Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Old Rocks]

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS
The Federalist #41

I see nothing in this paper that says that we cannot, for our general welfare, create a National Health System. Or a Health System on the Canadian example that is based on individual states.

 

[Oddball]

If you can't see that, then you have serious trouble reading for comprehension.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, the "father of the Constitution"

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Oddball]

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

~James Madison

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The Constitution also doesn't grant corporations the same status as individual citizens. The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

For good reason, that's a state issue. The Constitution only gives the federal government its power. Not the states.

IMO the constition only limits the powers of the federal government and does not grant any specific power to it. I know its semantics but I had to get that out there.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

We also give poor people food stamps, in essence buying them food. Does that mean we should start providing groceries for everyone via taxpayer money?

I think you already know that I never said anything remotely like this, either in a grocery context or a health care one.

Actually, you did. You brought up a one-time, specific crisis scenario in a conversation concerning the idea of the government providing routine, everyday healthcare for every person in the country. So yes, that is VERY comparable to saying that because we provide assistance with food to people too poor to buy it all themselves, that means we should just go whole hog and buy groceries for everyone. It's also comparable to abortion defenders who want to pretend that the debate is only about women who are raped or about to die: hiding the whole, monstrous plan behind the skirts of the "hard cases".

We already take care of crisis epidemics that threaten the public health. They have no place in a debate about whether or not to socialize medicine for everyone.

Call me quirky, but it seems to me that "Does the Constitution allow the government to provide health care?" and "Should the US have socialized medicine?" are two very different questions.

(With two very different answers, no less.)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.

For those of you for whom English is your first language, I give you Federalist № 41 to debunk this truly asinine assertion.

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?


get a grip you girlyman/boy

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dude - You can't do a battle of wits with a guy that has no ammo!!! Same way with stupid. You can't fix stupid.

ammo? gusy like fuk-face-dude are shooting blanks.

 

[Nik]

The Constitution also doesn't grant corporations the same status as individual citizens. The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

For good reason, that's a state issue. The Constitution only gives the federal government its power. Not the states.

IMO the constition only limits the powers of the federal government and does not grant any specific power to it. I know its semantics but I had to get that out there.

Which would mean that it has any power not so limited, correct?

So the correct question would be "where in the Constitution does it say the feds CANNOT create socialized healthare" in your view?

 

[Nik]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Perhaps you want to set forth the caselaw you rely on to state that Congress cannot rely on the general welfare clause in regard to health care?

It's called common sense, which is dying in America. And you, Jillian, would be one of the bystanders who can't even identify the victim.

Can you provide a cite for that?

Ah, good ol common sense. The standby for idiots who believe things, but can't justify their beliefs with any actual evidence.

"Its so true its self evident!"

 

[Nik]

There is a very big difference. PUBLIC health -- communicable disease, epidemics, food safety, and a host of other specialized areas, impact the WHOLE. Health care, as is being debated, impacts individuals and their families only -- their heart disease risk factors, their immunization status, their fertility and childbirth concerns. None of their health issues have an impact on society as a whole.

I didn't realize the terms of the health care debate were defined so narrowly. That aside, however, how can you contain a communicable disease without providing some type of health care to those who have it? (I'm presuming you don't want to kill them. )

There's still a huge difference between having the CDCP come in and handle an epidemic of something, and the government providing everyday medical care for everyone in the country.

Why? Because if its an epidemic it might effect rich people?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.

For those of you for whom English is your first language, I give you Federalist № 41 to debunk this truly asinine assertion.

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?


get a grip you girlyman/boy

Exactly. Why did they give us the amendment process if the Congress and President could simply pass any law that it wants?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

For good reason, that's a state issue. The Constitution only gives the federal government its power. Not the states.

IMO the constition only limits the powers of the federal government and does not grant any specific power to it. I know its semantics but I had to get that out there.

Which would mean that it has any power not so limited, correct?

So the correct question would be "where in the Constitution does it say the feds CANNOT create socialized healthare" in your view?

That's not how the Constitution works. It explicitly states the powers of the federal government, and those are the only powers the federal government has.

 

[Oddball]

Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.

For those of you for whom English is your first language, I give you Federalist № 41 to debunk this truly asinine assertion.

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?

Yes...Yes...

Why would anyone want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.

For those of you for whom English is your first language, I give you Federalist № 41 to debunk this truly asinine assertion.

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?

Yes...Yes...

Why would anyone want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??

Principal architect? Oh please, another myth?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.

For those of you for whom English is your first language, I give you Federalist № 41 to debunk this truly asinine assertion.

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?


get a grip you girlyman/boy

Exactly. Why did they give us the amendment process if the Congress and President could simply pass any law that it wants?

LAws must pass constitutional muster..

sorry

 

[Oddball]

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?

Yes...Yes...

Why would anyone want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??

Principal architect? Oh please, another myth?

Have any links to back up your big mouth??

I do: James Madison: Biography from Answers.com

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?


get a grip you girlyman/boy

Exactly. Why did they give us the amendment process if the Congress and President could simply pass any law that it wants?

LAws must pass constitutional muster..

sorry

Then we're in agreement. The problem is that the federal government just ignores the Constitution, and getting into the healthcare business is certainly unconstitutional.

 

[Modbert]

LAws must pass constitutional muster..

sorry

Does this pass?

 

[Modbert]

Then we're in agreement. The problem is that the federal government just ignores the Constitution, and getting into the healthcare business is certainly unconstitutional.

Once upon a time, black people who were slaves were only considered 3/5th of a person by the Constitution. Guess we shouldn't of changed that either huh?

Or hey, once upon a time, Prohibition was in full force because of the Constitution. Guess we shouldn't of changed that either?

Since going against those two things would of been considered unconstitutional.