering I have two questions for you.

Not at all.

Do you believe that the 9th Amendment is also an unenforceable truism?

No, but if you can construct a logical argument that proves otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

Why do you believe that the 10th Amendment is unenforceable?

The only thing that the 10th Amendment actually says is that whatever powers the central government doesn't have, the states have instead. That's going to be true for ANY grouping of states or provinces under an umbrella government: there's nothing special about the United States in this regard. This is what makes the 10th amendment a truism, and the fact that it IS a truism means that it's unenforceable.

Hope that helps.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well if you don't mind answering I have two questions for you.

Not at all.

Do you believe that the 9th Amendment is also an unenforceable truism?

No, but if you can construct a logical argument that proves otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

Why do you believe that the 10th Amendment is unenforceable?

The only thing that the 10th Amendment actually says is that whatever powers the central government doesn't have, the states have instead. That's going to be true for ANY grouping of states or provinces under an umbrella government: there's nothing special about the United States in this regard. This is what makes the 10th amendment a truism, and the fact that it IS a truism means that it's unenforceable.

Hope that helps.

Well I don't believe that the 9th Amendment is an unenforceable truism either, but I was curious because I see the 9th and 10th Amendments as being similar in that they both deal with things not specifically mentioned by the Constitution or in any of the other amendments. So I assumed, and you know what they say about that, that you would see the 9th as an unenforceable truism considering you see the 10th as such. Perhaps you could explain why you don't see the 9th in similar light as the 10th?

You say that the 10th Amendment, essentially, says that whatever powers the federal government does not have is reserved to the states, and I think that's where you're under a faulty assumption about the 10th being an unenforceable truism. What the 10th Amendment actually says is that whatever powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. And for what it's worth, Thomas Jefferson did not see the 10th as an unenforceable truism but as the single most important amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Well I don't believe that the 9th Amendment is an unenforceable truism either, but I was curious because I see the 9th and 10th Amendments as being similar in that they both deal with things not specifically mentioned by the Constitution or in any of the other amendments. So I assumed, and you know what they say about that, that you would see the 9th as an unenforceable truism considering you see the 10th as such. Perhaps you could explain why you don't see the 9th in similar light as the 10th?

Well, it's pretty clear that the 9th is not a truism, because the list of actions it forbids the government from taking is unique. In other words, it's not making a statement that's self-evident at all. These items need to be spelled out.

You say that the 10th Amendment, essentially, says that whatever powers the federal government does not have is reserved to the states, and I think that's where you're under a faulty assumption about the 10th being an unenforceable truism. What the 10th Amendment actually says is that whatever powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

But it doesn't say that the Constitution does not grant the federal government ANY power that it does not expressly mention. If that were the intent, the amendment would have read: "The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Is this beginning to make sense, now?

And for what it's worth, Thomas Jefferson did not see the 10th as an unenforceable truism but as the single most important amendment to the Constitution.

Jefferson believed, as do I, that the sovereignty of state governments had to be guaranteed in the Constitution. The 10th does so (up to a point). Of course, the Constitution and its amendments still lay out a number of things the states are forbidden to do, but that's a separate topic.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I don't believe that the 9th Amendment is an unenforceable truism either, but I was curious because I see the 9th and 10th Amendments as being similar in that they both deal with things not specifically mentioned by the Constitution or in any of the other amendments. So I assumed, and you know what they say about that, that you would see the 9th as an unenforceable truism considering you see the 10th as such. Perhaps you could explain why you don't see the 9th in similar light as the 10th?

Well, it's pretty clear that the 9th is not a truism, because the list of actions it forbids the government from taking is unique. In other words, it's not making a statement that's self-evident at all. These items need to be spelled out.

You say that the 10th Amendment, essentially, says that whatever powers the federal government does not have is reserved to the states, and I think that's where you're under a faulty assumption about the 10th being an unenforceable truism. What the 10th Amendment actually says is that whatever powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

But it doesn't say that the Constitution does not grant the federal government ANY power that it does not expressly mention. If that were the intent, the amendment would have read: "The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Is this beginning to make sense, now?

And for what it's worth, Thomas Jefferson did not see the 10th as an unenforceable truism but as the single most important amendment to the Constitution.

Jefferson believed, as do I, that the sovereignty of state governments had to be guaranteed in the Constitution. The 10th does so (up to a point). Of course, the Constitution and its amendments still lay out a number of things the states are forbidden to do, but that's a separate topic.

No items were spelled out by the 9th Amendment so I'm not sure I'm getting your whole point in regards to that.

No, I'm afraid it's not beginning to make sense. If what you say is true then the 10th Amendment has absolutely no power at all and it really was pointless to include it in the first place. Since there was heavy debate about what to include and what not to include in the Constitution we can assume that the founders did not add the 10th Amendment to simply be an unenforceable truism but to limit the federal government to what was explicitly stated in the Constitution. Jefferson's opinion on the 10th Amendment and Madison's writings in the Federalist Papers add quite a bit of credibility to this position, not to mention the later Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

 

[Navy1960]

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
Patrick Henry

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this
ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment]
To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn
around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless
field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas
Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791

In South Dakota vs. Dole, 1987, the Supreme Court allowed the Federal government to dictate the legal drinking age to the states. It did so through the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Federal government had passed a law suspending 10% of highway funds from any state that refused to pass a law setting the legal drinking age at 21. South Dakota sued the Federal government, naming Elizabeth Dole as the defendant because she was then the Secretary of Transportation.

The Supreme Court ruled 7/2 in favor of the Federal government. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in his decision that the Federal government had acted within in the guidelines of its authority under the Taxing and Spending Clause. He said there are four guidelines that would determine whether or not Congress has power under this clause:


The condition must promote "the general welfare;"
The condition must be unambiguous;
The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;" and
Other constitutional provisions may supersede conditional grants.


I'm sorry but it's my humble opinion that the founding fathers were very clear on the 10th Amendment and over the proceeding 200 years the courts and congress have set out to water it down to the point where it has become just a line in the constitution to be ignored in favor of others.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in his decision that the Federal government had acted within in the guidelines of its authority under the Taxing and Spending Clause. He said there are four guidelines that would determine whether or not Congress has power under this clause:


The condition must promote "the general welfare;"
The condition must be unambiguous;
The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;" and
Other constitutional provisions may supersede conditional grants.


I'm sorry but it's my humble opinion that the founding fathers were very clear on the 10th Amendment and over the proceeding 200 years the courts and congress have set out to water it down to the point where it has become just a line in the constitution to be ignored in favor of others.

When we as Americans are opposed to a Supreme Court decision, our recourse is to amend the Constitution in such a way that overturns that decision. Just saying that the framers would have disagreed with the current Court is pointless.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in his decision that the Federal government had acted within in the guidelines of its authority under the Taxing and Spending Clause. He said there are four guidelines that would determine whether or not Congress has power under this clause:


The condition must promote "the general welfare;"
The condition must be unambiguous;
The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;" and
Other constitutional provisions may supersede conditional grants.


I'm sorry but it's my humble opinion that the founding fathers were very clear on the 10th Amendment and over the proceeding 200 years the courts and congress have set out to water it down to the point where it has become just a line in the constitution to be ignored in favor of others.

When we as Americans are opposed to a Supreme Court decision, our recourse is to amend the Constitution in such a way that overturns that decision. Just saying that the framers would have disagreed with the current Court is pointless.

The Constitution already goes against many of the Supreme Court's rulings, we shouldn't have to amend the Constitution for something it already does or does not allow the federal government to do.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

No items were spelled out by the 9th Amendment so I'm not sure I'm getting your whole point in regards to that.

Mea culpa: I read your previous post carelessly and thought you were talking about section 9 of article 1. Sorry about that.

However, it doesn't change my conclusion that the 9th amendment is not a truism, because it's not a self-evident part of any constitution. It's a specific rule about how one should read the US Constitution.

No, I'm afraid it's not beginning to make sense. If what you say is true then the 10th Amendment has absolutely no power at all and it really was pointless to include it in the first place. Since there was heavy debate about what to include and what not to include in the Constitution we can assume that the founders did not add the 10th Amendment to simply be an unenforceable truism but to limit the federal government to what was explicitly stated in the Constitution.

You're partially right, but only partially. From a strictly technical viewpoint, it was indeed pointless to include the 10th amendment. It was included only due to the politics that were going on at the time: so many of the delegates were so afraid of having state sovereignty eclipsed that they would not have ratified the Constitution without it.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

The Constitution already goes against many of the Supreme Court's rulings, we shouldn't have to amend the Constitution for something it already does or does not allow the federal government to do.

In your opinion it goes against these rulings, but unfortunately the rulings still stand until they're overturned. That's how the system works.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No items were spelled out by the 9th Amendment so I'm not sure I'm getting your whole point in regards to that.

Mea culpa: I read your previous post carelessly and thought you were talking about section 9 of article 1. Sorry about that.

However, it doesn't change my conclusion that the 9th amendment is not a truism, because it's not a self-evident part of any constitution. It's a specific rule about how one should read the US Constitution.

No, I'm afraid it's not beginning to make sense. If what you say is true then the 10th Amendment has absolutely no power at all and it really was pointless to include it in the first place. Since there was heavy debate about what to include and what not to include in the Constitution we can assume that the founders did not add the 10th Amendment to simply be an unenforceable truism but to limit the federal government to what was explicitly stated in the Constitution.

You're partially right, but only partially. From a strictly technical viewpoint, it was indeed pointless to include the 10th amendment. It was included only due to the politics that were going on at the time: so many of the delegates were so afraid of having state sovereignty eclipsed that they would not have ratified the Constitution without it.

I agree that the 9th is a specific rule about how we should read the Constitution, but I believe that the 10th is in the exact same category.

Well since the delegates that you refer to were under the impression that the 10th Amendment certainly did limit the power of the federal government to what was in the Constitution one would have to assume that later generations are incorrect in their assessment of the 10th as an unenforceable truism. If it genuinely had no power over the federal government then why would they refuse to ratify the Constitution without it? That makes no sense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution already goes against many of the Supreme Court's rulings, we shouldn't have to amend the Constitution for something it already does or does not allow the federal government to do.

In your opinion it goes against these rulings, but unfortunately the rulings still stand until they're overturned. That's how the system works.

There can be no doubt about that.

 

[caela]

Just my own 0.02$ on the 10 amendment.

I don't believe that it is unenforceable, but I do believe that it is up to the states to say "NO" and to enforce it. Unfortunately they haven't done that and the Federal government has been chipping away at State Sovereignty for ages. They just kept taking inch after inch after inch until the States have very little left in the way of power at all.

The drinking age is an excellent example of this. As already stated, the Feds said that they would cut federal highway funding by 10% if the States didn't up their drinking age to 21. Now if someone does this in the everyday world we call it coercion or blackmail but apparently the SCOTUS says it's ok when the Feds are the culprits. Now the States had a choice here, they could have told the Feds to shove it and kept the age whatever it already was in their state, or they could bend over and do what the Feds wanted. Losing the money would hurt but (in my opinion) the end result of losing more of their sovereignty hurt them more.

For the 10th amendment to really mean anything the States (hey that's really US!) need to stand up and tell the Feds "NO". No, these aren't your decision to make for us. No you do not have the authority to tell us how to run OUR state. No THIS IS NOT YOUR JOB. For that to happen though we need to get out the politicians that are content with the status quo and elect men and women that are more concerned with what is best for their states then how they can grab at more power.

/end rant