Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not sure. Why would you? Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.

If the past 200 years of constitutional interpretation has gone against the original intent of the Constitution it is meaningless, and it is in the works of the founders, such as the Federalist Papers, that we find more information about what the founders originally intended the Constitution to mean.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The founders wrote a vague document so that people could interpret it in different ways. If they wanted to spell out something in crystal clear detail, they could have done so. They knew how to write. Their opinions as expressed in documents other than the Constitution are irrelevant.

No, they most certainly are not irrelevant. They made their intentions clear in these documents.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not sure. Why would you? Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.

If the past 200 years of constitutional interpretation has gone against the original intent of the Constitution it is meaningless, and it is in the works of the founders, such as the Federalist Papers, that we find more information about what the founders originally intended the Constitution to mean.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The founders wrote a vague document so that people could interpret it in different ways. If they wanted to spell out something in crystal clear detail, they could have done so. They knew how to write. Their opinions as expressed in documents other than the Constitution are irrelevant.

Total bullshit.

The entire purpose of the Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist Papers, and BoR were to make clear that the vagaries of the Constitution weren't meant as a blank check for the feds to "interpret" their way into absolute rule.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How is it certainly unconstitutional? We can give it the power under the commerce clause, easily. Or hell, even the general welfare clause people were discussing before.

The commerce clause meant that the federal government had the power to make trade regular between the states, meaning that the federal government could stop the states from erecting trade barriers. Healthcare "reform" does not fall under the commerce clause at all. The general welfare clause, as has already been shown in this thread, did not give any powers to the federal government.

No, actually it says "regulate" trade. Not make trade regular.

Yes, regulate meant to make regular at the time.

 

[Nik]

When said "interpretations" stand in direct opposition to those elaborations of the architect, yes.

The Constitution was signed and ratified by more than the "architect" and they had a variety of different thoughts on what it meant. Why do you think its vague? Its the same reason US bills are vague, and the same reason treaties are often vague.

The point of the Federalist Papers was to get New York to ratify the document. The ones who were questioning the Constitution were those who had to be convinced that the Constitution did indeed limit the power of the federal government.

Well actually I misspoke before. Its quite clear that the Constitution gives some powers to the federal government, and limits overs.

 

[Nik]

If the Constitution were so unequivocal, there would be no need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.

You will note, I hope, that the Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.

And, you know, it says it in the Constitution.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution

 

[GHook93]

The constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either, does that mean it does provide for it?

 

[Oddball]

The constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either, does that mean it does provide for it?

It's overtly implied in the 4th Amendment.

 

[Nik]

If the past 200 years of constitutional interpretation has gone against the original intent of the Constitution it is meaningless, and it is in the works of the founders, such as the Federalist Papers, that we find more information about what the founders originally intended the Constitution to mean.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The founders wrote a vague document so that people could interpret it in different ways. If they wanted to spell out something in crystal clear detail, they could have done so. They knew how to write. Their opinions as expressed in documents other than the Constitution are irrelevant.

No, they most certainly are not irrelevant. They made their intentions clear in these documents.

Yes, they are irrelevant. As I said, if they wanted to make their intentions clear they could have put them in the Constitution. They didn't. They left them purposefully vague.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either, does that mean it does provide for it?

9th amendment.

 

[Nik]

If the past 200 years of constitutional interpretation has gone against the original intent of the Constitution it is meaningless, and it is in the works of the founders, such as the Federalist Papers, that we find more information about what the founders originally intended the Constitution to mean.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The founders wrote a vague document so that people could interpret it in different ways. If they wanted to spell out something in crystal clear detail, they could have done so. They knew how to write. Their opinions as expressed in documents other than the Constitution are irrelevant.

Total bullshit.

The entire purpose of the Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist Papers, and BoR were to make clear that the vagaries of the Constitution weren't meant as a blank check for the feds to "interpret" their way into absolute rule.

Not quite. Thats what the Bill of Rights was for, not the other documents. And if they wanted clear, specific delineations of what the fed could do, why didn't they specify them?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The founders wrote a vague document so that people could interpret it in different ways. If they wanted to spell out something in crystal clear detail, they could have done so. They knew how to write. Their opinions as expressed in documents other than the Constitution are irrelevant.

No, they most certainly are not irrelevant. They made their intentions clear in these documents.

Yes, they are irrelevant. As I said, if they wanted to make their intentions clear they could have put them in the Constitution. They didn't. They left them purposefully vague.

They did put them in the Constitution, and when people began trying to twist what they put in there they saw fit to clarify their original intentions through the Federalist Papers and other writings.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The founders wrote a vague document so that people could interpret it in different ways. If they wanted to spell out something in crystal clear detail, they could have done so. They knew how to write. Their opinions as expressed in documents other than the Constitution are irrelevant.

Total bullshit.

The entire purpose of the Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist Papers, and BoR were to make clear that the vagaries of the Constitution weren't meant as a blank check for the feds to "interpret" their way into absolute rule.

Not quite. Thats what the Bill of Rights was for, not the other documents. And if they wanted clear, specific delineations of what the fed could do, why didn't they specify them?

They did specify them in Article 1, Section 8.

The BoR didn't "give" anyone any rights at all...It listed the rights that the framers considered to be inherent to everyone.

 

[Nik]

No, they most certainly are not irrelevant. They made their intentions clear in these documents.

Yes, they are irrelevant. As I said, if they wanted to make their intentions clear they could have put them in the Constitution. They didn't. They left them purposefully vague.

They did put them in the Constitution, and when people began trying to twist what they put in there they saw fit to clarify their original intentions through the Federalist Papers and other writings.

Really?

So where in the Constitution does it say government can infringe upon speech?

And if it doesn't give the government the right to do that, than why a need for a first amendment?

Or was it, perhaps, that they recognized that it was vague, but wanted some rights to be absolute despite the vaguaries of the constitution?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The founders wrote a vague document so that people could interpret it in different ways. If they wanted to spell out something in crystal clear detail, they could have done so. They knew how to write. Their opinions as expressed in documents other than the Constitution are irrelevant.

Total bullshit.

The entire purpose of the Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist Papers, and BoR were to make clear that the vagaries of the Constitution weren't meant as a blank check for the feds to "interpret" their way into absolute rule.

Not quite. Thats what the Bill of Rights was for, not the other documents. And if they wanted clear, specific delineations of what the fed could do, why didn't they specify them?

Well if you must question the legitimacy of the Federalist Papers then perhaps the 10th Amendment will clarify the issue.

"The powers not 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."

This means that since Healthcare is not delegated to the federal government then the federal government may not get into the business of Healthcare.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, they are irrelevant. As I said, if they wanted to make their intentions clear they could have put them in the Constitution. They didn't. They left them purposefully vague.

They did put them in the Constitution, and when people began trying to twist what they put in there they saw fit to clarify their original intentions through the Federalist Papers and other writings.

Really?

So where in the Constitution does it say government can infringe upon speech?

And if it doesn't give the government the right to do that, than why a need for a first amendment?

Or was it, perhaps, that they recognized that it was vague, but wanted some rights to be absolute despite the vaguaries of the constitution?

That was precisely the argument of the Federalists. They said a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution already protected those rights by not giving the government the power to suppress them. However, the Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights explicitly guaranteeing certain inherent rights was promised to them.

 

[Nik]

Total bullshit.

The entire purpose of the Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist Papers, and BoR were to make clear that the vagaries of the Constitution weren't meant as a blank check for the feds to "interpret" their way into absolute rule.

Not quite. Thats what the Bill of Rights was for, not the other documents. And if they wanted clear, specific delineations of what the fed could do, why didn't they specify them?

The did specify them in Article 1, Section 8.

The BoR didn't "give" anyone any rights at all...It listed the rights that the framers considered to be inherent to everyone.

No, it didn't. It had nothing to do with inherent rights, it had to do with rights that the federal government couldn't infringe upon. You have no right to speak, you just have a right to not have the government keep you from speaking.

And where does it say that Congress shall have these powers, and no other powers?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not quite. Thats what the Bill of Rights was for, not the other documents. And if they wanted clear, specific delineations of what the fed could do, why didn't they specify them?

The did specify them in Article 1, Section 8.

The BoR didn't "give" anyone any rights at all...It listed the rights that the framers considered to be inherent to everyone.

No, it didn't. It had nothing to do with inherent rights, it had to do with rights that the federal government couldn't infringe upon. You have no right to speak, you just have a right to not have the government keep you from speaking.

And where does it say that Congress shall have these powers, and no other powers?

The 10th Amendment.

 

[Nik]

Total bullshit.

The entire purpose of the Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist Papers, and BoR were to make clear that the vagaries of the Constitution weren't meant as a blank check for the feds to "interpret" their way into absolute rule.

Not quite. Thats what the Bill of Rights was for, not the other documents. And if they wanted clear, specific delineations of what the fed could do, why didn't they specify them?

Well if you must question the legitimacy of the Federalist Papers then perhaps the 10th Amendment will clarify the issue.

"The powers not 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."

This means that since Healthcare is not delegated to the federal government then the federal government may not get into the business of Healthcare.

Again, its a vague document.

 

[Nik]

They did put them in the Constitution, and when people began trying to twist what they put in there they saw fit to clarify their original intentions through the Federalist Papers and other writings.

Really?

So where in the Constitution does it say government can infringe upon speech?

And if it doesn't give the government the right to do that, than why a need for a first amendment?

Or was it, perhaps, that they recognized that it was vague, but wanted some rights to be absolute despite the vaguaries of the constitution?

That was precisely the argument of the Federalists. They said a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution already protected those rights by not giving the government the power to suppress them. However, the Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights explicitly guaranteeing certain inherent rights was promised to them.

Seems the Anti-Federalists knew the document a bit better than the Federalists did. Its a vague document, there is no arguing that.

 

[Nik]

The did specify them in Article 1, Section 8.

The BoR didn't "give" anyone any rights at all...It listed the rights that the framers considered to be inherent to everyone.

No, it didn't. It had nothing to do with inherent rights, it had to do with rights that the federal government couldn't infringe upon. You have no right to speak, you just have a right to not have the government keep you from speaking.

And where does it say that Congress shall have these powers, and no other powers?

The 10th Amendment.

Yeah, yeah